I wouldn’t call my suggestion that an electric transport infrastructure is more energy efficient than a liquid petroleum one, ADVOCACY of coal. As you may read on in my blog I have renamed the “electron economy” concept, the “renewable electron economy” in part as a counter-move to the combination of coal advocacy and inertia in the utility sector that remains a huge problem around the world.

I do stand by the assertion, though, that electrifying transportation makes sense even in regions where currently the grid is coal-dominated, which at the time I wrote this I assumed would, through the application of simple reason, go the way of the dinosaurs from whence it came. Given, however, the recent doubling of my concern about the power of coal- and fossil fuel addiction (see my post “Change of Nomenclature”) and my advocacy of existing and just-emerging renewable technologies, I am pairing advocacy of electrified transportation with both energy efficiency and aggressive build out of renewable energy.

I am working on a 14-16 point political/economic program to influence the political debate that links these together, so that coal advocates have more difficult in weaving their way into discussions of electrification and increasing generation capacity. I am aware that there are simpler programs and pledges out there (Live Earth Pledge and James Hansen’s 3 points) but I am trying to create a plan that answers the questions “how do we meet carbon reduction targets?” in a way that paints a believable picture of the near, carbon-reduced future.

I am all for sounding the alarms about coal, especially at this time in history.

Re: water and geothermal: I am not a geothermal expert but from what I know geothermal is probably not the first choice for power generation in a water constrained environment. However, in some set ups, it appears that much of the water that is used can be recycled (goes down one hole and up another as steam) and where there is wastewater from agriculture or human habitation, it can be injected down the “input” hole. If there are readers out there who know more about the specifics please let us know!

If you are substituting a moderately efficient coal facility and a battery-powered vehicle for fossil fuel powered transport, you come out slightly ahead. Furthermore, preparing the energy demand side for cleaner alternatives means that a relatively dirty coal fired grid can be more easily switched over to cleaner and renewable energy sources than our liquid petroleum infrastructure.

I believe that Joe Romm and others would take issue with your advocacy of coal. It may be cheap, OTOH oil drilling would seem to damage the surface less. The conversion of any fossil fuel to run gas turbines contributes pollution, so it would seem that you are using a BAU balance sheet while anthropogenic carbon emissions continue to escalate and Hansen, et al estimate we have less than 10 years to make a difference.

BTW: Nice coverage on geo-thermal; it might be useful to suggest how this could be done where water is scarce.

Keep posting!