By Christopher Moore
Here is an interesting article about biofuels posted at Functionalism In Action by Ian Conrad:
There is so much hype, today, about biofuels. They are seen as the savior of our nation — especially corn-ethanol; especially if one were to compare the subsidization that goes on here. But is this the right approach?
The article continues, making the following point with regards to a new process af turning corn sugar into good old fashioned gasoline:
To compare, the most effective gallon-per-acre biofuel crop right now is palm oil, which hovers around 680 gallons-per-acre. So this is more than triple the amount — and it’s good ol’ fashioned gasoline to boot! Here comes the number crunching. In 2004, the US used approximately 318 billion gallons of oil. At 2,000 gallons per acre, that comes out to roughly 159 million acres of arable land — and this is assuming that the cellulosic starch problem can be overcome — for which there are no hypothetical solutions yet available. According to the CIA’s “World Factbook”, the US has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land, 18.01% of which are arable. That’s 1,650,62 square kilometers. 1 acre = 0.00404685642 square kilometers, so the US has 407,739,281 acres of arable land. To maintain the energy usage levels of 2004 purely from biofuels derived from this process would require ~40% of all arable land in the nation.
The question Ian asks is an important one, considering a slew of would be presidents are busy interupting the breakfasts of Iowans: “What the devil is the justification of the subsidization of corn-ethanol production?”
Read the entire article here.
By Christopher Moore
I’ve decided to participate in the OneBillionBulbs project and have begun replacing my old incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving fluorescent bulbs. I encourage everyone else to join the ilovephysics.com group and begin saving money and energy.
The graphic will remain on the right side of the page.
Hat tip: Kn@ppster and Glen Reynolds.
By Christopher Moore
Fuel cell devices directly convert chemical energy into electricity by electrochemical reactions, and have received recent interest due to their lack of moving parts and relatively clean operation. Various types of fuel cells are currently discussed in the scientific literature, though polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFC) show characteristics that would make them suitable for automobile engines that produce zero emissions. (For a discussion on fuel cells in general, see this article.)
Several problems currently exist that limit the commercial viability of PEFCs, the largest being the cost of catalyst material. Though Pt has historically been the optimum cathode electrocatalyst for fuel cells, [1] the use of expensive Pt and Pt-based catalysts in fuel-cell electrodes makes their cost prohibitive. Since Pt requirements scale with fuel-cell size, large-scale fuel-cell costs can not be reduced through efficient production and economies of scale. If the transition to a hydrogen economy is to be realized, reductions in fuel cell costs are necessary. Otherwise the familiar rallying cry “no blood for oil” may be replaced by “no blood for platinum”. Recent studies have been conducted on means to reduce the amount of platinum necessary for successful catalysis, as well as studies to eliminate platinum from the process altogether. Specifically, in this article I examine studies of platinum monolayers, palladium alloys, and cobolt-polypyrrole composite catalysts.
(more…)
By Christopher Moore
I have a pure policy piece today. It’s about energy, so I think it is fair game for ilovephysics.com.
Republicans are using rising gas prices to foist an election year gimmick on us, and Democrats are pulling out the “Big Oil” bogeyman to scare us into voting for them. Both camps are full of … methane.
From the Libertarian Party:
A group of Senate Republicans are proposing to give every American taxpayer a $100 rebate check to offset the cost of high gas prices … Republicans are hoping this election-year gimmick will translate into success in November. Giving out a $100 gas rebate check is largely symbolic and will hardly provide any relief to America’s motorists. With the average gasoline price at $2.90 a gallon, many motorists will spend close to a $100 in little over a week.
Senate Democrats think the way out of high gas prices is to accuse the oil companies of price gouging. Democrats are taking this position even though the last price gouging investigation conducted after Hurricane Katrina yielded no evidence of retailers inflating the price of gasoline.
I certainly wouldn’t mind a $100 check in the mail, but obviously $100 doesn’t fix the problem (if you want to call it a problem.) That takes care of about 1 week of average two-car-family driving. And blaming oil companies doesn’t help either. Nor does it make sense. Here’s a few questions who’s answers may shed some light as to why:
How much profit does the average oil company make on an average gallon of gas right now? The answer will surprise you — $0.09.
How much do you pay in taxes on the average gallon of gas? You probably won’t be surprised by this one — $0.50.
So if the oil companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, decided to go non-profit then the cost of an average gallon of gas would drop from $2.92 down to $2.83. You’d save an average of $54 per year. And millions of retirees and pensioners who’s fixed incomes depend on their investments in oil companies would be eating dog food. But we forget that corporations are comprised of individual stockholders when there is an election. Oil company profits don’t look that big anymore, and price gouging doesn’t seem to be the problem.
But what about tax gouging? Drop $0.50 from the price and you’re down to $2.42. You just saved an average of $300 per year. So if gouging is going on, then who’s the biggest gouger? ExxonMobil Corp. reported $10 billion in net income in the third quarter, the largest ever by a U.S. energy company. So a back of the envelope estimate would yield a government profit of about $50 billion over the same period. And the government didn’t have to drill for a single barrel of oil! So how can a politician rail against Big Oil profits when their own votes in congress and state legislatures lead to windfall profits for the federal and state treasuries at the expense of yours and my paycheck.
