Oil`s Well that Ends Well

Jerome Corsi, writing in Human Events, takes the President to task for his Carteresque vision of alternative energy. If you remember, President Peanut scolded Americans for our profligate use of energy-particularly oil, and demanded we use less. (He then complained that the Country was in a malaise when the economy tanked after everybody cut back on energy usage.)

President Bush seems to be on the same track as the sweater-wearer; he wants to shove billions of taxpayer dollars down the rathole of alternative energy. There are reasons why alternative energy has failed in America.

Oil produces far more energy than alcohol, and requires less energy to process than hydrogen. Alcohol (Henry Ford wanted to use alcohol in cars) has an energy output considerably lower than gasoline, which is why it can be used in racecars and rockets; it won`t explode as easily, so MORE can be pumped into a high-performance vehicle. This is a matter of octane. Higher octane rates mean slower burn rates, which mean better performance at the expense of fuel consumption. (Lead used to be added to gasoline to raise the octane, now alcohol is often the ingredient in higher octane fuels.) Since alcohol is so much less energetic than gas, much more is required to travel the same distances. We are going to need a LOT of alcohol to run our cars, which will increase price. Alcohol in gasoline already raises the price-except in Iowa and other grain-producing states which subsidize the industry. Hydrogen, on the other hand, produces more energy than gasoline, but has to be produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the energy expenditures required are prohibitive. It takes as much energy to split the water molecule as the driver will get back when he burns his fuel. Also, hydrogen has a low octane (because it is so energetic) and safety is a factor. We could get around both of these in time, but it would require developing more electrical resources (ideally nuclear) for processing, and we need better safety technology. Why would this happen when oil is clearly a superior fuel for our purposes?

Increasing energy efficiency is not a practical idea because of basic physics; the principle method will be to reduce the mass of vehicles. (This was done in the `70`s by American automakers, and it nearly wrecked the industry.) Computer technology allowed the construction of more efficient vehicles during the `80`s, but that trick has already been used. Granted, hybrid vehicles offer higher fuel efficiency, but the cost of replacing the batteries is going to tank hybrid sales.

In terms of large scale energy production, the President dodged nuclear and mentioned better coal-burning technology. We actually developed that; Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generators were invented by rocket scientists, and they use plasma blasted through a fixed rocket engine to break a magnetic field and generate power. The plasma is seeded with metal shavings to generate current, and the system is far more efficient than traditional mechanical generators, since there are no moving parts. The energy for the system comes from coal, and it can be the dirtiest coal around since mechanical scrubbers are installed to remove the metal shavings from the plasma anyway. We never built more than a prototype, but the technology is still lying around and we should press forward with it. We definitely need more nuclear.

The problem is that the environmentalists fight these large-scale energy methods. Remember the power blackouts in California? That happened because California didn`t have enough generating capacity. Environmentalists fight to prevent building new systems, because they want us to scale back on our energy usage. They block building new oil refineries for the same reason. (How will we generate the power needed to produce hydrogen for our cars without new, high powered generators?) I can`t see nuclear or MHD systems in our near future.

Wind and solar are toys, and we have been playing with them since the `70`s without any measurable success. Part of the problem in California was that they wanted to follow this ``soft`` path, and they threw their backing to energy systems which generate watts rather than Gigawatts with the result that generating capacity dropped precipitously. Furthermore, to produce power at commercial levels you have to have giant windfarms or solar panels, and these disturb the ecology as much as any conventional energy system.

The reality is that we are going to have an oil-based economy for a long time to come. The free market does, and should, dictate energy policy, and there are good reasons why these alternative fuels haven`t caught on. Throwing massive amounts of government money and instituting draconian regulation will not solve this problem.

The question arises; why should we want to move beyond an oil-based economy? China is using more oil all of the time, and could well replace the United States as a gross importer of Middle-Eastern oil. If the U.S. leaves this market, the Chinese and developing nations will be able to buy oil cheaper, and their economies will grow faster as a result. Middle-Eastern oil exporters will not find themselves any poorer, and oil-based economies will find themselves in better shape. I don`t think that we will accomplish much in terms of defunding Al-Quada and the other terrorist organizations by cutting back on consumption.

What we need to do is increase our oil supply here at home. We have the means of doing this. We need to develope our oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, in Anwar and Alaska. Canada has a huge reserve of oil locked up in tar fields-we need to develope this. I`m not saying we shouldn`t keep our options open in regards to alternative fuel supplies, I`m saying we can`t rely on a government-driven movement to replace oil.

Like it or not, oil will remain king in the forseeable future. We need to find ways for it to serve us, and not our enemies.