Tag Archives: sustainability

Nuclear is Not the Answer

RusselvillePowerplant

James Hansen is the climate scientist who first loudly and persistently proclaimed a risk to society of global warming and the consequent climate change and acidification of the oceans. Recently he and a few others suggested that a vigorous expansion of nuclear power is the only option for producing enough power to completely replace fossil fuels for energy production.

To achieve this goal would require the construction worldwide of over one hundred reactors a year, every year till 2050. As the United States uses something like twenty percent of the world’s energy, our share of the nuclear construction would be about 20 to 25 reactors every year. Conservatively that would be close to 700 nuclear reactors. Based on population that would mean about 7 new reactors in Arkansas alone.

This is a construction rate far, far beyond the heyday of reactor construction in the 1970s. It is just not going to happen for several reasons. Hansen has blamed environmental concerns for blocking the expansion of the nuclear power industry and there may be some truth to this. Past catastrophic nuclear reactor failures loom over the industry. And the seemingly intractable, politically at least, problem of permanent storage of high level nuclear wastes. The best we have come up with so far is on site storage in concrete containers – essentially the radioactive spent fuel rods are placed in casks standing around in parking lots adjacent to the reactors.

Environmental concerns are not the real issue, it is that nuclear power can’t compete economically. The extremely long planning and construction time make essentially impossible to stay on budget. The Union of Concerned Scientists report that the cost for the planning, construction, and licensing has gone from an estimated 2 billion dollars in 2002 to an astounding 9 billion in 2009.

Meanwhile the carbon free competition – efficiency, wind, and solar PV have see an opposite cost curve. For comparison, the cost of a 2 megawatt wind turbine is about 3 million dollars. For an equivalent amount of power produced by a nuclear reactor, the cost is a little over a billion dollars. For large scale commercial solar photovoltaic arrays the cost is about 2.5 billion dollars. Most importantly the cost curves for sustainable energy are downward whereas for nuclear they are upward.

The fuel costs for nuclear power are now relatively modest, but in a scenario with 700 nuclear reactors requiring Uranium, the cost will be substantially greater. Most likely fuel reprocessing will be necessary to produce new fuel but also to deal with the waste stream from all these reactors. Reprocessing fuel will add to costs and increase the risk of additional handling of radioactive material. Both accidents at reprocessing plants as occurred to at Kerr-McGee facility in Oklahoma, or the possibility of diversion to terrorists as weapons.

The future may see some expansion of nuclear reactors, as they serve an important function for baseload power, but something will have to be done to control costs. Savings via deregulation is a non starter. In fact increased regulation may save money. Standardized designs and construction methods may be able to contain costs somewhat. Additional subsidization of the nuclear industry via taxpayer backed insurance is a must. When it comes to the nuclear industry; capitalism, meet socialism.

Transportation Resistance

From Galileo to Elon

Over 400 years ago as the story goes, circa 1590, Galileo performed a scientific experiment which has been reproduced in schools across the planet to this day. Galileo went to the iconic leaning tower of Piza and dropped two balls, one larger and heavy than the other. As everyone knows, they hit the ground about the same time. This disproved Aristotle’s hypothesis that heavier objects fall faster.

What both Galileo and Aristotle were not considering was an aspect of fluid dynamics – air resistance. Basically air is a fluid and it gets in the way of movement. Anyone who rides a bike or paddles a canoe knows it’s a lot harder with the wind at your face; that is, greater air (or wind) resistance. Even if the air is standing still, it still gets in the way and slows things down. The faster you go, the more important the wind resistance becomes.

A bicyclist can make about 15 to 20 mph without too much difficulty but more than that is a problem due to drag. Get rid of the drag and the sky is the limit. Cyclists have attained well over 100 mph riding behind vehicles outfitted with a fairing to shield the cyclist from wind resistance.

In years past when fuel costs were low, the extra energy expended to overcome wind resistance was not important in motorized vehicles. It is today and will continue to become more important as fuel costs rise. Nowhere is wind resistance, that is aerodynamic drag, more important than in the trucking industry.

