Of course, the first thing we tend to think of, with good reason, when someone mentions energy, is energy that would power cars. Next, we think of electricity, and home heat. Since energy is comprises about half our trade deficit, it is fair game for this blog. Before one can be serious about discussing "alternative" energy sources, one must first be able to answer this question: 

In the 2008 movie "Iron Man," the prototype miniature Arc Reactor is capable of putting out three gigajoules per second. In the 1985 movie "Back to the Future," the Flux Capacitor is a device that requires 1.21 gigawatts of power. 

1. True or false: The Arc Reactor is capable of powering a Flux Capacitor.
2. If False, what is the smallest whole number of Arc Reactors required to power one Flux Capacitor?
3. If True, what is the largest whole number of Flux Capacitors that can be powered by one Arc Reactor?
4. In "Iron Man," Yinsen stated that 3 gigajoules per second would be enough to power Stark's heart for fifty lifetimes, and Stark countered that alternatively it would be enough to power something big for fifteen minutes. What is wrong with both of those statements?

a) It wouldn't be enough power to do either of those things.

b) It wouldn't be enough energy to do either of those things.

c) The units given do not divulge the total power yield.

d) The units given do not divulge the total energy yield. 

If you can't answer this question in five minutes without a calculator (if you think you need a calculator, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree), then in my book, you have no business arguing alternative energy sources (If you're stumped, the answer is at the end of this blog entry). This really is important, because the last time I checked, Wikipedia's wind power article was hopelessly out to lunch for grossly confusing (theoretical) peak output capability (megawatts) with annual production (gigawatt/hours). They are entirely different things!

I was listening to yesterday's Jerry Doyle show, with scientist Dr. Bill Wattenburg. Dr. Bill had some very definite ideas about what our energy policy should be, in a word or two, natural gas. One of his proposals was that all Federal vehicles should be executively ordered to be run on natural gas. During discussion, he did admit that it would be more workable for big trucks than for cars, since trucks could carry the heavier steel required. Of course, this inherently tends to admit that NG is not practical for use in passenger autos. He also claimed that electric cars and hydrogen powered cars are frauds. He also seemed to inherently shun coal as "dirty," "filthy," and "smelly" (correct 20 years ago, but not so much today). Since it's fresh in my mind, and since everything else I plan to write about is a lot more involved and I have been too busy just staying alive, I may as well spit out my energy policy recommendations, and the reasons for them.

First and foremost, in any energy policy, the goals of the policy should be stated in priority order. I think anyone who does not do this is either pushing a policy that is not that well thought out, or is attempting to serve an unstated agenda (i.e. being disingenuous). With this in mind, a sound domestic U.S.A. energy policy should

1. Be practical enough to implement relatively ubiquitously and inexpensively;
2. Have at least 100 years of longevity in terms of practical and economic sustainability;
3. Expand the current energy supply;
4. Be reliable;
5. Minimize foreign dependence as a security consideration;
6. Minimize imports as an economic consideration;
7. Minimize cost as an economic consideration;
8. Minimize environmental impact as an ecological consideration.

With these goals in mind, we can now turn to the various options in no particular order in order to evaluate each based on goal feasibility.

• Hydrogen - not today, not tomorrow, maybe next century

Dr. Bill called hydrogen power a fraud. His reasons for stating so is that he claims that hydrogen is negatively productive in terms of energy cost versus energy yield. He also seemed to intimate that the only way to get hydrogen fuel is to electrolyze water. I agree that hydrogen is not a practical fuel, but for completely different reasons. 

First, hydrogen, that is, free hydrogen, is almost non-existent on Earth. At best, it is a trace element, but any free hydrogen is quickly lost in outer space. The only way we can get hydrogen is to "make" it (most of the methods do not actually create hydrogen, but merely break it out of existing molecules that contain it in non-free form). Many compounds contain hydrogen, but whatever compounds we use as a source must be sufficiently abundant so as to provide a practical fuel supply. That restriction leaves precious few alternatives, namely, either to electrolyze an abundant low-energy hydrogen-containing compound, such as water, or to use a chemical process to "split" the hydrogen from an abundant high-energy hydrogen-containing compounds, such as those found in fossil fuels. The former case requires that the hydrogen be derived at a direct energy loss; the energy harvested from burning hydrogen is less than the energy required to "make" the hydrogen, In the latter case, since high-energy hydrogen would be derived from compounds that are already usable fuels, the energy effectiveness of hydrogen would have to be compared to the energy output of burning the fuels directly. In all cases, when viewed in this light, harvesting hydrogen still comes at a net energy loss.

