Hemp for paper, textiles, the war on drugs, and more

 

Hemp product categories include: Clothing & Accessories, Health & Wellness, Food & Drinks, Pet Supplies, Beauty & Skincare, Farming & Gardening, Home & Office supplies, Automobiles, Industrial. Source: Top 50 Hemp Products You Can Get Online

Preface.  If you are looking for a job post fossil fuels, making paper, clothing, and many other products from hemp, growing hemp would be something to consider, and it will grow on really poor soil with far less ecological impact than other crops. Hemp became legal to grow in the U.S. in 2018.

What follows was originally published in the Nov-Dec 1999 issue of Audubon Magazine. I think you will find the history of how hemp was made illegal outrageous, most likely from textile, logging, and/or big oil interests.

If you’re interested in the war on drugs, you’d probably enjoy this post at energyskeptic: The war on drugs. A book review of “Chasing the scream”

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Financial Sense, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

HIGH ON HEMP: DITCHWEED DIGS IN. Miracle crop? Dangerous drug? Political football? Exploring America’s on-again, off-again love affair with hemp

I confess that I am a user of hemp. For example, I just quaffed a Hempen Ale and a Hempen Gold beer, shipped to me by Frederick Brewing Company of Frederick, Maryland. Both beverages are brewed with the seeds of hemp-Cannabis sativa-a plant native to central Asia and grown all over the world as various selected strains, some of which are known as marijuana. I’m feeling a faint buzz, but only from the alcohol.

Neither brew contains any of the narcotic delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which makes pot so popular. In fact, recent Pentagon tests invalidate the “Hempen Ale defense” by showing the ale to be THC-free, so military personnel can no longer claim it as the source of THC in their urine. But some hemp products do contain trace amounts of THC-as intoxicating as the opiates you get from a poppy seed bagel-so to make sure it knows where the THC comes from, the Air Force in 1999 banned all foods and beverages made with hemp. Somehow the news didn’t make it to the commander in chief, who, less than a month after the ruling, allowed Hempen Gold to be served on Air Force One. According to one reporter, the president “tasted but didn’t swallow.”

After I finished ingesting hemp, I slathered it on my hair-in shampoo made with hemp seed oil, which, according to its producer, Alterna Applied Research Laboratories of Los Angeles, restores dry and damaged (but, unfortunately, not missing) hair. While perky hair is not something I normally seek, the hair I have left definitely feels that way.

What I just indulged in-according to Glenn Levant, the nation’s best-funded and most-heeded marijuana educator-is an internal-external marijuana orgy. Levant is president and founder of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), a 16-year-old program taught by local police in nearly 75% of the nation’s schools. “Hemp is marijuana,” he informed me, ending the interview when I cited sources that prove otherwise. Last year Levant was outraged to see Alterna’s hemp-leaf logo on shampoo ads at bus stops around Southern California, and he mounted a successful crusade to get them removed. “My big objection is that public property was being used to promote an illegal substance,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “The shampoo is a subterfuge to promote marijuana.” In July 1999, he paid Alterna an undisclosed sum to settle a lawsuit it had filed against him for making what it called “false and malicious public comments” about its product and motives.

Hemp and marijuana can cross-pollinate, but if one is the other, then a Pekinese is a Doberman. Plant a hemp seed, and no substance or force on earth can turn it into marijuana. If you smoke hemp, it will give you only a headache; it doesn’t contain enough THC to affect your brain. And unlike marijuana, it is high in cannabidiol-an anti-psychoactive compound that inhibits THC. Because of this, says David West, a plant breeder hired by the University of Hawaii to grow an experimental plot of hemp under special permit from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), hemp “could be called anti-marijuana.”

Hemp products are not illegal. In fact, the U.S. hemp-products industry takes in $100 million to $125 million in retail sales a year. Not only is hemp harmless, it has enormous versatility. Added to worthless fibers that are currently burned-such as straw from oats, rice, and wheat-hemp can produce superb paper and construction materials lighter and stronger than lumber. American cropland, 60 to 65 percent of which is stuck on a soil-depleting, chemical-dependent treadmill of corn, wheat, and soybean production, could be released and renewed if hemp were used as a rotation crop. In England and Hungary, hemp grown in rotation with wheat hiked the wheat harvest 20 percent. Hemp seeds, better tasting and more digestible than soy, could be rendered into hundreds of foods, thereby taking pressure off America’s bottomland hardwood forests, which are being replaced with soybean plantations.

Hemp fibers can be woven into cloth more durable than and as comfortable as cotton. Cotton is much more difficult to grow; it’s addicted to chemical elixirs, requiring massive fixes of artificial fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides. And when cotton ripens, the leaves have to be knocked off with defoliants before the bolls can be harvested. Hemp, which outcompetes weeds, requires no herbicides. In one study, hemp grown in rotation with soybeans knocked down cyst nematodes by more than half.

Hemp paper is naturally bright, but wood-based paper pulp turns brown during the cooking process. The pulp is then bleached with chlorine, which, when released into the environment, produces dioxin and other nasty poisons. If American farmers were allowed to grow hemp-which produces twice as much fiber per acre as an average forest-the nation could reduce nonsustainable logging, and the carbon tied up in the living timber would remain there instead of contributing to global warming.

Practically anything we make from a polluting, nonrenewable hydrocarbon like oil or coal can be made from a relatively clean, renewable carbohydrate like hemp. Henry Ford used to preach this in the 1940s. “Why use up the forests, which were centuries in the making, and the mines, which require ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forests and mineral products in the annual growth of the fields?” he asked. Ford, who had a vision of “growing automobiles from the soil,” even produced a demonstration model with body parts partially made with hemp.