The first effort in the industry was the addition of fairings over the cabs of 18-wheelers which resulted in a 15% increase in fuel efficiency. A more recent innovation is the addition of side skirts on each side and between the wheels of big rigs, which have been shown to improve fuel efficiency by 5 to 15 percent depending on design. Finally “trailer tails” are being added to extend the saving another 5%. All together this add up to over 30% fuel savings, with payback times of a about a year for fleet vehicles.

Small steps to save fuel or increase speed result from reducing drag, but what if you could completely eliminate drag by eliminating the air itself? Listen up. Elon Musk is the billionaire savant who produces the wildly successful Tesla electric car. He also pioneered private industry space flight with his SpaceX company, which is regularly delivering supplies to the International Space Station orbiting above earth.

Mr. Musk has proposed building giant evacuated tubes into which transportation vehicles could attain speeds in excess of a thousand mph. These tubes would work just like the little canisters that deliver your checks and cash back and forth from the bank window to the remote drive-up station. The only difference is that people or bulk goods would go in the canisters, and travel thousands of miles at thousands of miles per hour. He has suggested that eventually an underground transportation network could transport people from New York to Los Angles in 45 minutes! That requires a speed of about 4,000 mph.

Sustainability and Jobs

Our new attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, was off to Washington recently to testify against the EPA clean power plan. As part of the plan Arkansas will be required to reduce our carbon emissions by 44 % over the coming decades. This will be achieved by burning less coal, thus cleaning the air and reducing climate forcing. From her press release:

“Arkansas is uniquely positioned on this topic because of our rich natural heritage. In the Natural State, we place a high value on clean air and clean water as we protect our state for future generations, and as Attorney General, I will not sit idly by while this administration pushes policy objectives that will ultimately hurt job growth and Arkansas’s ability to compete across the country and the globe.”

Installing solar panels

Installing solar panels

It is odd that she opposes a plan which will do exactly what she favors; that is, clean the air and water and protect our state for future generations. One can only assume from her statement that she thinks that we will have fewer jobs and be less competitive by burning less coal. But is that the case?

If one assumes that much of the energy not produced by by burning coal is replaced by sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar, what is the tradeoff on jobs? Or how about jobs created by avoiding the need for energy in the first place? How many jobs are there in becoming more efficient?

wind turbine blade

wind turbine blade

There are currently about 174,000 jobs in the coal industry including mining, transportation and power plant work. Compare that to about 172,000 jobs in the solar industry – fabrication, sales, installation and maintenance. An important comparison is the jobs per power produced. The solar power in the United States represents only 0.7 % of installed capacity where as coal power is at about 40 %. If we divide jobs by installed capacity, solar wins hands down – about 10 times as many jobs in solar compared to coal when capacity factor is considered.

The comparison for wind and jobs is similar. There are about 100,000 jobs in wind, and with about 6 % of the capacity, wind produces 5 times as many jobs as coal. Both wind and solar are expanding rapidly, where as coal jobs are declining.
It is difficult to calculate the number of jobs in efficiency which replaces energy production. That said, efficiency is estimated to produce about 4 times as many jobs to avoid burning coal as coal jobs.

It seems fairly clear that renewable energy and efficiency produce 4 to 10 times as many jobs as coal. If our attorney general is concerned about jobs she should have gone to the house hearing to endorse the clean power plan, rather than oppose it.

One final factor should be mentioned. There are no fuel costs for renewables and efficiency, but Arkansans pay in excess of 650 million dollars a year to import coal from Wyoming. Renewables such as solar and wind would keep those millions of dollars here. That’s money which will remain in the Arkansas economy and make us more, not less competitive.

Global Warming 2014 Edition

This year has seen several international, national, and local issues relating to global warming.

Organizationally, the IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might be considered the lead agency on issues of global warming. The IPCC is a group of thousands of climate scientists from around the world. The fifth pentennial assessment report states: “to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual. Simply to hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees [Celsius] will require reductions of green house gases from 40 to 70 per cent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century.”

Whereas the IPCC is the scientific wing of the UN, the UNFCCC or the United Nations Framework on Climate Change is more of a political policy wing. In their meeting in Lima Peru this year they concluded that it is increasingly difficult to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding—events that could harm the world’s population and economy.

