James

Sunday, June 19, 2011

What Does "Going Green" Really Mean?‏

Hello Friends!
 
Is America facing an energy crisis?  In my studies of world events over the years, our nation and the world abroad is indeed heading toward an energy storm that will exacerbate our already struggling economy, as well as the fall in value of the leading world currencies. 
 
An excellent book written by Dr. Theodore G. Pavlopoulos titled "The American Bureaucracy" does a very thorough job of outlining the detailed science and senselessness behind the fast approaching energy crisis that most Americans are totally unaware of and quite frankly, couldn't care less.  Much of  Dr. Pavlopoulos' detailed research and findings are contained within this article.  It is a long and detailed read, but quite worth your time and consideration.  Much personal study time and effort has been diligently reported in this article, please make every effort to read and reflect on its content!
 
With that said, let's take an in depth investigative journey into the influence that the "green" environmental movement (a.k.a. Sustainable Development) has on our planet and what it will mean to America if we do not begin to address these issues, as well as the sensible options to consider as solutions... 
 
 
An American Bureaucracy: A Matter of Life and Death
 
America consumes the largest amount of oil in the world of any country, about twenty-five percent. As a result, we have the highest standard of living and are the most technologically advanced society on earth. For over thirty years we have known that we must become energy self-sufficient to protect our economy and national security. Unfortunately, we currently import seventy percent of our oil. In 1973, the year of the OPEC oil embargo, America imported about thirty percent of our oil needs from abroad.
 
During the fall of 2008 oil prices rose to 147 dollar per barrel, causing worldwide energy cost stress while it lasted. About five months later, this crisis was overshadowed by a worldwide economic meltdown that caused oil prices to plunge down to about thirty seven dollar per barrel. In response, OPEC set new limits on its oil production.
 
Green activists are now urging us to switch to a low carbon based green (renewable) energy sources. Renewable energies are biofuels, wind, and solar energy. They claim this would allow us to both, fight global warming as well as become energy independent. However, becoming energy independence is simply bait, because green energy will not make America independent from foreign oil imports.
 
President Obama wants to guide America to energy independence with renewable energy. The Department of Energy (DOE) has become overloaded with green activists. Unfortunately, most of these green activists have no clue about energy sources. Among the many green activists who try to educate the American people on the dangers of global warming is former Vice President Al Gore. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his efforts to fight global warming. However, Al Gore has no background in physics, chemistry, energy, or meteorology that allows him to make accurate long-term climate predictions or to judge which new energy sources should be developed.  Nevertheless, he urges us to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy within ten years for the sake of our economy and the benefit of world's climate. He constantly urges Americans that they must act now to fight air pollution or it might be too late.
 
In 1993, President Clinton assigned Vice President Al Gore the urgent task of reinventing our federal government. However, Al Gore simply chose to goof off for the next seven years, and then bragged that his efforts in reinventing our government had saved America 136 billion dollars. Green activists accuse the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) of being the main polluter of our air because it strongly absorbs heat radiation emitted from earth's surface. However, the presence of high concentrations of water (H2O) vapor in our atmosphere together with its ability to absorb more strongly heat radiation than CO2 is rarely mentioned.
 
In addition to our current economic crisis, we have not solved our energy dependence on foreign oil imports, because renewable energies will not solve our energy crisis. This implies that shortly, we will again be confronted with another severe energy crisis. The combination of the economic and energy crisis, coupled with the high taxation about to be unleashed by the Obama administration will bring America to its knees.
 
In October 1973, the Middle Eastern nations representing OPEC stopped exporting oil to the United States. This was in retaliation for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The resulting oil crisis shocked America. Gasoline prices jumped from twenty-five cents per gallon to over one dollar in a rather short time period.  As a young child, I can still remember the long lines at the gas stations.  During this time of confusion, Congress introduced the fifty-five mile per hour speed limit for our freeways, the DOE was created, and tax advantages were offered for developing and using "alternative sources of energy." Further, plans were developed to make the United States independent of Middle East oil.
 