So it should come as no surprise that hemp has enormous appeal to those committed to protecting and restoring the planet. Three years ago Oregon environmentalist Andy Kerr helped set up the North American Industrial Hemp Council, an alliance of farmers, scientists, industrialists, and environmentalists whose mission is decriminalizing hemp. Members who even associate with advocates of marijuana decriminalization are summarily dismissed. And no one can call the directors potheads: Two are consultants for International Paper; one headed the board of Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation, a research firm chartered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and the chair is in charge of agricultural development and diversification for the state of Wisconsin.

When Kerr was running the Oregon Natural Resources Council and agitating for old-growth forests, the loggers kept getting in his face, shouting: “What are you going to wipe your ass with?”

“What they meant,” he says a bit more delicately, “was, ‘With what are you going to wipe your ass?’ It’s a legitimate question. So I kept searching for alternatives to wood and kept coming back to hemp. ‘God,’ I said, ‘because of its association with marijuana, we don’t need this. There’s got to be a better fiber.’ Well, there isn’t.”

Hemp advocacy isn’t new. Our first hemp law, enacted in Virginia, made it illegal for farmers not to grow the stuff. That was in 1619. The same law took effect in Massachusetts in 1631, Connecticut in 1632, and the Chesapeake colonies in the mid-1700s, at which time hemp was the world’s leading crop. Legend has it that early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written on hemp-based paper. (Final versions were on animal parchment.) During the Revolutionary War, Old Ironsides, our most formidable battleship, carried 60 tons of hempen sail and rope. The first American flag was made out of hempen “canvas,” a word derived from cannabis. “Make the most of hemp seed and sow it everywhere,” declared George Washington in 1794.

Never has there been a federal statute outlawing the cultivation of hemp, just the DEA’s insistence that hemp is an illegal drug. Law enforcement officials in other countries harbor no such fantasies. Hemp is lawfully grown in 32 nations, and in the European Union it’s a subsidized crop. It is not practical to distill hemp’s THC or separate it from the cannabidiol that neutralizes it, but Americans are so afraid of hemp that they even want to prevent people from wearing it. Consider the case of Angela Guilford, who sells hempen products in Hoover, Alabama, and who aroused the suspicions of the community by carrying Grateful Dead memorabilia. In June 1997, when she was eight months pregnant, police raided her shop, seizing 168 items and charging her and her husband, Jeff Russell, with “felony marijuana trafficking.” Facing mandatory minimum jail terms of three years, the couple spent a stressful, suspenseful summer. But in late September charges were dropped when lab work failed to turn up THC in any of the shirts, bags, or jewelry.

Why such paranoia? There’s no smoking bong, but hemp may be the victim of a conspiracy by special interests that stood to lose billions in the 1930s, when hemp-fiber-stripping machines came on line. Among the suspects: synthetic textile producer DuPont, which had just patented a process for making plastics from oil and a more efficient process for making paper; Hearst newspapers, which owned vast timberlands; and Andrew Mellon, an oil and timber baron as well as partner and president of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh, DuPont’s chief financial backer.

In 1930, nine years after President Warren Harding made him treasury secretary, Mellon created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (the DEA’s precursor) and ensconced Harry Anslinger, the future husband of his niece, as its commissioner. Anslinger charged out after hemp, which he and the Hearst papers defined as a drug, using it interchangeably with the more sinister and less familiar term marihuana (the spelling changed later). Anslinger and Hearst whipped each other, the public, and Congress into prohibitionist frenzy. Anslinger testified before the Senate that no less an authority than Homer had revealed that the plant “made men forget their homes and turned them into swine” and that a single joint could induce “homicidal mania” sufficient to cause a man “probably to kill his brother.” The Hearst papers claimed that under the influence of marihuana, “Negroes” transmog-rified into crazed animals, playing anti-white, “voodoo-satanic” music-jazz-and committing such crimes as stepping on white men’s shadows. The hype created an insatiable market for low-budget movies like Marihuana: Weed with Roots in Hell. Posters for the film featured a man thrusting a hypodermic needle into a woman in a low-cut dress and promised: “Weird orgies. Daring drug expos�! Horror. Shame. Despair. Wild Parties. Unleashed Passions! Lust. Crime. Hate. Misery.”

Emerging from the hoopla was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which made no chemical distinction between hemp and marijuana. It was all “cannabis,” but the smokeable parts-the leaves and flowers-were taxed at $100 an ounce, effectively outlawing them. Had marijuana been the real target, Anslinger would have dispatched his agents to the border of New Mexico, where the drug was coming in. Instead, he unleashed them on the newly expanded hemp fields of the Midwest, swaddling farmers in red tape, busting them if a leaf remained on a stalk, running them out of business.

Only five years later hemp farmers got a reprieve when Japan seized the Philippines, cutting off America’s supply of “Manila hemp”-not true hemp but an excellent fiber for rope, boots, uniforms, and parachute cording. Now the Feds executed a crisp about-face, encouraging Americans to be patriotic and grow “hemp.” (No longer did they call it “marijuana,” except on the “Producer of Marijuana” permits issued to farmers.) The Department of Agriculture even produced a promotional film entitled Hemp for Victory, featuring footage of workers harvesting pre-Anslinger hemp in Kentucky to a maudlin rendition of “My Old Kentucky Home.” With no change in federal law, some 400,000 acres were planted to hemp, the stalks of which were processed by 42 hemp mills built by the War Hemp Industries Corporation. After the war, with the synthetic-fiber industry booming, Anslinger resumed his witch-hunt virtually unopposed.

Now he dropped the allegation that hemp/marijuana inspired violent crimes and asserted instead that it left its victims so dazed and passive that they could be easily converted to communism. America’s last hemp field was planted in Wisconsin in 1957.

