Vehicle to grid and a bit of a rant

Hello Ben,
It would really be a shame to create so many jobs to implement V2G, along with all the PV industry jobs it might just finally prove Bush wrong that addressing climate change is bad for the economy, never mind that Spain, Japan, Germany, and Denmark are already proving that point.

As with most solutions we need to look at the situation in a more holistic way. V2G in Britain would be more effective earlier due to the smaller distances driven on average, as well as already having smaller lighter cars. North America has so many challenges to face, not least of which is creating a society less dependent on driving overall and in huge wasteful vehicles. As Bill Kemp said in your interview we are going to have to get used to driving much less. The less we drive the more likely V2G can be of assistance. Because it makes implementation of grid scale renewables more effective, storage is widely agreed to be necessary, it should be part of an overall strategy and not looked at in terms of would it work in todays context. Also, all electric cars should covered in PV, most cars sit in the sun all day. With millions of lightweight electric cars all covered in PV the amount of electricity produced and stored 2 feet away from the panels, even if only 2% of the cars needs, would be significant. As an aside, I think we need to shift to an ethos of producing power where we use it.

We have to create a new context of overall improvements in sustainability in all sectors. I think we are deceived when we look at technologies and solutions in isolation. An example; here in Britain everyone is going on about the 4 million new homes we are going to need by 2050 and that we need to create new eco towns, using up valuable farm land and carbon sequestering green space in the process. Enormous amounts of planning and training are going into this effort, not least of which is my own MSC course. I see a couple of problems with this. All this effort is going into housing for 2% of the population. The other 98% of us will continue to live in highly inefficient 50 to 200 year old houses. We are intent on maintaining the look of these homes and are therefore unwilling to externally clad them to bring them up to standard. Addressing this issue isn't really of interest to developers, architects, and the other industries of growth that control the dialogue. So we expend most of our effort on what will be small improvements in our carbon footprint. I like Architecture 2030's approach much better.

Housing in Britain is already out of reach for all but the upper middle class and higher. Who will be able to afford these 4 million new homes? Everyone seems to ignore that the world by 2050 will be a very different place. The simultaneous challenges of peak oil, soil erosion, environmental refugees, and water scarcity will have a profound effect on our economies.

I realize the purpose of this website is to discuss energy solutions to the dilemma facing us but we need to keep in mind that the very first thing we all need to do is use far less of it, less driving, less television watching, less purchasing of pointless consumer goods, even less eating for many of us is going to be required. Purchasing a V2G car to replace a 10 year old SUV when personal resources are stretched to the limit by the effects of peak oil is not going to be affordable for large percentages of blue collar people in 10 years. They will be focusing on producing food, generating energy, and procuring safe water for their families.

We apparently have less than a decade to make huge changes, planning new more efficient methods of consumption in order to not rock the boat of growth is folly. We can't consume our way out of overconsumption. This not to say we shouldn't address the changes needed like V2G. I can see California mandating it sometime in the next 15 years and the rest of the nation following suit within 10 years later, but only if it is well planned and the technology worked out. We musn't lose sight of the overall context.

"Nothing is less productive than to make more efficient what should not be done at all." -- Peter Drucker