Revision Notes

      Over a year ago, I posted the second revision of this article.  Since then, much has changed.  Both Chyrsler and General Motors have gone into Chapter 11 reorganization and come out the other side leaner and more competitive automakers.  We have a new President, Barack Obama, who has appointed a true scientist, Dr. Steven Chu, as our Energy Secretary.  President Obama has also committed his administration to a bold new energy policy; one of clean and renewable innovation.

      Yet, we still have much to do to achieve true energy independence and meaningful climate change and with an economy left in tatters by the Bush administration, we have no choice but to keep a pragmatic eye on the bottom line.

      Throughout this article I have attempted to do just that; prioritizing my recommendations to address immediate needs while retaining a long range view of the political, environmental, and economic imperatives driving our energy considerations.  As I learn of new technologies or initiatives relevant to either short-term or long-term solutions, I will try to keep this article revised to incorporate them.  For the most recent developments, however, you may wish to check out my journal entries on my home page.

      When I first posted this article in June, 2008, the price of oil was well over $120 per barrel and the prices of gasoline and diesel over $4.00 per gallon at the pumps.  My first revision in July, 2008, saw those prices rise to over $145 per barrel and over $4.50 per gallon respectively.  My second revision in August 2008, found prices had retreated back to June, 2008 levels in the relative blink of an eye; clearly showing the artificial and profiteering nature of the price spikes.  As I post this third revision in July 2010, oil prices have slowly, but inexorably, worked their way back up to around $80 per barrel.

      I won't dwell on all the possible causes of that sort of price volatility.  I will only say it does not bode well for an economy so dependent on oil for its vitality and long-term stability.  Obviously, oil is not the only source of energy, but it is the primary source for transport purposes.  Fuels derived from oil share a unique portability, energy-to-weight ratio, and storage characteristics.  For a highly mobile society like ours, that means oil is at the exact center of many of the critical issues our nation faces.  So, while this article looks at all the energy issues we must find solutions for, special attention is given to keeping America's wheels turning over the long haul.

      Prologue

      In her book "Anne Frank Remembered", Miep Gies describes how the sturdy Dutch bicycles were as much a part of the Dutch cultural identity as any flag.  When the Nazis occupied Holland in WW-II, they made a point of forbidding Jews from owning bicycles as much to isolate them from Dutch society as to hinder any escape.  To BE Dutch is to ride your bike.

      We Americans are like that with our cars.  We are a mobile nation.  It's in our genetic makeup.  Ultimately, all of us came from somewhere else; all immigrants who traveled vast distances and endured many hardships along the way; asking nothing more than a fair shot at the American Dream.  For Americans to feel truly American, a private vehicle on the open road is not just a preference; it is an essential part of who we are.

      Ironic, then, that this very symbol of American freedom, our beloved automobile, should also be the iron shackle that enslaves us to the oiligarchy and the potential vehicle, if you will, of our own economic downfall.  We are the nation which put footprints on the Moon!  Certainly we can solve this crisis.  But where to start?


      A Look at American Oil Consumption

      The first step in any journey is to have a good map showing where you are and where you want to go.  Here, then, is a map of American oil consumption...

-- Approximately 4.5% of America's total annual oil consumption is used for heating residential and business properties.
-- About 2.5% of America's annual consumption is used for rail freight and rail transport fuel.
-- A little over 2% is used for public transport and short-range official vehicles fuels.
-- About 4% is used for construction and farm equipment fuels.
-- Ships and aircraft account for about 9.5% and 18.5% respectively, while the petrochemical industry accounts for roughly 11%.

I will address the approximately 4% of our total annual oil consumption to produce electrical power in a later section entitled "A New Kind of Powerplant^*1".  For now, if we tally all the above uses of oil (56% of our total consumption), we are left with 44% - nearly half - of our total annual oil consumption going to private and commercial vehicle fuels.  Now, here's the $64,000 question...

What percentage of America's total oil consumption is imported?

Answer: about 65%

      Shocking, isn't it?  Even more shocking when you combine the 44% consumed by private and commercial road vehicles with the rail, public vehicle, and farm/construction equipment consumption.  Nearly ALL our imported oil - over 52% of our total annual consumption - is accounted for by ground vehicles of one form or another.  Obviously, then, transport fuels present a mobile society like ours with the greatest risk exposure.  How, then, do we eliminate (or at least, dramatically reduce) that risk?