Whether use of hydrogen from high-energy hydrogen-contining compounds, as an automotive fuel, is advisable at this point depends on the goal analysis. If the paramount goal is environmental conservation, without any weight whatsoever given to cost, practicality, or U.S. energy independence, then it is indeed possible to harvest hydrogen from fuels such as petroleum or coal with a negligible ecological footprint, and, since hydrogen, when burned, produces water, its use is also pollution free.

Conversely, if the paramount goal is energy independence, and electrical energy can be had at a lower dependence cost than petroleum, then any fuel that would shift the US away from petroleum, including hydrogen electrolyzed from water at a net energy loss, would be a beneficial move. However, ecologically, this approach is worse than neutral because it requires somewhat more fuel energy to "make" the hydrogen than would be reclaimed by burning it.

If, on the other hand, practicality ranks high in the goal priorities, as it does with me, then hydrogen powered cars is a losing proposition compared to other alternatives. Aside from being a highly inefficient energy loser, hydrogen is also highly corrosive. Since even the most modern internal combustion engines use bare surfaces of ferrous (iron containing) materials exposed to the combustion, it follows that while you could make a car engine run on hydrogen, you would be lucky to get 5,000 miles out of it before it corroded. That practical consideration alone calls for the rejection of hydrogen as a fuel until we can perfect non-ferrous engine blocks (something they have been working on without practical success for decades). Furthermore, since hydrogen is a highly flammable gas that cannot be liquified at temperatures above 1K (warmer than 458 degrees F below zero), the heavy steel cylinders coupled with the massive high pressure needed (more than 3000 psi) are also highly impractical and very dangerous for use in passenger cars.

Now for the science-fiction caveat... you will note that I stated in the beginning that free hydrogen (already in burnable form) was virtually non-existent on Earth. On Venus and Mars, it's rare even in low-energy molecular form (the real reason those planets are lifeless -- we have water). However on Jupiter and Saturn, the atmospheres are overflowing with free hydrogen. At some point in the future, free hydrogen could be readily mined from those planets for thousands and thousands of years. Our biggest worry about using extra-terrestrial hydrogen as fuel would be that we didn't deplete our oxygen! Hopefully we'll have fusion power by then too, so we could mainly use the gas-giant planets as sources of deuterium and tritium (yet heavier hydrogen). Hopefully we will have these things in 100 years, so that prospect tends to ground our argument for sustainability of energy sources.

• Battery powered cars

Dr. Bill also calls electric cars a fraud, because they operate at a net energy loss, and since the electricity required to charge the batteries comes largely from "dirty filthy smelly" coal. However, as I have hinted, in 2012, coal fired electrical plants are highly "clean" so long as you don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant, which I do not (global warmists would vehemently disagree, so make sure your tetanus booster is up to date before engaging one of those in discussion on the topic). In terms of practicality, the new seven-passenger Tesla S sedan coming out this year can travel 360 miles on a single charge, which would make an adequate taxi. The cost of that charge would be about $2.50 at current electricity rates. Conversely, the gasoline cost of driving a Ford Crowne Victoria (the most popular taxi vehicle) 360 miles is well over $80.00!!!! That's a fuel-cost per mile ratio of 32 to 1!!! Comparing that to gasoline in terms of the goal priorities that I have set, the car would be practical for most daily applications, but don't plan on taking any long trips. Still, for use as a taxi that would be operated only one shift per day, it would be more cost effective than a Crowne Victoria despite the nearly $50k difference in purchase price.  If both the Tesla S and the Crowne Victoria are purchased new and run for eight years at current gasoline and electricity prices, despite the near $50k difference in price (insurance could be a tie breaker). Compared to the gasoline powered Toyota Prius hybrid, however, the Prius beats out the Tesla on overall cost of operation by a margin of 20 percent.at current gasoline prices. Of course, if gasoline prices were to rise, this comparison could easily change. When battery technology improves in the near future, so will the prospect of practical electric cars. 

