America Needs a Mission for Energy Independence

(Excerpt from the book, A Convenient Solution)

That mission is to discover, develop and implement practical ways to save us—the United States and the world—from the ravages of the fossil fuel dragon. We should do our utmost to make everyone aware of available options for safe, affordable energy generation and use. We should also try to motivate everyone to demand we adopt these options.

We need to develop realistic solutions to the energy crisis from among the multitude of products and systems that are in use, under development, or even latent ideas in the minds of America’s creative genius. We must collect and examine descriptions of fuels and energy systems—past, present, and future—and of many possible and practical ways to replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels or energy systems. All of the new systems could replace fossil fuels as the prime energy source for our nation and even the world. In the process this could lead to a carbon dioxide neutral energy system, one that adds no new CO2 to our atmosphere. The options needed are real and practical alternatives to fossil fuels that will replace the use of petroleum and coal-based fuels with renewable, non polluting fuels and in the process:

1. build an American energy system that will stop the hemorrhaging of billions of U.S. dollars, mostly to despotic nations that preach our destruction:

2. build an American energy industry that boosts our economy and provides good jobs for many Americans:

3. stop the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide and that possible link to global warming: and

4. accomplish most of this within just the next ten years.

There are many energy systems, sources, and conversions that comprise our total energy system. The requirements of the components of such a workable system should be judged by the following criteria:

● They should be relatively inexpensive to utilize.

● They should be developed using environmentally sound, sensitive principals

● They should be far easier, simpler and less expensive to implement than the hydrogen fuel cell system.

● They should be adaptable to our existing infrastructure with minor changes.

● They should use raw materials we already have or that can be developed here, locally.

● They should be applicable to existing vehicles with relatively minor upgrading.

● They should be useable with existing IC (Internal Combustion) engines of all types.

● They should be developed using existing, evolving technology able to be essentially complete within ten years.

● They should create a system that is a net zero contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

● They should use an evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary change—a good start to becoming constantly improving, adapting systems driving numerous growing and improving technologies.

● They should be developed by America-based industry with the many resulting substantial benefits to our nation—social, political, and economic.

While the main thrust of such systems will be to provide new, better, less expensive and less environmentally intrusive systems for energy and transportation, there are many benefits other than just getting away from fossil fuels. These include direct positive effects on four of the first seven of the top twenty-two “most serious concerns of the American public” as shown in a public survey conducted by MIT and cited below.

No. 1 Terrorism—cut off the billions in oil money now going to so many despotic regimes and into funding of terrorism, chiefly to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who plan our destruction.

No. 3 The Economy—a greatly expanded American energy industry would be an enormous boon to our economy if it only shut off the hemorrhaging of money for oil.

No. 4 Employment—thousands of high-paying new jobs would be created right here.

No. 7 Federal budget deficits—profits from new and expanded industries would pour billions into the federal treasury; money now going out overseas.

No. 13 The environment—may be far down the list of public concerns, but net carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. That can’t be anything but good.

Even with these substantial benefits bundled into grand plans there are significant forces to be dealt with. Forces that can make a new idea work or relegate it to the ash can of history. There are real difficulties and obstacles to overcome in order for any new system to become a reality no matter how positive and/or effective that system might be. Indeed, the battle to get the most beneficial systems noticed and made a reality may require more effort than the implementation of the idea or system itself. The process, once begun, may take completely unexpected twists and turns in moving, sometimes forward and sometimes back, but always in the ultimate direction of successful implementation.

Our space program and its “put a man on the moon” goal followed just such a wandering path en route to its success. We can expect no less from our efforts to find a new fuel/energy system which certainly has a more powerful practical and obviously profitable goal. Clearly, President Kennedy’s commitment to put a man on the moon in ten years and the follow-up on that commitment was a major force in making it happen. Media hype and glamorization help garner public support and enthusiasm. That was a government program operated by a government agency which was implemented mostly by private contractors according to government bid specifications. It was a process oriented solution with a single defined goal.