      Solving the Short Term Problem

      Unfortunately, There is no "quick fix".  It took the Oiligarchy over a century to get us into this mess and even with an emergency national program on a scale with the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program, it would still take at least a year or two to start turning things around; assuming, of course, the political will to do so in the face of an energy lobby specifically created to subvert that will.

      But let's take a great leap into the unknown and try looking at our energy issues without the oppressive and ominpresent yoke of the energy lobby slung across our collective necks.  How might we describe our most immediate problems and the most viable short-term solutions to those problems?  We might begin with two points of information seemingly unrelated.

      Point #1:  There are approximately 250 Million registered vehicles on America's roads today.  Of those 250 Million vehicles, up to 8% are capable of using E85 Flex Fuel or BioDiesel just as they are.  Another 36% are capable of being retrofitted to use E85 or BioDiesel.  That means around 110 Million vehicles on the road RIGHT NOW either can use - or can be converted to use - such fuels.

      Point #2: According to 2005 figures from the Environmental Protection Agency, America generated nearly 250 Million Tons of municipal solid waste in that one year alone.  We can safely assume incrementally higher figures for the last five years.

      Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could convert all that garbage from toxic landfills into fuel for our cars?  We CAN.  Cleanly, efficiently, NOW.  Dr. Dan Cohn of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, is one of the co-founders of Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC, (InEnTec); a company formed expressly to license a revolutionary new conversion process called the "Plasma Enhanced Melter" (PEM).

      At various facilities in the U.S. and around the world, InEnTec PEM's are being used to convert thousands of tons of municipal solid waste, hospital waste, and manufacturing waste into useful gases and chemicals; including hydrogen and ethanol.  The PEM process at the core of these new plants is a conversion process, NOT an incineration process, which dramatically cuts down on harmful emissions.

      In my original article, as well as in the first revision, I had looked at the challenge of producing bio-fuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) as close as possible to high demand zones to minimize the energy costs of transporting those fuels to market.  My suggestion at that time, was for our Congress to provide subsidies and tax incentives for building a nationwide network "vertical farms" and associated biomass plants on the immediate outskirts of all our major cities.

      While I continue to support building vertical farms near urban centers for BioDiesel and food production, there now seems a less pressing need for biomass to convert to ethanol when millions of tons of garbage are just sitting around waiting to be "harvested".  For our IMMEDIATE gasoline crisis, it seems logical to incentivize companies building PEM conversion plants, while also providing incentives to build vertical farms and BioDiesel plants.

      Equally logical is for our Congress to assist car and truck owners to retrofit existing vehicles for E85 FlexFuel and BioDiesel, or to purchase new FlexFuel and BioDiesel vehicles over the next two to three years.  I'll explain the need for that "sunset provision" shortly.

      After my second revision, I received a number of emails asking me why I seemed so gung-ho about FlexFuel and BioDiesel when Natural Gas produces significantly less greenhouse gases and Hydrogen fuel cells no greenhouse gases at all.  This is a fair question which would be difficult to answer if environmental impact was the sole consideration in what, I wish to reiterate, is a short-term solution.  There are economic factors involved as well which cannot be ignored if the solution is to be successful.

      Any short-term solution to our vehicle fuels crisis must have, as a key criterion for consideration, extant and ubiquitous distribution infrastructures to allow for rapid adoption.  Generally, short-term solutions should be viewed as transitional or "bridge" solutions which will eventually be replaced by more permanent or at least longer term solutions.  In that context, it would be difficult for both distributors and consumers of vehicle fuels, to justify the expenses involved in retrofitting millions of vehicles and tens of thousands of stations to support Natural Gas or Hydrogen fuels when - in the long run - those fuels are as intrinsically obsolete as even FlexFuel and BioDiesel will eventually become.  For now, there are significant numbers of FlexFuel and BioDiesel vehicles already in service as well as a large and growing nationwide network of fueling stations for vehicles designed (or retrofitted) for those fuels.

      As much as I loathe agreeing with T. Boone Pickens - a kingpin of the energy cartel - on anything, I have to acknowledge that the natural gas elements of his "Pickens Plan" can contribute to easing our short-term fuel needs (if predominantly for fleet vehicles and long-haul trucking).  Again, the economics of conversion just don't add up for private vehicle owners or station operators, but they are favorable for companies providing natural gas fueling hubs, owned and operated by those same companies to fuel their own fleets of trucks, cars, or equipment.