After months of negotiations, President Obama and President Xi Jinping in November affirmed the importance of strengthening bilateral cooperation on climate change and will work together to adopt a protocol on climate change. They are committed to reaching an ambitious 2015 agreement that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.

In June President Obama, through the Environmental Protection Agency, has promulgated rules for power plants to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. This is the first time that the EPA has taken steps to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant, an action begun in 2007 by President Bush, but delayed by court battles meant to block the regulations.

Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline remains stalled. This pipeline, if completed, will move oil produced by strip mining the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta Canada. The line will terminate after traversing almost 1200 miles at refineries on the Gulf coast. It’s approval is questionable as this will exacerbate global warming by providing an international market for more carbon emissions.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Plains and Clean Line has been released. Basically the EIS determined that there are no adverse environmental or socioeconomic effects of the transmission line. The power line will move 3,500 MegaWatts of wind generated electricity from the panhandle of Oklahoma, across Arkansas to Memphis.

Entergy has recently purchased a gas turbine fired electrical power plant near El Dorado. With a capacity of 1980 MegaWatts, this may signal the intention to close the older less efficient coal fired White bluff plant.

plains-and-eastern-clean-line-project

Health Effects of Power Lines

The proposal of a couple of high voltage electric power lines in northwest Arkansas has some concerned about health effects of those who may be living nearby. The larger of the two is a 750 kilovolt DC transmission line which will move excess electricity generated from wind turbines in Oklahoma and Kansas across Arkansas to connect with the Tennessee Valley Authority network in Memphis.

The health concern is all about exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) emanating from the power lines. Are there health effects? What are they? How close do you have to be? There is no question that those giant pylons with the looping wires are unsightly, and in the minds of some unnecessary, but are they a health risk? The short answer is more than likely not, but it will take some discussion.

First and foremost we are bathed in electromagnetic radiation from birth to death. The sun provides many forms; visible radiation (sunlight) by which we see. Infrared radiation from the sun warms us. Ultraviolet radiation tans us.

In addition to these natural forms of radiation we are exposed to man made electromagnetic radiation from radio, television, and cell phone transmissions. Electrical wiring and all electrical devices in the home create electromagnetic fields.

The evidence of harm from Power lines is scant and contradictory. It all started with a study in Denver in 1979. Researchers found a correlation between living near power lines and childhood leukemia, even though it is not biologically plausible. Basically what the researchers proved again that income correlates with cancer, and those who live near power lines are in a lower socioeconomic bracket.

Since that time there have been literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies which show no clear indication of harm. An important principle of toxicology, the science of poisons, is the dose response relationship. The greater the dose – the the greater the harm. Any of the studies which did suggest harm did not correlate with exposure.

Magnetic fields are measured in units of Gauss (G). For example the magnetic field in a medical diagnostic device called a MRI is huge, of the order of 70,000 G . There is no evidence of harm from MRI scans.

Other magnetic fields that we are exposed to include those from small electric devices in the home. A hair dryer in use produces a field strength thousands of times smaller, 20 G with a similar values for an electric razor. A refrigerator produces a field of about .02 G.

So what about a power line? The field strength drops off rapidly with distance from the source so the actual field strength under or near a power line is quite small. At a distance of 30 meters the field strength is a fraction of a thousandth of a Gauss (.004 G.) This is hundreds to thousands of times lower than exposures in average homes.

At the expense of repeating myself there is essentially no proof of either toxic or carcinogenic risks associated with living near power lines. Argue if you will that they are ugly, or that you don’t want them on your land, or that they aren’t necessary. Arguments about health effects however will fall on deaf ears.

earth

IPCC Report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is body of thousands of scientists from around the world who are collaborating on an understanding of global warming, its causes, and how we as a society should address the risk of climate change. It was formed in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program. It is preposterous to think that this international group of scientists have any hidden agenda or are manipulating the data they gather for nefarious means.

