Birdblog

A conservative news and views blog.

Name:
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Monday, February 13, 2006

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.

|

9 Comments:

Blogger Michael Morrison said...

As you know, I've been touting alcohol for more than 30 years as the fuel to which we should switch.
However, as good an idea as that is, I know that just as soon as any damn government gets involved, nothing will work right and everything will cost several times as much as it should.
What actually is needed is this: Get the damn governments out of the way, let the free market work, and the problems will be solved.

4:18 PM  
Blogger Michael Morrison said...

By the way, oil can be made from other sources than petroleum, many of the same sources from which we can get alcohol.
Jojoba, for example, makes a superb oil, great for all kinds of lubrication.
It can also be used to make all kinds of plastics.

8:25 PM  
Blogger Timothy Birdnow said...

Thanks, Michael! That is my problem with alcohol and hydrogen; government intervention will kill the goose before it can lay the golden egg.

The market needs to determine these things, not President Bush, not Congress, not the Supreme Court.

Glad to see you`re back, Michael!

5:23 AM  
Blogger Ugh said...

In the infancy of the electric generation and distribution era every town built a power plant, but it was expensive and reliability was a problem - no backup. Then the grid model was adopted, which at first was cheaper and more reliable. Small towns didn't need power plants when high power wires could be run cheaper.

In the last 20 years or so we have seen that most of the power problems are with the grid itself (for various reasons) and since technology is so much better now it is beginning to make sense to build smaller local power plants
again. This is, I think the direction energy production has to go. We need to satisfy our energy needs closer to the point where it is going to be used. Decentralized generation is more efficient and ultimately cleaner (satisfying the greenies too). Low- and no-carbon generators are already producing more energy than nuclear with a lower costs and lower risks. Technology is the key.

I agree, Tim, that the oil economy will be with us for a long time to come but I don't think we should close our eyes or our minds to developing new paradigms particularly in using technology on a smaller scale to produce and distribute our energy needs. This is where alternative energy production can be useful, at first as a suppliment on localized basis.

There are huge costs in transporting and securing (military) our oil needs that we don't see at the pump, not to mention dealing with the rats in OPEC. In the short term more local drilling and possibly smaller scale nuclear plants make a lot of sense. But in the long term we need to be creative and not beholden to huge corporations and hostile nations.

I think one thing is perfectly clear, actually two things... Conservation is a dog. We need more energy not less. Progress will not be made in conserving energy. Number 2 - the government is the biggest obstacle!

11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Canada has a huge reserve of oil locked up in tar fields-we need to develop this.'

Down there, boy! We Canadians are doing fine developing the Oil Sands at Fort McMurray. You sound just a little bit, well, imperialistic.

2:02 PM  
Blogger Timothy Birdnow said...

Static, I agree with you that we shouldn`t close our minds to alternative energy sources-I just don`t think a massive government program is going to be the key to this. I`ve always advocated the use of hydrogen in cars, but hydrogen requires electricity. Lots of electricity.

I`m not at all sure that the environmentalists will allow small power plants to be built in local communities; they hate them all, and a power plant is guaranteed to effect the enviroment in detrimental ways. Besides, environmentalists want us to use less power. End of story. They want to return to the neolithic, a time they view as paradise. ANY new sources of power will be suspect.

Nuclear, coupled with MHD, is the ultimate power, in my opinion. Nuclear power to heat the plasma means NO emissions of any kind!! Remember, current nuclear technology is merely a fancy way to boil water. We need something more efficient.

The market has to drive this. Without market forces in play we just won`t see these technologies make any headway. That is what is wrong with the current approach.

Hi Dgm!

Believe me, the United States has no imperial ambitions on Canada; you guys have kicked our butts every time we`ve invaded!

Please, though, hurry along with those Oil Sands! We both need that reserve tapped.

Thanks for stopping by!

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, again. Your first comment was actually read in good humour.

I have a couple of relatives involved, from Calgary, in the Oil Sands projects. The amount of money going in there is astronomical. People from all over Canada are drawn like iron filings to a magnet for shorter or longer term work. Tradesmen (women, too, I'll bet!) can earn way more than $100,000 --Canadian or American bucks -- in a year of work. It is unbelievable. Too bad they don't have a university there.

I love the blog.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Timothy Birdnow said...

Hi again, DGM!

Let your heart not be troubled; I took your comment in the spirit it was intended! And it is true; The United States HAS invaded Canada a couple of times, and been clobbered. Of course, we dumped all of our hippies on you during the Vietnam War, and thus avenged our defeats!

Thanks for the info on the Oil Sands Project! I know OF IT, but don`t know anything about how it works.

By the way, your own blog looks excellent, and I`m going to link you up here!

5:17 AM  
Blogger Ugh said...

Tim, no doubt the environmentalists will stand in the way of every initiative regardless of its enviromental impact real or imagined. I do hope we come to a time when serious people can ignore the insanity of political correctness and these foolish children called environmentalists and we can look back and laugh at this era.

I think the government can seed money for basic research successfully as has been done in the past. It's when they get in with both feet - say like Medicare, NASA, TVA and public education, to name just a few - that the proverbial sh-t hits the fan. The market is the key, it always has been. But we can't close our eyes to giant corporate and governmental special interests distorting true market forces, it happens all the time.

What I was driving at in my comment is that we should strive for more decentralization but instead our economy, corporate and governmental, continue continue to merge and meld into ever larger and larger entities.

For example look at educational funding - in Minnesota it is nearly fully state funded now, with less and less local control. Is education better for it? Not by any measure.

Look at drug companies and drug costs - GlaxoSmithKline - it used to be three companies now it's one giant conglomerate and by the rules of economies of scale drug costs should be lower. Are they? No.

Corporate farms are buying up all the land once farmed by family farmers - is food cheaper? No!(and the quality of the produce is lousy).

Look at the telecom business - they broke up AT&T and spawned the Baby Bells. One buy one the are being gobbled up until one day they will all be the one company again - probably called AT&T and will communications costs be cheaper? Not likely.

I am not anti-corporate at all. I work for a company with assets in the billions of dollars and growing but our growth is de novo, we do not grow by gobbling up other companies and then raising our prices to cover the costs of our growth. That kind of thing leads to backruptcy and then guess who gets left holding the bag?

Sorry for the long winded response, but I truly believe the success of our future is small ball, in sports that's what wins games and championships.

1:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com