More recently, the problem has been a succession of rigid, frontal-assault “drug czars.” General Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, appears to have learned everything he knows about hemp from Anslinger. Two years ago, when a chemical engineer paid by the University of Wisconsin but working at the Forest Service’s lab in Madison, Wisconsin, circulated a marketing analysis demonstrating that Wisconsin farms could profitably produce hemp, and that they could meet the entire demand for chlorine-bleached, wood-based writing paper in the state, the Forest Service had the document withdrawn under pressure from the Clinton administration. Since then the author’s conclusions have been confirmed by multiple independent review. The crusade to bring hemp back, McCaffrey charges, is “a thinly disguised attempt to legalize the production of pot.” Moreover, “legalizing hemp production would send a confusing message to our youth concerning marijuana.” But the only confusing messages about hemp issue from McCaffrey’s office, the DEA, and their private-sector drug-war constituency.

Because McCaffrey is the voice of the Clinton administration, the DEA parrots him. The effort to decriminalize hemp is “no more than a shallow ruse being advanced by those who seek to legalize marijuana,” proclaims Philip Perry, special agent in charge of the DEA’s Rocky Mountain Field Division. The DEA and the drug czar maintain that American law enforcement agents can’t tell the difference between marijuana and hemp; but the Mounties, the gendarmes, the bobbies, and the police of 29 other nations have no trouble at all. A Keystone Kop, boots in the air and helmet in the mud, could tell the difference. Hemp, grown for stalks, is the spindly stuff that towers over your head; marijuana, grown for flowers, is the bushy stuff down below your knees. The drug czar and the DEA claim that pot producers will use hemp fields to hide their illicit crops. If they do, their marijuana will be ruined: Cannabis is one of the most prolific pollen producers of all cultivated plants, and if the high-THC variety is planted within seven and a half miles of a hemp field, the hemp pollen will render the next generation of marijuana less potent. “Hemp is nature’s own marijuana-eradication system,” declares James Woolsey, former director of the CIA and now a lobbyist for the North American Industrial Hemp Council.

If the war on drugs were really about reducing supply, drug controllers would be promoting hemp. But the war has taken on a life of its own, become an industry unto itself. For example, DEA reports that it spends $13.5 million a year to eradicate marijuana, and it also ladles out millions more for this purpose to local jurisdictions, including police departments and National Guard units. According to some estimates, the entire effort costs American taxpayers half a billion a year. But the DEA’s own figures reveal that 98 percent of the “marijuana” eradicated is hemp-the harmless, feral stuff that escaped during Hemp for Victory days. “Ditchweed,” it’s called. That’s the “marijuana” you see getting burned in all the photos. If you’re caught with ditchweed, you’re in big trouble, as Vernon McElroy discovered in 1991 when he got convicted for possessing 10.9 pounds that he says a friend picked and gave him as a joke. Now he’s doing life without parole at the overcrowded maximum-security penitentiary in Springville, Alabama. In Oklahoma, ditchweed is sprayed with herbicides from helicopters. And in 1998 Congress authorized $23 million for research into a soilborne fungus that attacks and kills marijuana, poppy, and coca plants. U.S. Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, calls it a “silver bullet” in the war on drugs, but David Struhs, secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, calls it a threat to the natural environment.

The only parties affected by ditchweed eradication are future hemp farmers and birds. Ditchweed, warns hemp researcher David West, “represents the only germ plasm remaining from the hemp bred over decades in this country to achieve high yields and other important performance characteristics.” And while hemp is alien to the continent, wild birds have come to depend on it as a major food source. Birds so relish hemp seed, in fact, that it is sterilized and sold as commercial bird food. As Vermont state representative Fred Maslack puts it, the DEA and its pork-addicted drug-war contractors “would be better off pulling up goldenrod.”

Consider also the self-perpetuation of hemp’s facts-be-damned enemy-DARE. That DARE is recognized as a failure in reducing drug use among adolescents is not a consideration in the high-finance drug-war business. Virtually every study ever undertaken reveals that DARE graduates are about as likely to abuse drugs as kids who don’t go through the program. Such were the results of a two-year, $300,000 analysis by the Research Triangle Institute of Durham, North Carolina, of eight studies involving 9,500 DARE students in 200 schools. The Justice Department commissioned the analysis, but after intense lobbying by DARE, the agency invited the authors to “re-examine” their conclusions, then declined to publish the full report, claiming it was bowing to “concerns” of peer reviewers. Despite its known ineffectiveness, DARE thrives because every year it gets about $212 million in government grants and private donations (mostly the latter), which it ladles out to ravenous communities. Millions more are donated by businesses and police departments directly to local DARE programs.

Anti-hemp brainwashing by DARE works better on parents and school bureaucrats than on kids. In 1996 Donna Cockrel invited hemp activist and Hollywood actor Woody Harrelson to talk to her fifth graders in Simpsonville, Kentucky. While Harrelson also advocates the legalization of medicinal marijuana, he spoke only about hemp’s history and potential. Immediately Cockrel came under attack by the local DARE officer, who sounded the alarm to school officials and television audiences, proclaiming that hemp and marijuana were the same thing. Parents were apoplectic. Cockrel-with past awards for excellence and called a “dynamo” by The New York Times-was given an unsatisfactory performance report, investigated by the state professional standards board (which dismissed the complaint), then fired. “I believe that all children should say no to drugs,” she says. “But I want them to say yes to the truth.”

Lately America’s war on hemp seems to be flagging under a counterattack of reason. Legislation to effect or encourage hemp’s declassification as an illegal drug has been introduced or attempted in Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. In March 1999, under growing political pressure, McCaffrey made the first conciliatory noise to The New York Times about maybe working with hemp advocates. But in August the DEA ordered the U.S. Customs Service to seize a Kenex trailer bringing in 40,000 pounds of hemp birdseed from Canada, alleging it was a Schedule I narcotic. Seventeen other loads of hemp products, including granola bars and horse bedding, were recalled. After Kenex was threatened with a $500,000 fine, president Jean Laprise commented: “It seems the DEA could be spending drug-war money in better ways than chasing after birdseed and horse bedding.” Now McCaffrey is saying hemp can’t be grown economically.