The majority of Americans don't have the foggiest idea how to solve our energy crisis. To better understand this confusion, one has to follow the rise of our environmental movement and their powerful lobby that during the last thirty years has successfully blocked any sensible solutions for America to become energy independent.  American industrialization started around 1850, and it spread all over the country. This industrial revolution transformed America into one of the strongest industrial and military power centers in the world.  However, this industrial revolution had some negative side effects.  Some of our rivers, lakes, and air were polluted.  Large areas of America's beautiful country were lost forever.  Understandably, some people resented the negative effects of uncontrolled industrial expansion.  This started the environmental movement.  Turning to their countrymen, these early environmentalists found strong support among many good-hearted Americans who wanted to help their community, their country, and the world. They became loyal, unwavering supporters and contributors to the environmental movement in order to protect our natural resources.
 
Organizations were founded to protect endangered wildlife and the environment. Some of the leaders of these organizations turned to powerful lobbyists, who could always count on unquestioned support from their many loyal followers.  However, unnoticed by many supporters, some of these lobbyists and also their leaders turned to extreme environmentalism.  They successfully pressured Congress to overprotect large portions of our countryside from any development whatsoever.  Also, these extreme environmentalists pressured Congress on energy matters.  Overprotecting the country and their energy illiteracy threatens our economy and national security.
 
The oil crisis of 1973 should have been a wake-up call for Americans to strive for energy independence. Now even the smallest development project requires obtaining environmental impact statements before any development can start. Using constant fear mongering, protective regulations initiated by the environmental lobby prevent drilling off our coasts, because this might cause oil spills. Drilling on the Alaskan North Slope is claimed to endanger pristine country and caribou herds. To protect our environment, no new nuclear power plants were allowed because they "might melt down, releasing radioactivity." We have no storage room for spent nuclear fuel, because the radiation might endanger people's health, and nobody wants oil refineries in their backyards. This is the main reason why we have been forced to import more and more oil and refined products to run our huge fleets of aircraft, cars, and trucks. The energy generating industry was not allowed to develop or expand in America because of opposition from local communities and excessive regulatory restrictions.
 
About twenty years ago, environmentalists warned of the dangers of global warming. They urged that we must drastically reduce concentrations of the polluting greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere, generated by the excessive burning fossil fuels. Over the same time span, environmental organizations have successfully dictated energy policies in the United States. During the last thirty years, no reliable and sufficient amounts of biofuels, wind power, and solar power have been developed to bring us closer to independence from foreign oil. Biofuels, wind power, and solar power are technically inadequate approaches to large-scale gasoline, diesel, and steady electric power generation. Because of the high prices and the shortcomings of biofuels and wind and solar power, we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, with no end in sight. Presently, the United States uses twenty-one million barrels of oil per day. The table below shows the source of these imports:

Table 1
Origins and percentages of oil and hydrocarbons used in the United States [1].
     OPEC                                                                         22 %
     Canada and Mexico                                                     27 %
     Others                                                                        16 %
     United States                                                              35 % 

During the last thirty years, our industrial sector has shunned any investments in biofuels, wind power, and solar power because these approaches pushed by green activists are simply too expensive. One must remember, no matter how "clean" an energy source is, its cost is the most important criterion.
Table 2 below presents some approximate costs of generating electricity (Electric Power Research Institute):

Table 2
Sources that generate electricity together with some approximate costs of generating electricity. ¢/kWh stands for cents per kilowatt hour.

     Natural gas                                                             3 ¢/kWh
     Coal (no CO2 capture)                                              5 ¢/kWh
     Nuclear                                                                   5 ¢/kWh
     Wind turbine (onshore)                                            9 ¢/kWh
     Biomass                                                                10 ¢/kWh
     Wind turbine (with backup)                                   ≥12 ¢/kWh
     Solar (thermal)                                                      16 ¢/kWh
     Solar (photovoltaic)                                               25 ¢/kWh

About six years ago, in a move unnoticed by many Americans, the OPEC ministers decided to protect their treasured liquid gold from being depleted too early. These ministers decided to keep oil production constant, no matter the demand. Lately, other countries, especially China and India, have also become competitors for oil. By limiting production of oil despite increased demands for oil worldwide, profits for OPEC countries skyrocketed during the period 2006 - 2008. Unfortunately, the cold facts are that our economic and national security still depends on huge energy imports such as oil. Considerable portions of our oil originate in the unstable Middle East. The Middle East sits on about two-thirds of the entire world's supply. The United States produces only about thirty percent of the oil it uses and is forced to import the rest.
 