In terms of goal analysis, electric cars (i.e. battery powered cars) appear to soon be practical and economical, so that's two. On my goal priority list, energy independence also ranks very high, so this is where I part company with Dr. Bill on two fronts. I disagree with Dr. Bill that non-pollution is more important than energy independence, and also that coal-fired electricity is an undesirable prospect. Coal is by far our most abundant fuel (blows uranium out of the water), and is a national treasure for the USA. The only current environmental concern to my mind is not with the burning, but with the mining of coal, since it is currently too destructive of biological land resources (top soil, ground water, vegitation, and animal life). However, these things could be improved with a little effort (much less effort than developing practical oil shale harvesting techniques). So the big thing that electric cars give you, in my book, is that they indirectly allow cars to be converted from imported oil to domestic coal, at a small fraction (ONE THIRTY-SECOND!!!!) of the fuel cost. That's a win win in my book. Go Tesla!

• Nuclear Energy

Nuke 101: There are two kinds of nuclear energy, fission (using Uranium as fuel), and fusion using deuterium (heavy hydrogen) as fuel. Both have been demonstrated to be capable of highly energy-profitable use. However, with current technology, fusion has yet to be able to make it past the bomb stage (the only energy-profitable fusion reactions produced thus far have been in H-bombs -- not exactly a usable form of energy). For all practical conversation, nuclear energy means fission powered using Uranium fuel.

Nuclear energy, if produced without catastrophy, is pollution free. The talk about radioactive waste is largely a straw-man argument. Yes, the waste is toxic, but only because it is more concentrated than the uranium ore that was removed from the ground. At a distance of 100 yards, the backround radiation is the same as the ore removed from the ground, so the only caveat is that you have to stay 100 yards away from the waste. Does that mean it's completely safe? No, but neither was the uranium that was already there, so you can't win, you can only hope to break even. From a break-even point of view, nuclear waste is no worse than the original mined mineral from a distance of 100 yards. Some anti-nuclear rhetoric compares apples and oranges. They say "some of the waste is very high level (i.e. highly radioactive) and some of it has half-lives in the thousands of years." Foul! The higher the level, the lower the half-life. The two are mutually exclusive. The high level stuff dissipates quickly, and the low level stuff (that lasts a long time) is not worse than the original uranium ore. So yeah, it's yucky stuff, but it was naturally yucky to begin with, and not meaningfully more yucky as waste. 

Aside from the prospect of a meltdown (which won't ever happen if done right) and the waste being almost as nasty as natures uranium ore (which is tantamount to a push), nuclear energy is veritably pollution free, moreso even than hydroelectric power (discussed next). So why don't we do more of it? Why have we suppressed nuclear power? Well, there is a catch, but it's a catch that almost nobody talks about. Currently, nuclear energy represents a small fraction (less than one tenth) of the world's total electricity supply, yet at current consumption levels, the known reserves of nuclear fuel on the planet will last less than 100 years. That means that even at zero population growth, if the USA were to expand its nuclear energy program to replace all of the country's fossil fuel fired electricity, and nobody else did the same, we would run out of uranium in about 15 to 20 years! So much for fission... it fails the goal of 100 year sustainability... miserably. Now THAT's something you don't hear about too much, only on this blog. I was all about expanding nuclear power in the USA until I learned this little ugly fact. Now, not so much. It's a short-term stopgap at best. The only good news is that nuclear plants can be converted to coal-fired fairly easily.

• Wind Power -  Supplemental only - subject to NIMBY

  As intuition would dictate, the biggest problem with wind power is that the wind itself is capricious. Unlike hydroelectric power that uses reservoirs of water to maintain a steady flow, wind energy can only be produced at the mercy of the wind; no wind, no power. While it is true that the wind is always blowing somewhere, and that a vast network of windmills could always provide some power, it remains that unless the entire planet is blanketed with wind turbines, there would be good days and bad days... not exactly reassuring for the supermarket owner who has a significant investment in frozen food. At best, any form of wind power that is currently being contemplated can be used to reduce fuel consumption on windy days, thereby prolonging the longevity of our resources and reducing (not replacing) our use of fuel based energy.