      The same economics would apply to Hydrogen fuel-cell conversions.  If you've visited some of the links provided above for the "PEM", you know that this technology can produce Hydrogen from solid waste just as easily as Ethanol; perhaps easier.  However, as a SHORT-TERM solution to our immediate vehicle fuel crisis, Hydrogen, like natural gas, makes sense only for companies which can recover the conversion costs of vehicles and centralized fueling hubs over time.

      While some additional incentives may be appropriate for both natural gas and hydrogen fuel-cell conversions, existing incentives already provide compelling economic justification for fleet vehicle and equipment companies to make such conversions.  The greatest short-term "bang for the buck" will be in offering private vehicle owners, individual station operators, and FlexFuel/BioDiesel producers significant incentives to rapidly expand adoption of those alternative fuels over the next two to three years.  Again, I've specified a relatively short sunset on such incentives.  Why?


      Part One of the Long-Term Solution: A New Kind of Car

      Later this year, a truly 21^st Century, mass production car will be rolling off the General Motors assembly lines and into showrooms across America.  You read that right.  The car company which brought us the Hummer and has consistently demonstrated an almost pathological resistance to innovation has built a car which is pure innovation.

      What makes The 2011 Chevy "Volt" innovative is that unlike most current gas/electric hybrids, the Volt's gasoline engine is not directly connected to the powertrain (transmission, drive-shaft, axles, wheels).  This small engine is little more than a generator to replenish the batteries when driving beyond the base 40 mile range of a full charge; giving the car a total range of a little over 400 miles on a full battery charge and a full fuel tank of about 7-9 gallons.

      As this article evolved over its first three versions, GM had been indicating its engineers were seriously considering a "FlexFuel" or E85 engine for the Volt.  As of this writing, however, the 2011 model will not have such an engine.  Neither will there be a small BioDiesel engine as an option.

      GM marketing also intimated over the last couple of years that they were shooting for a suggested retail price (MSRP) in the $30,000 - $32,000 range.  The actual release price has ballooned to around $41,000 for the base model and even with a full $7,500 federal tax credit, $33,500 is still a healthy chunk of change for your average middle-class family; especially in these shakey economic times.

      I won't hide my disappointment about these decisions by GM and can only hope they reconsider them for the 2012 model year.  Assuming, of course, sufficient sales in 2011 for there to BE a 2012 model.

      Another totally new electric vehicle (EV) hitting the showrooms later this year is the all-electric (no internal combustion engine or ICE) 2011 Nissan "Leaf".  The Leaf base model (the SV) has an MSRP of $32,780 and a fancier model (the SL) is pried at $33,720.  Both should qualify for the same $7,500 federal tax credit as the Volt, giving them "net" prices of $25,280 and $26,200 respectively.

      Nissan claims a maximum 100 mile range for the Leaf on a full charge.  While this is more than double the all-electric limit of 40 miles for the Volt, the Volt's ICE gives it another 300 miles before stopping for either a charge up or for gasoline.  The Leaf also requires installation of a special 240 volt "charging station" to recharge.  While GM offers a similar 240 volt charging station for the Volt, it can also be charged from a standard 120 volt power outlet.

      In short, the Leaf is less expensive with a greater all-electric range, but the Volt has a greater overall range with its ICE and is not tied to a proprietary charging station.

      The Volt, the Leaf, and similar plug-in hybrids won't allow us to break completely free of oil as a transport fuel.  However, over a five to ten year period, we could see a reduction of that 45% of total annual consumption to something more like 25%.  With E85 FlexFuel and BioDiesel becoming more prevalent, that figure might fall even further to around 14-18% of total consumption.

      Obviously, as such primarily electric or fully electric vehicles become more prevalent, they will impose ever increasing demands on our aging electrical grid.  You may be wondering at this point what efforts may be necessary to accomodate those vehicles.  You're not alone.


      Part Two of the Long-Term Solution: A New Kind of Power Grid

      Again, General Motors is amazingly out in front on this question.  Joel Makower, writing for Greenbiz.com in July 2008, describes a series of meetings between GM and 30 members of the Electric Power Research Institute.  While the question of capacity was obviously central to those meetings, they also addressed such issues as standardized connections, smart charging, mobile billing, and myriad other details.