It struck me as odd that the responsibilities of the drug czar have been extended to protecting American agriculture from its own bad business decisions, so I contacted a farmer, one David Monson, who works 1,050 acres in Osnabrock, North Dakota, and who says he and his neighbors aren’t even breaking even on barley, wheat, and canola. “All the fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides we have to use are pushing the cost out of sight,” he told me. “The bottom line is that we need to find some alternative crops that we can make money on.” Monson has been forced to work at other jobs-as insurance agent and state representative, in which capacity he introduced the nation’s first bill to decriminalize the cultivation of hemp, signed by the governor in April 1999.

Monson, a Republican, also serves as superintendent of schools for the nearby community of Edinburg. Drug abuse isn’t much of a problem in northern North Dakota, but Monson works to discourage what little there may be by arranging seminars for students and training for teachers. And despite the drug czar’s and the DEA’s pronouncements, the people of North Dakota somehow remain unconvinced that he’s trying to legalize pot.

While hemp could make things lots easier for this tired old planet and the farmers who till its soil, no one in North Dakota will be growing it anytime soon, because anyone there or elsewhere who plants the seeds will get busted by the DEA. Monson doesn’t think that’s fair, especially when hemp farmers 20 miles away in Manitoba are legally making $250 an acre. But until the feds recognize hemp for what it is (a versatile crop) instead of what it isn’t (an illegal drug), McCaffrey will be correct when he warns that growing hemp is not economical.

Pubdate: Mar-Apr 2000 Source: Utne Reader (US) Copyright: 2000 Utne Reader Contact: editor@utne.com Website: http://www.utne.com Forum: http://www.utne.com/cafe/index.html Author: Ted Williams, Audubon Magazine Note: Originally published in Audubon Magazine, Nov-Dec. 1999, and archived at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1233/a01.html. Bookmark: MAP’s link to Hemp articles is: http://www.mapinc.org/hemp.htm

Posted in Farming and Ranching | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Hemp for paper, textiles, the war on drugs, and more

Why towns have a hard time adding EV, solar, heat pumps

Preface.  This article from IEEE does a good job of explaining how and why it is incredibly expensive for cities to cope with with L2 chargers, EV, solar, and heat pumps by zeroing in on Palo Alto, where there are more EVs per capita than any other town in the U.S.

Some key points:

  • To achieve the desired reduction in greenhouse gases, renewable-energy generation of electricity will need to replace fossil fuels. The improvements and replacements to the grid’s 8,000 power-generation units and 600,000 circuit miles of AC transmission lines (240,000 circuit miles being high-voltage lines) and 70,000 substations to support increased renewable energy and battery storage is estimated to be more than $2.5 trillion in capital, operations, and maintenance costs by 2035.
  • Supplies for distribution transformers are low, and costs have skyrocketed from a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to $20,000 each. Supporting EVs may require larger, heavier transformers, which means many of the 180 million power poles on which these need to sit will need to be replaced to support the additional weight.
  • Multiple L2 chargers on one distribution transformer can reduce its life from an expected 30 to 40 years to 3 years.
  • Exacerbating the transformer loading problem, Divan says, is that many utilities “have no visibility beyond the substation” into how and when power is being consumed.

The entire fleet of cars and medium- and heavy-duty trucks are supposed to be electrified by 2050 to meet climate goals.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Financial Sense, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

* * *

Charette RN (2022) Can Power Grids Cope With Millions of EVs? Palo Alto offers a glimpse at the challenges municipalities and utilities face. IEEE  

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2658463709

There have been vigorous debates pro and con in the United States and elsewhere over whether electric grids can support EVs at scale. The answer is a nuanced “perhaps.” It depends on several factors, including the speed of grid-component modernization, the volume of EV sales, where they occur and when, what kinds of EV charging are being done and when, regulator and political decisions, and critically, economics.

The city of Palo Alto, Calif. is a microcosm of many of the issues involved. Palo Alto boasts the highest adoption rate of EVs in the United States: In 2020, one in six of the town’s 25,000 households owned an EV. Of the 52,000 registered vehicles in the city, 4,500 are EVs, and on workdays, commuters drive another 3,000 to 5,000 EVs to enter the city. Residents can access about 1,000 charging ports spread over 277 public charging stations, with another 3,500 or so charging ports located at residences.

Palo Alto’s government has set a very aggressive Sustainability and Climate Action Plan with a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below the 1990 level by the year 2030. In comparison, the state’s goal is to achieve this amount by 2050. To realize this reduction, Palo Alto must have 80 percent of vehicles within the next eight years registered in (and commuting into) the city be EVs (around 100,000 total). The projected number of charging ports will need to grow to an estimated 6,000 to 12,000 public ports (some 300 being DC fast chargers) and 18,000 to 26,000 residential ports, with most of those being L2-type charging ports.

“There are places even today where we can’t even take one more heat pump without having to rebuild the portion of the system. Or we can’t even have one EV charger go in.” —Tomm Marshall

To meet Palo Alto’s 2030 emission-reduction goals, the city, which owns and operates the electric utility, would like to increase significantly the amount of local renewable energy being used for electricity generation (think rooftop solar) including the ability to use EVs as distributed-energy resources ( vehicle-to-grid (V2G) connections). The city has provided incentives for the purchase of both EVs and charging ports, the installation of heat-pump water heaters, and the installation of solar and battery-storage systems.

There are, however, a few potholes that need to be filled to meet the city’s 2030 emission objectives. At a February meeting of Palo Alto’s Utilities Advisory Commission, Tomm Marshall, assistant director of utilities, stated, “There are places even today [in the city] where we can’t even take one more heat pump without having to rebuild the portion of the [electrical distribution] system. Or we can’t even have one EV charger go in.”

Peak loading is the primary concern. Palo Alto’s electrical-distribution system was built for the electric loads of the 1950s and 1960s, when household heating, water, and cooking were running mainly on natural gas. The distribution system does not have the capacity to support EVs and all electric appliances at scale, Marshall suggested. Further, the system was designed for one-way power, not for distributed-renewable-energy devices sending power back into the system.