What we need now is leadership courageous enough to boldly state a goal such as eliminate the use of fossil fuels in ten years and then work ceaselessly toward achieving that goal. Leadership that will initiate a system oriented, broad spectrum approach to solving our growing energy crisis. This is an even greater challenge than putting a man on the moon, a serious challenge that could be instrumental in securing our very survival. We need this ten-year goal declaration to be well stated and backed by leadership with vision and the dedication to follow through. The commitment would be to develop new energy systems that will provide American-made renewable fuels or other portable energy systems and will add no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and do it within the next ten years. This is a much broader multiple goal than putting a man on the moon. Indeed it has many branching and interconnected avenues which could lead to a successful solution. I believe the key to final success will be found in the development of several areas of research rather than a single one. The best combination of energy sources, means of obtaining that energy, means of moving the energy from source to use point, and finally the systems of using that energy. There may be a variety of equally effective systems fitting differing needs. The result could end up a variation on the current theme where we use several types of systems in different configurations .

The attention given to new energy and fuel systems will undoubtedly involve effort into other seemingly unconnected areas. We are still deriving long-term benefits from technology developed for our space program. It would certainly be the same for any fuel/energy program. It is amazing to discover that so many of our serious problems are interrelated and how finding one solution often leads to another almost totally unrelated solution and so to the demand for another workable system.

Existing systems

Presently there are at least seven petroleum-based and mined fuels used in a variety of engines and boilers. These are in addition to coal used mostly in power plants. Use of all of these fossil fuels add carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. There are at least six non fossil-based fuels currently being used or being considered for use. Most are manufactured from plant materials and add no-net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in use. Some do add carbon dioxide in their process of manufacture. There are a few non fossil solid fuels, mostly used for heating and cooking. There is a wide variety of harvesting and manufacturing processes used to obtain or make these fuels. Some of these manufacturing processes require more energy input than the resulting fuel can produce.

There is also the special case of nuclear fuels that use radioactivity to generate heat to boil liquids that drive turbine generators. Since these do not use combustion, they do not release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The only reason we need fuel is to provide heat energy which we then convert to electricity or mechanical power. There are at least five combustion-based systems in use. The internal combustion piston engine is the most common and the most developed. Turbine engines make up the rest of the internal combustion types. Other sources of power include: piston steam engines, turbine steam engines, several types of nuclear reactors, fuel cells, and batteries. All of these power sources turn energy derived from chemical reactions or nuclear fission into electricity or mechanical energy which then powers vehicles, tools, and factories.

There are at least six types of batteries in use, some of which are very new and just beyond the development stage. These new technologies will come of age when continuing development of improved technologies lower their costs and improve their safety and efficiency.

Electric motors of many types and sizes, long important in stationary applications and semi-portable tools are growing in use in vehicles. The fastest growing application of new battery technologies is now battery-powered, cord-free tools and electronic equipment. Application of these new batteries to hybrids, plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs), and even pure electric vehicles (EVs), is just in the beginning stages.

In the power plant segment of our energy system there are at least eight very different sources of energy we use to drive the generators that produce our electricity. Each has its own positives and negatives and all can pose serious environmental problems.

I have described all of these parts of our energy system to illustrate how complex it is. Making any major change would be a difficult and arduous task. Even deciding which changes to make—what system to develop—will be difficult. The answer could lie in a very successful technique used mostly in America for a long time, individual entrepreneurship in a relatively unfettered capitalist business environment.

The challenge ahead

There are literally thousands of individuals using their genius to develop new energy technologies motivated by the promise of rewards for themselves and for their organizations. We are not alone in free entrepreneurship. The powers that control China have suddenly realized its value and are now encouraging it. This has created one of the biggest economic turnarounds in the history of nations. Other nations have seen the light for some time and their economies are booming. Even India, the other Asian giant, is beginning to loosen the socialist government reins that have held their economy in check for so long. The phenomenal growth of the Irish economy is another example. Internet access to the rest of the world and primarily the free world has been a factor in these changes. Even some governments that once controlled virtually every aspect of their people’s lives are now recognizing the value of free entrepreneurship, and even capitalism. Profit is no longer a dirty word in many of these nations. Tom Friedman details these changes in his recent book, The World is Flat 2.0.