Oil company executives are no saints. They push for government subsidies citing “National Interest”. They’ve bilked us (via our congressmen) for years. So I have little sympathy when it’s their turn for a spanking. But high gas prices aren’t caused by greedy price gougers. They’re caused by government taxes, regulations, and foreign policy. They’re caused by the fact that a room full of 10 geologists asked the question: “how much oil is left?” will result in 11 different answers.
Anyway, Greens should be excited about high gas prices. Democrats who favor alternative energy solutions should hope for even higher gas costs. About $0.50 more per gallon of gas, and hydrogen will start to be competitive.
UPDATE: It’s hard to believe it took a Democrat to suggest it, but Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has called for a 60-day suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax and the 24-cent a gallon diesel tax. Finally someone proposing something that makes sense. Thank you Sen. Menendez.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The term “Tax Gouging” is growing legs in the blogshpere. Hammer of Truth weights in, see Neil Cavuto rip into Senator Durbin at Flashpoint here, and the Banty Rooster gives their take.
By Christopher Moore
Gas prices have soared bolstering arguments for alternative energy sources. But are these alternatives any better? Any cheaper? Let’s see.
The recent price spike in the U.S. is not due to a global shortage of oil. Hurricane Katrina disrupted several major oil refineries and has hindered distribution to the 48 states, causing a very local shortage. Experts expect the price to settle back to pre-hurricane levels within a few months. Of course, this doesn’t address the larger issue: are we running out?
Most geologists consider fossil fuels to be “non-renewable,” meaning that one day we will run out. There is a small minority though that are not convinced this is the case. Some evidence is given in this article as well as this one by George Crispin.
There are a couple of theories about how fossil fuels are created. The most popular is that oil is biogenic and comes from plant and animal matter such as bone (hence “fossil” fuels). Of course, we add new bone to the Earth daily, meaning we should be adding to the oil supply daily, correct? Not exactly. What geologists mean by “non-renewable” is that we can’t make any new oil within a human time frame. It will take millions of years for my bones to turn into usable oil, and we are using oil faster than Mother Nature can create more.
The second theory of oil creation is that it is abiogenic, meaning all of the oil we have was formed with the Earth over 4.5 billion years ago. Dr. Thomas Gold has proposed a model based on this assumption that shows oil potential far greater than what many believe is currently available.
Right now, I will have to side with the conventional biogenic theory because I am no geologist. I trust the cadre of competent scientists who are pretty sure they are right. I’m no pessimist, though. I believe we have a while until oil production cannot keep up with demand. But if we are to run out, what are the alternatives?
The U.S. Government is gearing up to spend $1.7 billion to make hydrogen fuel cell cars a reality. Read this article to learn how they work.
Here’s the problem, though. Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it is not cheap to come by in its elemental our gaseous state. If you pull the oxygen off of H2O, then you have hydrogen. But it takes energy to do this. It takes more energy to create hydrogen gas than we can get out of its use. Oil we just pluck from the ground and light. That’s it.
Also, the reaction that powers a hydrogen fuel cell requires platinum as a catalyst. Platinum is expensive because it is VERY RARE. So in a hydrogen economy, you may see long-haired protesters waiving signs reading “No Blood for Platinum.”
So we are faced with many problems. Other alternatives have similar problems. The solutions are not obvious. We use oil because oil is cheap, plain and simple. When it fails to be cheap we’ll find something else to move our economy. Or we’ll find something cheaper. Either way I have faith in human ingenuity to solve what may be a problem sometime in the future.
Here’s a quote from the former oil minister to Saudi Arabia, Sheik Yamani: “The stone age ended, but not because of any lack of stones. Undoubtedly the oil age will end the same way.”
By Christopher Moore
George W. Bush and John Kerry both have plans to decrease our reliance on foreign oil supplies. But will energy independance follow shortly after either man’s inaugaration?
Ronald Bailey in this report makes clear that we shouldn’t hold our breath.
In his last state-of-the-union address, Bush said one of his energy goals was “to promote energy independence for our country.”
John Kerry, in this campaing ad, states that “it’s time to make energy independence a national priority and to put in place a plan that frees our nation from the grip of Mideast oil in the next ten years.”
These aren’t the first utterances about energy independance from a president or candidates. Since the 1973 oil embargo politicians have proposed various plans to decrease our dependance on foreign oil. In 1974 Nixon imposed oil price controls and declared the following: “Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.”
It only took a few years for President Ford to move that date back just a little, to 1985.
In 1979 Jimmy Carter chimed in with this: “Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977, never.”
George H.W. Bush, at the beginning of the first Iraq war, declared his energy strategy to include “reducing our dependence on foreign oil.”
And Bill Clinton — well he proposed too many different energy policies to name. And if you couldn’t guess, he was ready to end our dependance on foreign oil as well.
So George W. Bush and John Kerry seem like they have vastly different views concerning energy policy. But “both believe that at the end of the policy rainbow is energy independence, and they are willing to move heaven and earth to get there. Both are convinced we need government intervention in energy markets,” states Jerry Taylor, the Cato Institute’s director of natural resource studies. “The difference is emphasis, not policy.”
So if you are hoping for energy independance from whoever you are rooting for, history shows that you better not hold your breath. Why? Because oil is cheap. Cheaper than the alternatives. And until that simple fact changes, Americans will demand oil and we just don’t have enough here at home.
Until hydrogen, solar, and wind become economically feasible (i.e. cheap), then oil is the best, if not only game in town.