  Since one of the obvious advantages of wind power is that the fuel is both inexhaustible and free, at first blush it seems like a great idea if it can be implemented cheaply enough. Since there are plenty of wind-farms already in place, we need no longer speculate on its efficacy. Rather, let us look at real numbers. Let us compare known and installed wind generating capacities with actual production numbers, using the top producing countries for which both capacity and actual production are both published on Wikipedia in its "Wind Power" article. Let us also assume that since the fuel is free (i.e. cheaper even than nuclear), that usage would be maximized; favoring wind power before any fuel would be burned. In other words, let us assume that every kilowatt they could get out of the wind turbines, they in fact did get out of them.  Ok, here we go:

  Country	Capacity (GW)	Theo. Max. Prod (GW/h)	Actual Prod 2010 (GW/h)	Actual/Max (%)
  Germany	27.2	238,272	35,500	14.9
  Spain	20.7	181,332	42,976	23.7
  United Kingdom	5.2	45,552	11,440	25.1
  France	5.7	49,932	5,600	19.2

  If my assumptions are correct (i.e. that every kilowatt they could get from their wind farms, they did get), this list tells us a few things. First, it tells us that the average actual production averages about 20 percent of capacity. Second, based on the stated assumption, it tells us that even in the UK, the wind is capricious and unpredictable in the long term. However, it also tells us  that the cost per kilowatt has to be multiplied by at least 5 compared to capacity. One way to overcome this variability is to use the wind energy to power pumps that would in turn power an artificial hydroelectric plant, but that requires more generators, and defeats some of the space-saving advantages of wind turbines, as well as representing a 25 percent energy loss.

  The cost of the wind turbines themselves is about a $2 billion per gigawatt of capacity, so figure at least $10 billion oer usable gigawatt, which works out to about $10,000 per kilowatt. What that works out to in terms of kilowatt/hours (the unit we are accustomed to paying for in our electric bills), that of course depends on how many hours we're talking about. Let's liberally assume a ten year useful life for each wind turbine. If my math is right (but unlike Tony Stark, it isn't always right), that works out to about 11.4 cents per kilowatt hour just in principle for the turbines themselves. While that may not sound too bad, consider that it's about equivalent to retail electricity prices, whose costs go far beyond the cost involved in merely generating the electricity itself.

• Now let us take what we have learned

  Conclusion: Yes, wind power can be an important supplemental energy source, but it will never come close to replacing other sources. As far 
  

• Solar Power
• Natural Gas
• Electricity from Coal

TD

* Answer to the Arc Reactor / Flux Capacitor question: 

The Arc Reactor puts out 3 gigajoules per second (3 billion j/s), which is the same thing as saying 3 gigawatts of continuous power output. The Flux Capacitor requires 1.21 gigawatts (1.21 billion watts) of power (ostensibly for a very brief period of time, many times less than fifteen minutes). Therefore, 

1. it is true that the prototype Arc Reactor is capable of powering a Flux Capacitor. 
2. N/A since the answer to 1 is True.
3. two Flux Capacitors would require 2.42 gigawatts, and three flux capacitors would require 3.63 gigawatts. Therefore, the prototype miniature Arc Reactor could power at most two (2) Flux Capacitors.
4. Since the units stated for the Arc Reactors output are in terms of gigajoules per second, which is the same as gigawatts, and since this is a measure of continuous power output without respect to duration, it is indeterminate how long the Arc Reactor could power any device. Therefore, assertions as to how long any device may be powered based solely on power output capability is nonsensical. Furthermore, since gigajoules per second is an expression of power, yet to know how long something that required a given amount of power could run would require an expression of total energy yield, the answer is d) the units given do not divulge the total energy yield. 

True; the largest whole number of Flux Capacitors that the Arc Reactor can power is 2.