      Converting our nation's ground transportation from primarily internal combustion driven to electrically driven is going to require a LOT of electricity; many TeraWatts of electricity.  We will need a system that can readily handle a 30% increase in load within five years, with a flexible enough architecture to handle a 70-80% increase within 15 years.  Our greatest challenge, however, will be storage.

      One of the major shortcomings of electricity as a power source is its transient nature.  Fossil fuels and radioactive materials can be stored for long periods of time and lose little of their potential energy.  Electricity, once generated, must often be used immediately, or just go to waste.  Today's battery technologies can sequester some of that energy for later use, but most batteries require time to charge; time which simply may not be sufficient to effectively capture short spikes of excess power.  A key element, therefore, of an advanced electrical grid would be an economic means of RAPIDLY STORING large amounts of excess energy whenever and for however short a duration such peaks may occur.

      In my previous revision I diverged from my original suggestion of building UltraCapacitor "farms" at locations throughout the nation close to high-demand centers such as industrial parks, steel mills, etc. as a way of capturing transient spikes of excess power.  Unlike batteries, "ultracaps" pose significantly less threat to our environment, last longer, charge and discharge faster, and can actually provide much higher short-term power densities.  Batteries, however, provide the sort of deep-storage yet to be realized with capacitors.

      I then asked you to consider why a growing population of plug-in electric and electric hybrid vehicles must rely solely on battery technologies to sequester electrical power.  Why not make our "hybrid" vehicles TRULY hybrid and combine the best qualities of ultracaps and batteries into a new sort of energy storage medium?  Plug those millions of "Hybrid²" vehicles into a truly "smart electrical grid" and you have the equivalent energy storage capacity of my original ultracap farms suggestion, without any need to build those farms!

      Efficient and intelligent delivery and storage of huge amounts of electricity is one thing... generating it is another.  Windmills and solar arrays are rapidly evolving as viable sources of energy, but a a 21^st Century nation like ours would literally need to be carpeted from coast to coast with windmills and solar arrays to generate the industrial levels of power currently provided by coal, natural gas, and nuclear fission powerplants.


      Short-Term Solutions to Our Electrical Energy Needs

      So, where do we currently get our industrial levels of electrical energy from?  2005 data at the Edison Electric Institute tells us:

-- 49.7% of our nation's electricity was generated from coal.
-- Nuclear FISSION reactors (I'll clarify that distinction shortly) produced 19.3%.
-- Natural gas supplied 18.7%.
-- Hydropower provided 6.5% of the supply.
-- Fuel Oil accounted for 3.0% of our electrical power.
-- Biomass produced 1.6% while other renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind, provided the remaining 1.2% of the supply.

      As a short-term solution to both a growing electricity demand and reduction of our fuel oil consumption for power production from 3% to 0%, I see little choice but to expand both coal-fired and nuclear fission production.  For the long haul, however, these are not solutions.  They are suicide.

      Coal, while relatively abundant, is an environmental nightmare; regardless of the spin energy lobbyists put on "the clean coal initiative".  It's extraction devastates our land, as its use devastates our air and water.  If global warming has a poster-child, it's coal.

      The "nuclear option", at present, means building new FISSION reactors at an alarmingly breakneck pace.  Alarming, because such reactors cannot have ANY mistakes.  Even if such plants are built quickly, with zero defects, and in quantities sufficient to match demand, let me just mention the year 9500 AD.  That's 7,500 years from now; a period of time FAR longer than recorded human history.  It is also the amount of time necessary for the TONS of spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste from FISSION powerplants to cease being LETHALLY radioactive.

      Think for a moment how much has happened in the last 7,500 years and you'll get some sense of the collosal hubris of our government assuring us they can safeguard this stuff at Yucca Mountain (or anywhere else) for that long.  7,500 years ago, simple agriculture was just getting started in the Nile valley and along the Euphrates.  Ancient Sumer had yet to exist and the pyramids were still about 2,400 years in the future!

Now here's the kicker...

      7,500 years is a CONSERVATIVE estimate on the deadliness of this stuff.  Depending on storage density and quantity, the real figure could be in excess of 10,000 years!  So, if coal and nuclear fission are both - quite literally - dead ends for America, what IS the long-term solution?