A big problem is the 3,150 distribution transformers in the city, Marshall indicated. A 2020 electrification-impact study found that without improvements, more than 95% of residential transformers would be overloaded if Palo Alto hits its EV and electrical-appliance targets by 2030.

Palo Alto’s electrical-distribution system needs a complete upgrade to allow the utility to balance peak loads.

For instance, Marshall stated, it is not unusual for a 37.5 kilovolt-ampere transformer to support 15 households, as the distribution system was originally designed for each household to draw 2 kilowatts of power. Converting a gas appliance to a heat pump, for example, would draw 4 to 6 kW, while an L2 charger for EVs would be 12 to 14 kW. A cluster of uncoordinated L2 charging could create an excessive peak load that would overload or blow out a transformer, especially when they are toward the end of their lives, which many already are. Without smart meters—that is, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), which will be introduced into Palo Alto in 2024—the utility has little to no household peak load insights.

Palo Alto’s electrical-distribution system needs a complete upgrade to allow the utility to balance peak loads, manage two-way power flows, install the requisite number of EV charging ports and electric appliances to support the city’s emission-reduction goals, and deliver power in a safe, reliable, sustainable, and cyber-secure manner. The system also must be able to cope in a multi-hour-outage situation, where future electrical appliances and EV charging will commence all at once when power is restored, placing a heavy peak load on the distribution system.

Palo Alto is considering investing US $150 million toward modernizing its distribution system, but that will take two to three years of planning, as well as another three to four years or more to perform all the necessary work, but only if the utility can get the engineering and management staff, which continues to be in short supply there and at other utilities across the country. Further, like other industries, the energy business has become digitized, meaning the skills needed are different from those previously required.

Until it can modernize its distribution network, Marshall conceded that the utility must continue to deal with angry and confused customers who are being encouraged by the city to invest in EVs, charging ports, and electric appliances, only then to be told that they may not be accommodated anytime soon.

Policy runs up against engineering reality

The situation in Palo Alto is not unique. There are some 465 cities in the United States with populations between 50,000 and 100,000 residents, and another 315 that are larger, many facing similar challenges. How many can really support a rapid influx of thousands of new EVs? Phoenix, for example, wants 280,000 EVs plying its streets by 2030, nearly seven times as many as it has currently. Similar mismatches between climate-policy desires and an energy infrastructure incapable of supporting those policies will play out across not only the United States but elsewhere in one form or another over the next two decades as conversion to EVs and electric appliances moves to scale.

As in Palo Alto, it will likely be blown transformers or constantly flickering lights that signal there is an EV charging-load issue. Professor Deepak Divan, the director of the Center for Distributed Energy at Georgia Tech, says his team found that in residential areas “multiple L2 chargers on one distribution transformer can reduce its life from an expected 30 to 40 years to 3 years.” Given that most of the millions of U.S. transformers are approaching the end of their useful lives, replacing transformers soon could be a major and costly headache for utilities, assuming they can get them.

Supplies for distribution transformers are low, and costs have skyrocketed from a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to $20,000 each. Supporting EVs may require larger, heavier transformers, which means many of the 180 million power poles on which these need to sit will need to be replaced to support the additional weight.

Exacerbating the transformer loading problem, Divan says, is that many utilities “have no visibility beyond the substation” into how and when power is being consumed. His team surveyed “29 utilities for detailed voltage data from their AMI systems, and no one had it.”

This situation is not true universally. Xcel Energy in Minnesota, for example, has already started to upgrade distribution transformers because of potential residential EV electrical-load issues. Xcel president Chris Clark told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that four or five families buying EVs noticeably affects the transformer load in a neighborhood, with a family buying an EV “adding another half of their house.”

Joyce Bodoh, director of energy solutions and clean energy for Virginia’s Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC), a utility distributor in central Virginia, says that “REC leadership is really, really supportive of electrification, energy efficiency, and electric transportation.” However, she adds, “all those things are not a magic wand. You can’t make all three things happen at the same time without a lot of forward thinking and planning.”

For nearly 50 years, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has been publishing a Sankey diagram of estimated U.S. energy consumption from various generation sources, as shown above. In 2021, the United States consumed 97.3 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy, with the transportation sector using 26.9 quads, 90% of it from petroleum. Obviously, as the transportation sector electrifies, electricity generation will need to grow in some reduced proportion of the energy once provided to the transportation section by petroleum, given the higher energy efficiency of EVs.

To achieve the desired reduction in greenhouse gases, renewable-energy generation of electricity will need to replace fossil fuels. The improvements and replacements to the grid’s 8,000 power-generation units and 600,000 circuit miles of AC transmission lines (240,000 circuit miles being high-voltage lines) and 70,000 substations to support increased renewable energy and battery storage is estimated to be more than $2.5 trillion in capital, operations, and maintenance costs by 2035.

In the short term, it is unlikely that EVs will create power shortfalls in the U.S. grid, but the rising number of EVs will test the local grid’s reliability at many of the 3,000 electric-distribution utilities in the United States, which themselves own more than 5.5 million miles of power lines. It is estimated that these utilities need $1 trillion in upgrades by 2035.

As part of this planning effort, Bodoh says that REC has actively been performing “an engineering study that looked at line loss across our systems as well as our transformers, and said, ‘If this transformer got one L2 charger, what would happen? If it got two L2s, what would happen, and so on?’” She adds that REC “is trying to do its due diligence, so we don’t get surprised when a cul-de-sac gets a bunch of L2 chargers and there’s a power outage.”

REC also has hourly energy-use data from which it can find where L2 chargers may be in use because of the load profile of EV charging. However, Bodoh says, REC does not just want to know where the L2 chargers are, but also to encourage its EV-owning customers to charge at nonpeak hours—that is, 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. and 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. REC has recently set up an EV charging pilot program for 200 EV owners that provides a $7 monthly credit if they do off-peak charging. Whether REC or other utilities can convince enough EV owners of L2 chargers to consistently charge during off-peak hours remains to be seen.