Ireland is a prime example of what can happen when government frees businesses and entrepreneurs from oppressive controls and taxes. After years of wallowing in poverty in a country where government controls and high taxes on business stifled progress and discouraged investment of both time and money, the Irish took a dramatic new course. Government interference and controls of business were largely abolished. Complex reporting that bogged down management was mostly thrown out. Corporate taxes once among the highest in the world were reduced or eliminated. Government changed from being the enemy of business to being a strong supporter. The results speak for themselves.

Ireland is now one of the most vibrant economies in Europe. Business is booming like never before. There are now many high paying jobs and investment capital is flowing freely into a nation that once couldn’t coax any investors. In the last twenty years more then 1,000 foreign companies have moved to or opened operations in Ireland. Local firms have also flourished and greatly expanded with worldwide impact. Employment has grown so much that Ireland now imports thousands of workers just to keep their industries running. All of this success is because of the new positive attitude of the government of Ireland to the development of business. This radical new attitude has brought on the availability of world class support services including banking, trade finance, transport systems and advanced telecommunications.

Historians like Tom Garvin are having trouble keeping score. "I have to make a mental effort to remember the Dublin of the 1950s, which was in many ways a Third World city," recalls Garvin. "Horses, no motorcars, children in bare feet, dirt everywhere, people living in slums, no television, no bathrooms - a really impoverished European country that didn't seem to be going anywhere." The picture today is almost unbelievably different: hopeful, optimistic, enthusiastic, almost ecstatic. This amazing economic outcome resulted from government working with business rather than against it and removing oppressive tax burdens rather than imposing them. What also helped was a pro-business attitude of people and even the media rather than the class hatred and anti business attitude we see so prevalent in our own country today.

The concerted effort to solve our energy problems if augmented by this kind of positive attitude and action by everyone here at home would certainly stimulate the economic growth that has sustained our economy at such high levels for so long. If our efforts at solving our energy crisis are driven by hope for substantial economic rewards we will surely succeed and hugely so. If on the other hand, those anti-business voices of doom and gloom succeed and control our government with the new oppressive regulations and taxes they have promised, our economy could will surely go into reverse and much more quickly than even the present slow down has indicated. The fall of the dollar we are currently experiencing will accelerate. Those entrepreneurs who might have solved our energy crisis will do so in Ireland, or China, or India as our stifled economy sinks into depression and our energy needs go unsolved.

How we approach and deal with this serious problem and the attitude we take toward those who have the power to solve it will ultimately decide which technologies prosper and which fall by the wayside. The steadily rising costs of petroleum fuels has made alternative systems practical that were far too expensive when oil was five dollars a barrel. One possible stumbling block to these changes could result from an effort by OPEC to increase the supply of oil and thus reduce the price. Eventually dwindling supplies of petroleum would wipe this out as a practical tactic.

There are many serious and demonstrable problems solving the energy crisis will effect right now. The biggest is the outflow of billions of dollars for oil to nations that preach our destruction. The boost to our economy alone would create a bonanza in this country like we have never before seen. New jobs, new technologies, new industries, and new entrepreneurs would flourish. Even without new taxes (what a dream that is) government revenue would soar from the increased economic activity. The demise of the oil industry would certainly be replaced by the new energy industries. Actually, those oil companies that got aboard these new technologies rather than opposing them, could use their present wealth to invest in them and grow rather than fade away.

Whether or not human contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere creates global warming is actually only remotely connected to our energy related problems. If these new energy systems eliminate the wholesale use of fossil fuels, so much the better. Even if it has a negligible effect on global warming, it can do no harm to maintain the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere near to where it has been for a very long time. That would also satisfy the demands of the global warming proponents and opponents and redirect their energies elsewhere to other far more dangerous challenges facing humanity. Concrete benefits to the rest of the world with the exception of the oil-rich nations would also be substantial.