The data they gather, the conclusions they reach, and the policy recommendations they make are all determined by consensus among the many scientists and open to the public for scrutiny. Every five years they issue an update on the current state of knowledge concerning global warming. The Fifth Assessment Report(AR5) provides a clear and most up to date view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change.

drought

drought

The new report shows that global emissions of greenhouse gases have risen to unprecedented levels despite a growing number of policies to reduce climate change. Emissions grew more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than in each of the three previous decades.

The emission of green house gases is causally linked to global warming, and the outlook is challenging if not down right grim. To reverse the effects of global warming or to at least limit the rise in global temperature to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) will require major institutional and technological change to give a better than even chance that global warming will not exceed this threshold.

Flood

Flood

There is a clear message from the scientists, “to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.” Simply to hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees will require reductions of green house gases from 40 to 70 per cent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century.

Economic analysis for a business as usual scenario suggests consumption will increase between 0.6 to 3.0 per cent per year. With controls to meet the aforementioned goals that growth will be lowered by .06 percent per year. Growth will not disappear, but rather be reduced by 10 to 20 per cent from business as usual. This analysis does not consider the beneficial effects of a more stable environment and cleaner air.

A large share of the goal can be met by reducing electricity production from fossil fuel sources to near zero. A range of technologies are available but wind and solar strategies alone can meet the goal, assuming the development of a more robust system of transmission and storage for these intermittent energy sources.

The alternative to action will be a hotter world with more severe storms. Both droughts and floods can follow changes in climate. The ocean will continue to acidify creating an inexorable die off of significant numbers of species. Climate instability will stress political stability as countries vie for resources threatened by climate change.

Crop production will fall. As climate shifts so will food production, from locales with ideal conditions to locales with poorer soil and or moisture conditions.

Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves just what are we willing to do to ensure that the future we leave to our descendants is as stable and prosperous as that we inherited from our ancestors.

wind turbine

Windy Arguments

The internet can be a veritable fount of information, but also a source of of disinformation. It is easy for an industry to hire bloggers to write confusing, disingenuous, and even deceptive posts about other industries to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. No where is this more obvious than the struggle between the fossil fuel industries and sustainable energy supplies such as wind and solar.

Wind generated power has taken a lot of derision, mostly undeserved, from the flacks for the fossil fuel industry, so let’s talk about wind energy.

Wind is expensive due to the production tax credit? Although the current production tax credit (2.3 cents per kWh) has expired, it may be reinstated. So, yes taxpayers are subsidizing wind power, to the tune of about six billion dollars a year. How does that compare to the subsidization of the fossil fuel industry? Just the health care costs due to burning fossil fuels is estimated to be the equivalent of 8 to 30 cents per kWh, or several hundred billion dollars a year.

Wind Turbines kill birds? Estimates are the wind turbines kill about 25 thousand birds a year, about 90 per cent songbirds, and the remainder raptors such as hawks and vultures. But is this rate of bird deaths important compared to other human caused bird mortalities? Total human caused bird mortalities are a billion birds a year. Collisions with buildings cause close to half a billion deaths. Cats, both pets and feral, kill about a 100 million. Cars, trains and planes cause another 100 million. When one considers total bird deaths, wind turbines would hardly rate a foot note.

What about human deaths? One can compare just how deadly wind turbines are by comparing the death rate per unit of electrical energy used. Wind deaths are 0.15 deaths per TeraWatt-hours per year. Competing technologies such as electrical energy from burning coal are 15 deaths per TWh/year and for Oil 36 deaths per TWh/year. Burning fossil fuels produces hundreds of times as many deaths.

And Jobs? Here we compare jobs created per million dollars spent on energy. Oil and gas, one job; coal, two jobs; wind five jobs. Interestingly building retrofits to save the same amount of money on energy is the winner with eleven jobs.

Wind turbines are noisy?

wind noise

wind noise

But just how noisy? Modern turbines have incorporated features that reduce noise from the swooshing blades and squeaking generators. The noise level at a distance of only three turbine blade lengths is rated as acceptable. The noise from a turbine a few suburban lots distant would be no louder than standing near a humming refrigerator, about 45 decibels.

But they’re ugly?