“Multiple L2 chargers on one distribution transformer can reduce its life from an expected 30 to 40 years to 3 years.” —Deepak Divan

Even if EV owner behavior changes, off-peak charging may not fully solve the peak-load problem once EV ownership really ramps up. “Transformers are passively cooled devices,” specifically designed to be cooled at night, says Divan. “When you change the (power) consumption profile by adding several EVs using L2 chargers at night, that transformer is running hot.” The risk of transformer failure from uncoordinated overnight charging may be especially aggravated during times of summer heat waves, an issue that concerns Palo Alto’s utility managers.

There are technical solutions available to help spread EV charging peak loads, but utilities will have to make the investments in better transformers and smart metering systems, as well as get regulatory permission to change electricity-rate structures to encourage off-peak charging. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G), which allows an EV to serve as a storage device to smooth out grid loads, may be another solution, but for most utilities in the United States, this is a long-term option. Numerous issues need to be addressed, such as the updating of millions of household electrical panels and smart meters to accommodate V2G, the creation of agreed-upon national technical standards for the information exchange needed between EVs and local utilities, the development of V2G regulatory policies, and residential and commercial business models, including fair compensation for utilizing an EV’s stored energy.

As energy expert Chris Nelder noted at a National Academy EV workshop, “vehicle-to-grid is not really a thing, at least not yet. I don’t expect it to be for quite some time until we solve a lot of problems at various utility commissions, state by state, rate by rate.”

Posted in Electric Grid & Fast Collapse, Electric Vehicles, Electricity Infrastructure | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Why towns have a hard time adding EV, solar, heat pumps

Building a national super grid in America

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is national-grid.jpg

Preface. Renewables are not evenly distributed.  Just 10 states have 80% of hydropower (Homeland Security 2011), 10 states produce 75% of wind power (EIA 2017), and 10 states produce 79% of solar power (CE 2020).

With a national grid, instead of having to curtail power so the grid isn’t overwhelmed, the power could be sent places needing electricity, especially entire South East, which has very little commercial-scale wind year round (Friedemann 2015).

The U.S. would have to double today’s electric grid if 66% of all cars are EVs by 2050 (Groom 2021, NREL 2021).

But there is no national grid in sight (St John 2020) for many reasons listed below — the extremely high cost, the chance that this would actually make the grid more unstable and lead to a national blackout, NIMBYism at every level, and bureaucracies.

Electricity isn’t political, but people sure are. Politics could be a showstopper for a national grid. Consider the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California in the 1860s for example. Yes it is about water, not electricity, but the underlying principle hasn’t changed. Every few years enormous storms wiped out crops. Rich farmers could afford to build high levees and force flooding onto everyone else’s land nearby, reaping higher prices for their surviving harvests.  One political party, let’s call them the cooperators, wanted unbiased federal government engineers to study the best places to put levees and build them. The other party, let’s call them the Selfish Party, was vehemently anti-government.  Their voters were “outspokenly anti-intellectual and distrustful, even contemptuous, of college-trained men. It was common for fathers to warn their boys not to pursue higher education, or else they would become feminized. Get out of school, they would say, and learn in real life what you need to know; stay away from books!”  The cooperators won. The Army Corps of Engineers built massive levees and areas for flood waters to go away from farmland (Kelly 1998).

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com Women in ecology  author of 2021 Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy best price here; 2015 When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Podcasts: Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity

***

A national supergrid is seen as essential for integrating renewable power into the electric grid, since many regions of the US have limited renewable power options and a very large grid is needed to keep it in balance, since the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining everywhere at once, nor do vast regions have hydropower, geothermal, and other renewable power at all.

Just as many natural gas and oil deposits are stranded and unexploited because the cost to build pipelines to them is too high, many renewable resources are unable to generate enough power to justify building transmission lines to them, or they’re too far from cities.

If America tried to balance intermittent power over a wide area like Denmark and construct a national grid, there is the potential for a national blackout.

Although large regions can increase stability, this isn’t always true, since operators can’t see adjoining systems well enough to detect impending extreme events and take countermeasures quickly (CEC).

Size doesn’t always increase reliability because it provides multiple paths for local disturbances to propagate, which can lead to complex chains of cascading failures (Morgan).

In addition, a lack of investment and increased loading of lines and transformers without increased transmission capacity (Clark) and poorly planned generation and transmission capacity (Blumsack) has led to the potential for a widespread blackout. Additional blackout risks are cyber-attack, terrorism, and aging equipment (NAS 2012).

Because the system is a network, reducing congestion in one part of the system may shift it to another (the next-most-vulnerable) part. Congestion also tends to move around the system from year to year and in response to weather and other seasonal factors. In addition, solving the problem of transmission constraints within the United States will also require cooperation with Canada. Many scheduled power transactions within the U.S., particularly east-to-west transactions within the Eastern Interconnection, flow over transmission lines located in Canada before reaching loads in the U.S. This is a particular problem at points in the upper Midwest where the transmission systems of the two countries interconnect. These unintended flows (or “loop flows”) often require transmission service curtailments in the U.S. The benefit of increasing transmission (USDOE 2002).

An American supergrid would need at least 50,000 miles of new lines, with multiple underground links from the Great Plains to the coasts each more than 1,000 or even 1,500 miles long, and capacities for each of these miles would have to be in the multiples of gigawatts, not a few hundred megawatts. The whole project would require considerable and rapid scaling up of the existing system. to think that these megaprojects could be designed, the designs approved, and the necessary rights of way obtained in a few years is to have an entirely unrealistic understanding of America’s engineering capabilities, its multiple regulatory bureaucracies, and its extraordinary NIMBYism and litigiousness (Smil).

Source: Vaclav Smil

Source: Vaclav Smil

Bureaucratic challenges (USDOE 2002)

It can take as long as 14 years to get permission to add transmission lines. For example, it took the American Electric Power Company fourteen years to obtain siting approval for a 90-mile 765 kV transmission project, while it required only two to construct it.