Some predictions:

After studying energy systems of so many kinds I am convinced that the future will see the greatest growth in energy generated in the form of electricity, distributed and used by a wide variety of systems. I see rapid growth in electric generating capacity primarily in nuclear, but with geothermal a close second and possibly eventually leading. I see a decline in coal fired power plants unless we find a practical technology to gather and sequester carbon dioxide, a very difficult and expensive challenge. I see wind and direct solar generation as always being too expensive and remaining minor players in contribution to the grid. Their use in small, local applications where connection to the electric grid is expensive and to home heating and providing hot water will probably be a substantial benefit and addition to the energy mix. Hydropower will not grow much as environmental concerns will make it increasingly expensive. One interesting possibility now being studied is the conversion of ocean wave action to electrical energy. Thus far, costs and practicality seem reasonable and downsides appear to be virtually nonexistent.

Vehicles will become more electric and less fuel powered as battery technology continues to improve and rapid charging systems are developed. There will always be hybrids, mostly electric vehicles with onboard charging capability, because charging capabilities may be unavailable in some places. Of course there could also be additional growth in micro turbine generators which are already being used for both remote and emergency power applications. Variety will be great at least as technologies progress and new ones come along.

There are several effective new fuel and energy systems to replace the existing system based on coal and petroleum with one that does not use fossil fuels. The benefits of such systems are many, varied, and have far-reaching positive attributes. These include immeasurable economic and political benefits for the citizens of any state or country that adopts them and environmental benefits for the entire world.

There are many innovative new products and technologies that could help us move to a new energy system with a low, or possibly zero-net carbon dioxide environmental impact. Many of these are already available and on the market. Others are soon to come. All that is needed is acceptance by the buying public and the associated development of better technologies and manufacturing capabilities. Some effective PR would provide a big boost.

Two possible direct replacements for gasoline are butanol (butyl alcohol) and 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF). Both have been available for a long time primarily as solvents and paint thinners. Both can be used in current gasoline engines with little or no modifications. Their high cost relative to gasoline is now changing as gasoline prices rise. New manufacturing techniques have already lowered the production costs of these new fuels to competitive levels. These also have the possibility of being made out of waste plant materials by active biota. Several new techniques have already shown some success. All that is needed is further research and development of processes that can be scaled up to meet the kind of quantities required for a gasoline replacement.

One caveat regarding alternative fuels is already creating serious problems that can only grow worse. Enough corn, wheat and soy beans are being diverted from food to energy use (as ethanol and biodiesel) to bring about some major increases in the costs of these grains. Most have hit all time highs on the grain markets and no sign of a relaxation of this upward trend has yet appeared. Farmers everywhere are thrilled with this new bonanza. Increases in prices for all baked goods, meats, eggs and milk—anything that uses or requires grains—are already quite noticeable in stores.

Another concern that has quite a different but equally negative effect is the growing of palms for palm oil to be used as biodiesel fuel. Much tropical rain forest is being cut, burned and cleared to grow palms for the highly profitable oil they produce. Destruction of rain forest with its huge capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere could more than counter any gain in the carbon dioxide balance from use of biodiesel from palm oil. I’m certain there are other problems with conversion to renewable fuels from crops.

There are many other ways to produce biodiesel that could become practical were we to pursue them aggressively. One that is well documented is the use of Algae fed nutrients from waste water or other biological waste materiels to produce useable oils. View the Internet site http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html. for more information on this example of just one possible process. Many of these new technologies would bear fruit if more research were provided. This would accomplish two needed goals. One would be to produce biodiesel without interfering with food crops. The second is make profitable use of waste materials that now cost money for their disposal.

Using food crops to make biofuels has already caused disruption to the food supply which is only going to grow worse. Because of this, I favor emphasis on new fuels made from non-food chain raw materials along with new battery technologies, electric vehicles and a great expansion of geothermal power generation to cover the increased energy demand. These are some of the only readily acceptable and practical options that can lead us away from dependence on fossil fuels without a major disruption of our food supply or serious damage to our environment. I see no practical development of cost-effective fuel-cell powered vehicles, hydrogen or otherwise, without a major breakthrough in technology. Although such a breakthrough is always possible, there seems to be no hint of any in the foreseeable future.

There are powerful and deeply entrenched economic and political forces all over the world that actively oppose any system to replace fossil fuels. This is because it would challenge their power and control over energy. I trust our nation will overcome this opposition and lead the world by becoming the first to adopt such a system. If we don’t, I’m certain China, India and several other countries will jump at the chance to be first with new energy technology and its associated benefits.