      Part Three of the Long-Term Solution: A New Kind of Powerplant^*1

      Nuclear FUSION powerplants will harness the reaction that takes place in our sun to generate energy.  They will use a form of water for fuel, create no radioactive waste, and have no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) potential, either directly, or by virtue of their reaction by-products.  They will, in fact, have only one by-product... helium.  Break out the party balloons!

      A FUSION reaction "fuses" atoms of extremely light elements like Hydrogen into atoms of slightly heavier elements like Helium.  Existing nuclear FISSION reactors are more like the original atomic bomb.  They rely on the "fission" (or splitting) of extremely heavy and unstable elements like Uranium-235 and U-238 in a controlled "chain-reaction".  The resulting radioactivity and heat is then used to drive steam turbines and ultimately generate electricity.

      FISSION powerplants must employ active measures to avoid a runaway chain-reaction; not only in the primary containment vessel, but also in storage pools for spent fuel rods.  If the complex controls in a current fission powerplant were accidently (or intentionally) disabled, a meltdown or even explosion could occur.

      FUSION reactions rely on sustaining a superhot, superdense, stew known as a "plasma".  This plasma can be used to bombard a surrounding jacket of lithium with neutrons to, in turn, heat water to drive steam turbines, or might be passed through a magnetic harness to generate electricity directly.  Active measures will be required to keep such a plasma at the required temperature and pressure to sustain a reaction.  If the controls of a fusion powerplant were somehow disabled, the fusion reaction would simply STOP.

      In both types of powerplants, provisions must be taken to protect plant personnel against high levels of radiation while in operation, but once the reaction ends in a FUSION powerplant, those high levels would rapidly dissipate.  As I mentioned earlier, current FISSION powerplants produce radioactive waste which remains deadly for a time longer than recorded history, but those by-products also have National Security implications beyond simple safeguarding for public health reasons.  FISSION powerplants generate a uniquely unstable class of radioactive by-products known as "transuranics" which include, among other nasties, Plutonium.

      Considering all the potential benefits of nuclear fusion powerplants over conventional fission powerplants, you may wonder why we still don't have a viable, commercial fusion powerplant?  Certainly, the technological challenges are daunting, but as you can see from the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and Lawrence Livermore Lab's National Ignition Facility (NIF), progress is being made.  To understand why we're being told it will take 30 years or more, you need only scroll up to the previous chapter and read off the top three providers of electrical power today.


      Epilogue

      Energy is at the core of every major issue facing America today.  Our economy, our security, our environment, our way of life, ALL depend on the choices we make as a people and our resolve to see those choices through the minefield of vested interests opposing us.  In 1961, our President challenged us to dream the impossible; to put Americans on the Moon and return those daring souls safely back to Earth and to do so within a decade.  Well, we DID it! In the process, the Lunar Program spawned thousands of new American industries; generating many tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs.  I see a comprehensive national energy program stimulating similar innovation, industry, and meaningful employment.

      The solutions to our energy issues, will NOT be found in the energy cartel's propaganda exhorting us to let them drill more holes in America.  As detailed above, our solutions must embrace fundamental changes in how we generate, store, and use energy.  Our greatest energy resource is not what lies beneath our feet, but what lies between our ears and the sooner we apply that resource to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and nuclear fission, the safer and more prosperous our nation will be.

      Few of the proposals I've made are wasteful.  Vertical farms can gradually be dedicated solely to urban food production as electric vehicles become more ubiquitous.  Ethanol plants can be profitably employed for a wide variety of alternative applications.  As for BioDiesel plants, who doesn't like fried foods?  Even contemporary oil refineries and coal mines will (to an obviously lesser degree), continue to be essential to the petrochemical products and pharmaceuticals we rely on in innumerable ways every day.  The ONLY totally useless artifact of our energy awakening will be the nuclear fission powerplants.

      Fusion powerplants may be down the road a bit, but when they're available, they will dovetail perfectly into a 21^st Century power infrastructure.  I believe we can make fusion power a reality within a decade, but even if it takes 30 years of lobbyist-sponsored foot dragging, fusion power IS coming.  The European Union, Russia, South Korea, Japan, India, and China are all aggresively funding fusion research.  If we are to remain a 21^st Century nation, we dare do nothing less.