Ten years after it was first proposed, a major transmission project by American Electric Power (AEP) in West Virginia and Virginia is still about a year from final approval. The following chronology documents the delays resulting from state regulators’ efforts to take account of local and other concerns, and from lack of coordination among the principal parties. 1991—AEP submits a proposal for a 765-kV transmission line to Virginia, West Virginia, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the goals of maintaining reliability in southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia and reducing the risks of a cascading outage that could affect many states in the eastern U.S.

  • 1992–1994—Extensive hearings are held in Virginia and West Virginia, many in potentially affected localities.
  • 1996—The Forest Service issues a draft environmental impact statement which recommends that the line not be constructed as proposed because it will cross sensitive public lands.
  • 1997— AEP proposes, to the regulatory commissions in the two states, a longer alternate route that would cross less sensitive areas than the initial route.
  • 1998—The West Virginia Public Service Commission approves its portion of the alternate route. Later in 1998—AEP agrees to a request from the Virginia Corporation Commission that the utility conduct a detailed study of a second alternate route. After AEP completes its review, it agrees that the second route is acceptable although this route would not allow as much margin for future load growth as had been available with the first alternate route.
  • 2001—The Virginia Corporation Commission approves the second route, chiefly because this route would have fewer adverse environmental and social impacts than the previous routes.
  • Late 2001—The West Virginia Public Service Commission must review and approve the newest route even though the West Virginia portion of that route differs very little from the one the commission approved in June 1998. In addition, because the newest route would also cross about 11 miles of national forest in an area not studied in the Forest Service’s 1996 draft environmental impact statement, the Forest Service must conduct a supplementary analysis before deciding whether to grant a permit for construction.

Sierra Pacific’s experience in building a 163-mile transmission line is an example of the costs and delays that can arise when transmission projects involve multiple federal agencies with land management responsibilities.

  • Sierra Pacific prepared detailed plans for the Alturas project in 1992.
  • The Nevada Public Service Commission approved the project in November 1993.
  • After obtaining Nevada’s approval, Sierra Pacific turned to the other affected agencies—the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and several Federal agencies: the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service, BPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. BLM had the most acreage affected by the proposal and became the lead agency for the Federal review of the project.
  • CPUC became the lead agency for state environmental purposes. In spring 1994, BLM and CPUC collaborated to begin a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the state and a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Federal agencies. Sierra Pacific paid the cost of the studies.
  • BLM issued the final EIS in November 1995 and approved its portion of the project in February 1996.
  • The CPUC approved its portion of the line in January of 1996.
  • In February 1996, the manager of the Toiyabe National Forest issued a “no action” decision, arguing that the EIS was flawed because it had not addressed a sufficiently wide range of alternatives.
  • Eventually, Sierra Pacific decided to pursue an alternative route and withdrew the application to cross the Toiyabe area. In April 1997, the Modoc National Forest manager denied the project a permit to cross a three-mile portion of the Modoc National Forest.
  • The applicant appealed this decision to the chief of the Forest Service in May 1997; a permit was issued October 1997.
  • However, several other parties to the proceeding appealed this permit. After review, the decision to issue the permit was upheld in January 1998.
  • Construction was begun in February 1998 and completed in December 1998. Sierra Pacific estimates that the project was delayed by at least two years and that these delays led to additional costs of more than $20 million.

Underground cables transmit power with very low electromagnetic fields in areas where overhead lines are impractical or unpopular. Costs are 5 to 10 times that of overhead lines, and electrical characteristics limit AC lines to about 25 miles.

Higher voltage lines can carry more power than lower voltage lines. The highest transmission voltage line in North America is 765 kV. Higher voltages are possible, but require much larger right-of-ways, increase need for reactive power reserves, and generate stronger electromagnetic fields. HVDC provides an economic and controllable alternative to AC for long distance power transmission. DC can also be used to link asynchronous systems and for long distance transmission under ground/water. Conversion costs from AC to DC and then back to AC have limited usage. Currently there are several thousand miles of HVDC in North America.

Conclusion

Clearly it is unlikely that a national grid will ever be built due to the risks of a national blackout, the already too expensive need to upgrade the existing grid, the NIMBY litigious process of approval and reluctance of states to allow power generated in their state across borders, and capital costs are going to prevent shared solar and wind across the nation.

Because it is unlikely we can scale up wind and solar due to intermittency and seasonal issues, and so much power is lost across long transmission distances, and the grid so vulnerable to terrorism, it may not make sense to have a national grid anyhow.  It would be better to spend the energy required on insulating homes, energy efficient appliances and vehicles, and other efforts to prepare for the decline of fossil fuels and consequently electricity as well.

References

Blumsack, S.A. 2006. Network topologies and transmission investment under electric-industry restructuring. Carnegie Mellon University.

CE. 2020. Solar energy generation by state. ChooseEnergy.com

CEC. 2008. Transmission technology research for renewable integration. California Energy Commission. CEC-500-2014-059

Chupka, M.W. et al. November 2008. Transforming America’s Power Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030. The Brattle Group.

Clark, H.K. 2004. It’s Time to Challenge Conventional Wisdom. Transmission & Distribution World.

EIA. 2017. Wind turbines provide 8% of U.S. generating capacity, more than any other renewable source. U.S. Energy information administration.

Groom N et al (2021) EV rollout will require huge investments in strained U.S. power grids. Reuters.

Homeland Security. 2011. Dams and energy sectors interdependency study. U.S. Department of Energy and Homeland Security.

Kelly R (1998) Battling the Inland Sea. Floods, public policy, and the Sacramento Valley. University of California Press.

Morgan, M., et al. 2011. Extreme Events. California Energy Commission. CEC-500- 2013-031.

NAS. 2012. Terrorism and the electric power delivery system. National Academy of Sciences.

