Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (53)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
For the past thirty years our country has become increasingly more aware of the effects our energy use has on the environment. At the same time, it is clear that our dependence on foreign oil is having significant consequences to our economy and our national security. Yet despite alternative technologies, we still get most of our energy from the fossil fuels. We know we have a problem, but the challenges of moving away from the established technologies and infrastructure are monumental.
Many of us want to know what we can do to make a difference. Yet with so much varying information about energy alternatives, it has become difficult to choose which technologies really make sense and which will be a waste of research dollars. We have become skeptical of anything that the so-called "experts" tell us — and rightly so as many of the experts have their own motives.
The use of ethanol is the best example. The major criticism of ethanol revolves around the excessive energy inputs required to grow, harvest, and convert corn or other crops into fuel. A number of studies are available that show a slight net energy gain and a slight decrease of pollution with ethanol use. (see http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf) But if we then find out that those studies were funded by the Department of Agriculture, we have to question the work. Other studies written by those without a special interest show a net energy loss with the use of ethanol and a pollution increase compared to oil. (see http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/MyBiofuelPapersTop.htm)
It has become surprisingly challenging to find truly un-biased studies. Researchers are always fighting for more funding, so they tend to paint their work in the best possible light — seldom is the entire story told. Clean energy options need to be examined from a number of perspectives including environmental impact, economics, the domestic resource base, public acceptability, and reliability.
If ethanol is not a net energy producer, and if there is no pollution difference from oil, then why should we head in that direction? Reducing dependence on foreign oil is an admirable goal, but even converting our entire corn crop to ethanol would only displace about 15% of our oil use. A great deal of money in the form of research dollars and subsidies has been poured into ethanol, but it will not achieve our goals of drastically reducing pollution and eliminating dependence on foreign oil.
Hydrogen has also received significant funding recently, but the hydrogen economy has many flaws that need to be considered. The technology for producing, transporting and using hydrogen in fuel cells is still a few decades off. Efficient production of hydrogen can only occur with very high temperature heat which eliminates all of the renewables except for concentrated solar. But the single biggest problem with the hydrogen economy is that it will be incredibly wasteful of energy resources (and very little attention has addressed this issue). Consider that hydrogen first must be produced in a power plant, and then the hydrogen gets converted to electricity in a fuel cell to power an electric motor. The overall process of producing, compressing, transporting and finally using hydrogen has many efficiency losses. Why not eliminate the middle man and go straight to electric vehicles?
It turns out that when compared side by side, an electric vehicle economy will be more than twice as efficient as a hydrogen economy. In other words, the hydrogen economy would require building twice as many new power plants as compared to converting to electric vehicles. And whereas hydrogen production only makes sense with high temperature nuclear or solar heat, the electric vehicle economy can use any source of clean energy — including all of the renewable technologies.
Electric vehicles are not without their share of difficulties. Battery technology still needs to improve, both in terms of performance and cost. But electric vehicles have a development path already established. The commercial success of hybrids is leading to cost decreases that will soon lead to the plug-in hybrid. With more widespread use of plug-in hybrids and with the emerging technology of rapid charge batteries, it is likely that we will soon see an all-electric vehicle that is desirable to a majority of the population.
Solutions to our energy problems do exist, but it will take a variety of technologies to reach our goals. Of the alternative transportation options, electric vehicles coupled with increased use of renewables and other clean sources of energy will be the most efficient way to reduce pollution and eliminate dependence on foreign oil. We need to look at all of the issues to concentrate funding on the solutions that make sense.
Ben Cipiti received his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Ohio University and PhD in nuclear engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He currently works at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with research interests in energy economics, fusion energy, the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear material safeguards. He is also the author of The Energy Construct.
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
This air-car thing nags at me. Air is simply the working fluid, so to speak, offering no energy value in and of itself, though a lot of people without engineering or physics groundings seem to have the idea that it will "run on air," and are wondering why others are paying little attention to this effort. (cont'd)
Interesting that basically all comments lean in the direction of a "silver bullet technology" that will solve all our future transportation challenges from a sustainability perspective. Eventually (say 50-100 yrs) there may be a "preferred" solution, but based on the resources currently available globally and regionally, it appears that there will not be one solution that will be as "easy" to use as oil and/or natural gas.
This will require a significant change of mind in the way we think about future solutions, and keeping our minds and perspectives open to combinations of technologies will help with this. Hopefully everyone involved in this discussion can remember this.
Sure there is.
It's called the second law of thermodynamics.
Cars 30 years ago, on average, had better fuel economy than they do right now. Thats pathetic.
http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png
Especially when you consider that mpg versus gallons consumed is actually expontential, not linear.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/19/152610/35
One of the biggest things they could do is mandate that cars above a certain curb-weight need to be diesels or better.
The only possible unbiased evaluation consists of two parts:
Total fuel dollars spent per mile traveled, on average for the Nth mile.
--and --
Total capital dollars to travel an arbitrary distance, say 100,000mi over the life of the vehicles' power trains.
That's it! Anything else is propaganda and or decoration.
The tough part is ferreting out all the subsidies hidden in the production of each and every fuel evaluated. And each drive train technology.
The most qualified guys to do the physical research portion of the task are probably Adam & Jamie aka the "Myth Busters"... All in all this is the easy part.
The hard part is getting the producers to put a couple of forensic accountants on staff with Tory, Grant, and, Kari. Yeah, that's how difficult that part of the task would be.
many of you have the answer. As Jeff and Roger out it so well. WE NEED ALL OF THESE IDEAS IE Anyway what I am saying is there is not going to be one silver bullet to solve our energy woes. We need to develop all these technologies to achieve energy independence and we need to do it now. Along the way as we learn more some of the technologies will probably fall by the wayside and the ones that are viable will remain.
When You combine the best of each technology you really get synergy. If you make H2 from renewables or even off peak electricity it is very good GREEN hydrogen.
If you use the electric, H2 and other forms of energy efficiently it is even better. If we work together instead of fight we use our energy for the overall best answers. Some may even vary is different areas of the country and world.
Let's work together and combine the best choices. Oil pollution and Global Warming are real.
Previous Article