Nantucket site

Nantucket site

A large off shore wind project in Nantucket Sound will supply much of the electrical energy of Cape Cod, MA. It has been resisted by some local residents as unsightly. Not surprisingly Bill Koch, a coal and oil magnate, has provided 1.5 million dollars to lobbyists and a group called the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

Environmental Stewardship

This time of year we tend to look back on the past year, resolve to do better next year, or at least think about what the future will bring. In terms of energy supplies, we have in past years continued our reliance on highly subsidized fossils fuels, the use of which endangers the environment and contributes to our spiraling health care costs. Will we in the future resolve to be less wasteful? Will we resolve to do better as stewards of the planet, for our children’s sake?

The twentieth century will be looked upon as the heyday of fossil fuels, first coal, then oil and now increasingly natural gas. The availability of these fuels produced in North America is increasing which is good for the economy, but bad because the increase utilization of fossil fuels. This is bad for the environment and our health. There are two broad alternative futures;

hard vs soft energy paths

hard vs soft energy paths

business as usual where we favor big solutions like increasing reliance on nuclear reactors and abundant coal reserves, or what Amory Lovins described as the “soft energy path”. In this alternate future energy will be supplied by sustainable, dispersed energy sources such as wind and solar.

The big solution is basically a supply side, large scale strategy which favors production to meet demand, rather than the management of demand to impact production. Nuclear power in one form or another is realistically the only long term solution in this pathway. Due to economy of scale issues, nuclear reactors are very large, when measured by energy output. And unlike the suggestions of the fifties, nuclear power is not and will never be “too cheap to meter.”

And of course there is the yet to be solved problem of high level nuclear waste. Because of these problems the industry is both highly regulated and highly subsidized. The nuclear industry of the future, if it has a future, will be regulated so that the consumer is protected somewhat from the economic and environmental vagaries of energy production, but that will result in a larger governmental role to oversee said industries. This is the classic big industry, big government system which has been the historical trend over several generations. And it has worked more or less in not only the energy industry specifically but the economy in general. OK, there is the problem with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but that has also been the trend of late.

The soft energy path envisions power production to be greatly decentralized. When power is coming from wind turbines or solar panels economies of scale are not nearly as significant. Solar and wind will be done on a much smaller scale, as suggested by Kirkpatrick Sale in his book “Human Scale”. Power will be produced by individuals or local coops, with less need of big government oversight as the risks are considerably less. Production will be controlled by demand management through more emphasis on efficiency. In this strategy there is less need for big government, and less likelihood of extremes in wealth accumulation, at least in the energy sector.

So these are our possible energy futures as viewed through two extremes. I prefer the latter, but we will see what the future brings.

Lighting Technology

The phrase “She would rather light a candle than curse the darkness” came from a Eulogy given by Adlai Stevenson for Elanor Roosevelt. This is of course a metaphor, as the bringing of light refers to bringing knowledge to an unknowing hence dark world. Aphorisms aside, let’s be literal. Let’s talk about lighting technology.

There is good evidence that one of our ancestors, Homo erectus learned to control fire close to a half a million years ago. Fire provided heat, protection from predators, and light to extend the day into night. The campfire of Homo erectus was wood and provided much more light than heat. Light was a byproduct.

Technology expanded light production with the creation of oil lamps about six thousand years ago. Made from clay, lamps were found at numerous sites, and depending on location these were fueled by animal fat, vegetable oil or even petroleum oil from natural seeps. The related technology of candles came later, possibly originating in China about three thousand years ago. The Chinese candles were made of whale fat. Other materials for candles include tallow, beeswax, and contemporaneously paraffin, a solid petroleum derivative.

Kerosene lanterns, still in use in much of the world were common by the nineteenth century. Gas lamps, using gas as opposed to liquid developed about the same time and were popular as stationery light sources, e.g, street lamps.

All these light sources share one property – combustion. Burning something, combustion, is an exothermic process. Burning gives off heat, and if you give off enough heat you get (visible) light. Thomas Edison recognized that if you get something hot enough, whether burning or not, you get light.

Incandescent 16 Lumens per watt

Incandescent 16 Lumens per watt

His invention, the incandescent light bulb (ILB) employing electricity, revolutionized lighting and has illuminated the modern world since the start of the twentieth century.