NREL (2021) Electrification Futures Study. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Smil, V. 2010. Energy myths and realities. AIE Press.

St. John, J. 2020. Transmission Emerging as Major Stumbling Block for State Renewable Targets. The U.S. is struggling to move renewable power from where it’s cheapest to where it’s wanted, with no obvious solution in sight.  Greentechmedia.com

USDOE. May 2002. National transmission grid study. United States Department of Energy.

Posted in Blackouts Electric Grid, Electric Grid, Electric Grid & Fast Collapse, Electricity Infrastructure, National Super Grid, Solar, Vaclav Smil, Wind | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Mayflower from the book The Barbarous Years

Preface. It was recently Thanksgiving so I thought I’d post something from Mann’s 1491 about the pilgrims that I later found out was grievously wrong from an expert who gives lectures on the Mayflower history. Here is a more subtle, accurate, and interesting account of what happened. Though Thanksgiving is never mentioned in this book…

Continue reading

Posted in Books | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Mayflower from the book The Barbarous Years

Deep Sea Oil

Preface. Peak oil was reached in November of 2018, but we aren’t out of oil, just halfway through.  Giant fields continue to be found, but in the deep ocean or arctic where it is expensive to drill. Below are some bits and pieces of what I could find about deepwater (>4,000 feet) and ultra deepwater (>7,000 feet).

We are not be running out of oil, but yikes, if we’ve had to resort to deep offshore drilling we must surely be desperate. Today about 30% of world oil production is in offshore wells. And they cost a lot: The Berkut rig in Russia was $12 billion dollars. And can take ten years before they start producing oil.

At least 90% of the oil reserves are state owned.  Meanwhile the private oil majors are running out of places to drill in the U.S., Europe, and other countries. Today their major drilling is: 43% Ultra-deepwater, 35% Deepwater, Shelf 7%, Land 14%. In 2023 they only found a billion barrels of oil, 68% less than the 3 billion barrels found in 2022.

Continue reading

Posted in How Much Left | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Book review of “Livewired. The inside story of the ever-changing brain”

Preface. This book conveys a sense of wonderment and awe about our brains work and how we become who we are.  I think if you read the excerpts below you will understand why Artificial Intelligence will probably never come close to general intelligence and being as smart as human beings — able to learn, have emotions and consequently motivation and curiosity. Heck, I doubt AI will even become as intelligent as ants after reading “Journey to the Ants: A Story of Scientific Exploration” by Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson.

Continue reading

Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Evolution | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Book review of “Livewired. The inside story of the ever-changing brain”

The conveyor belt may be slowing down — Yikes!

Preface. The conveyor belt (AMOC: Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) may be slowing down. If it stops, floods, increased sea level rise, and disturbed weather systems.

Until recently the IPCC and other scientists didn’t think this might happen until 2300 or so, but the latest research shows that it could happen much sooner and more suddenly than expected.

Continue reading

Posted in Climate Change, Peak Food, Sea Level Rise | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The conveyor belt may be slowing down — Yikes!

Battery Energy storage batteries (BESS) too complex to ever be commercial

Source: RWE connects its first utility-scale battery storage project to the California grid

Preface.  In 2024 if all of the BESS battery storage time were added up, they could store 8 of the 8,760 hours of annual electricity generated in the USA.  Only 5% of their energy is used to actually store energy, the rest is arbitrage to quickly balance fluctuations caused by wind and solar living and dying.  Yet we need from one (720 hours) or three or more months of energy storage (2160) of 4200 TWh annual electricity to cope for the seasonality of wind and solar in a 100% renewable grid.  But it isn’t simply a matter of building more energy storage batteries, because the technology they rest upon is shaky and unstable and complex.

Most states are too flat to develop pumped hydro storage, the only commercial option today.  PHS is also very expensive and can cost billions of dollars in the few places where one might even be put since the best spots were built decades ago.  One of the few ways to balance wind and solar without using natural gas are batteries.  Other posts explain why these won’t scale up, but that’s just the beginning of their problems as you’ll see in the two articles below.

This paragraph especially struck me: Cell imbalances can occur because battery energy storage systems comprise of hundreds of thousands of individual battery cells, and while these cells are part of the same system, they vary in quality and aging. The weakest cell among them dictates the performance. Thus, when the BESS is charged, not every cell will charge to the same targeted value (e.g., 100% SoC). At the same time, when discharged, not every cell will be discharged to the same planned value (e.g., 0% SoC).

Continue reading

Posted in Battery - Utility Scale | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Battery Energy storage batteries (BESS) too complex to ever be commercial

New war and energy alliances over next resource wars

Preface. My greatest fear is nuclear war over the remaining resources on earth, since that has the potential of driving us extinct.  I don’t believe there are enough fossil fuels left to do that via climate change because world conventional and unconventional oil peaked in 2018, the master resource that makes all others possible — coal and natural gas too (though for sure hundreds if not thousands of years of crazy weather and vastly reduced carrying capacity, perhaps enough to make agriculture difficult for a long time). But with the end of oil and endless growth capitalism depends on, the world will return resource wars, the time immemorial way to keep growing and gain wealth. Russia’s attack on Ukraine is all about resources, check this encyclopedia entry out, Ukraine has incredible fertile soil, minerals, and more (Britannica Ukraine Resources and Power).

Continue reading

Posted in Middle East, Over Oil | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Book review of “Siege: Trump Under fire”

Preface.  Wolff’s book continues the mordant humor of Fire & Fury.  His books are the best, by far, of the dozens I’ve read about the Trump Administration.  There will never be any books as insightful because Wolff was given unprecedented access. And so much fun to read too.

It amazes me that Fire & Fury didn’t force Trump out of office, since it clearly shows that he is too incompetent, unfocused, corrupt, and crazy to be President. The Mueller report or Ukraine impeachment trial the public knows the most about don’t begin to hint at all the corruption and stupidity of what’s going on in this administration.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Book review of “Siege: Trump Under fire”