The new revolution in lighting technology is the production of light sources much more efficient than incandescent bulbs. ILBs work by the heat, then light produced by resistance to the flow of electricity through the Tungsten filament. But it is an astoundingly inefficient process when illumination is the objective. Only about five percent of the energy consumed by an ILB produces light, the remainder is given off in the form of heat.

Luminous efficacy is measured by the product of the amount of light measured in lumens, divided by the energy to power it measured in watts. The luminous efficacy of an ILB is sixteen lumens per watt.
ILBs are cheap to produce but waste energy. More efficient are compact fluorescent bulbs (CFB).

a 100 watt equivalent clf uses about 28 watts

a 100 watt equivalent clf uses about 28 watts

These have a luminous efficacies of about fifty to sixty. They are therefore cheaper to operate but have a few drawbacks; they take time to reach full illumination especially at low temperatures, they aren’t dimmable, and they contain small amounts of Mercury which complicates disposal.

The most promising entry to inexpensive lighting are Light Emitting Diode light sources. They are everywhere already in electronic technology in the form of various indicator lights. These LEDs have now been ganged in groups to produce illumination with efficiencies of over one hundred.

100 watt equivalent LED uses less than 22 watt

100 watt equivalent LED uses less than 22 watt

LEDs don’t suffer from the deficiencies of other bulbs; they are very efficient, “instant on”, dimmable, cool to the touch, non toxic, and will become even more efficient as they are developed. The future for LED lighting is bright indeed.

high speed rail

Trains, Here and There

Automobile use as measured by miles traveled per capita peaked in 2005 and has been falling since. It is had to explain by a single variable, gas prices have been both up and down, not continuously up. We went through the worst recession since the great depression, but the economy is now improving, albeit slowly. Vehicles are becoming smaller so less accommodating for passengers but more efficient thus cheaper to operate.

Regardless of the reason, we are moving around less; and, there has not been a concomitant increase in mass transit. Is it time for us here in the US to consider an emphasis on mass transit to the degree that is available in Europe or the far east? Travel by train there is easy and frequent. You want to go from Edinburgh, Scotland to Bucharest, Romania, 1700 miles? There are trains for that, and daily I might add.

Not only can one travel long distances between large cities, but also short distances to small towns as well. There are nine different departure times daily from Chepstow, Wales to London, England (Chepstow is a town about the size of Clarksville, AR.) This would be equivalent to a train, nine times a day from Clarksville to Little Rock.

But we’re all about speed, right; and trains are too slow. Well they’re not so slow in Europe or the far East. Speeds between one and two hundred miles per hour are common.

European high speed rail

European high speed rail

And unlike the USA; Japan, Korea, and China are all investing in infrastructure which will allow for faster, more efficient trains.

China currently operates a fourteen hundred mile rail at over two hundred miles an hour, and is expanding rail service faster than highways or airlines. When a high speed rail became available in Taiwan most passengers switched from the comparable air route, and highway congestion decreased.

Technological advances in Japan involve a Maglev train. Maglev is short for magnetic levitation, where levitation of the train above the rails means a near frictionless and therefore faster, quieter and more efficient rail line. The train has been successfully tested on a short track at over three hundred miles an hour and expects to be in service by 2015.

What about American Exceptionalism? Is anything unique going on here? One bright spot is California which has proposed a high speed rail line between Los Angles and San Francisco. The voters in California have approved close to ten billion dollars to develop the line, which at two hundred miles an hour would complete the trip in two to three hours. Current driving time for the trip is seven or eight hours.

A real game changer has been proposed by entrepreneur Elon Musk, who designed and sells the Tesla, a successful all-electric car. He wants to build a Hyperloop, basically an evacuated tube,

hyperloop

hyperloop

to transport people at eight hundred miles per hour. The technology is the same as that used to move money and checks from the remote teller to your car at the bank. The trip from Los Angles to San Francisco would be about a half an hour and if similar technology existed locally one could go from Little Rock to Dallas in about twenty minutes. Now that would be both exceptional and American.