The confusion of Americans about the way we should solve this energy crisis and the huge power of our environmental lobby was expressed in a recent survey taken by the Progressive Studies Program. Voters were asked if they supported a clean energy economy. Seventy-six of respondents agreed to move away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Eleven percent disagreed and twelve percent were neutral. Apparently, nobody seems to worry what should replace oil, gas, and coal because these energy sources can not be replaced by wind power and solar power.
 
Is Carbon Dioxide a Monster and why Should we Accept Long-Term Climate Predictions from Green Activists?
 
About thirty years ago, some climate scientists claimed that air temperatures had started to rise worldwide. Green activists warned of global warming. Average air temperature of our Earth had risen 0.74 oC (1.33 oF) during the last one hundred years. At the same time, scientists found that concentrations of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the earth's atmosphere were also increasing. From 1950 to 2000, they increased from about 340 to 382 ppm (parts per million), which is an increase of twenty two percent. During this time, burning of fossil fuels had also increased. Using computer models, scientists claimed that the rise of CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere was responsible for the rise of air temperatures globally. It was claimed that the rise of CO2 concentration in air was correlated to the increase of burning of fossil fuels.
 
Green activists warn that uncontrolled massive human-generated CO2, from car engines, coal-fired electric power generation, and other CO2 sources amplifies this effect, causing uncontrolled rises in our air temperatures. These high air temperatures will cause unimaginable "catastrophes to mankind and animals." The breaking point has almost been reached and we must act right now. We must prevent further increases in CO2 concentrations to limit further global warming. This warming would also result in further melting of polar icecaps, followed by a dangerous rise of sea levels worldwide. This in turn would flood large coastal areas. The excessive warming of our atmosphere will cause storms, and droughts.
 
These views shared by many climate scientists are also shared by our present Energy Secretary Dr. S. Chu. He was recently interviewed by F. Zakaria, who asked him the question: "Skeptics say there's still conflicting evidence on global warming." Dr. Chu replayed: "I urge every one to do this: Google the 2007 IPCC report. The 100-year trend is unmistakable." [2].
 
However, before accepting these dire predictions of green activists, there are several important points to be answered, although the green activists rarely acknowledge their existence. Further, it is generally well-known that climate predicting over long time periods worldwide is not an exact science. Why should we take these sweeping climate predictions so seriously? Accurate predictions would have required obtaining reliable temperature and CO2 concentrations over long time periods from all portions of the world. This would include data from Tibet, Manchuria, Africa, South America, Antarctica, Siberia and other thinly populated areas. Obviously, these data are not available, casting considerable doubt about global warming. The satellite data covering most of the globe since 1979 show some warming, peaking in 1998, but cooling since then, weakening the correlation between CO2 concentrations and warming.
 
The specific mechanism involved in causing the greenhouse gas CO2 to increase air temperatures has been explained as follows. CO2 absorbs some near-infrared radiation reaching us from our sun. Some of the sun's radiation is absorbed by the earth's surface, heating its surface. This heat produces infrared heat radiation that is reflected back in the direction of our stratosphere. However, this heat radiation is strongly absorbed (trapped) by the greenhouse gas CO2. This heat energy is transferred from CO2 molecules to air molecules like nitrogen and oxygen by collision, increasing the air's temperature. This is the so-called greenhouse effect.
 
A very important Question...
 
One would expect that anyone addressing an audience or writing a paper on the great dangers of the air-polluting greenhouse gas CO2 would start by showing the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2, elaborating on its specific features, namely its ability to efficiently trap he would expect that anyone addressing an audience or writing a paper on the great dangers of the air-polluting greenhouse gas CO2 would start by showing the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2, elaborating on its specific features, namely its ability to efficiently trap heat radiation, that make it such a threat to our planet. Simply claiming that CO2 is a strongly-polluting greenhouse gas is not enough..
 
A spectrum is a graph that presents the intensity of absorption of an organic compound, as a function of wavelength (or frequency) of electromagnetic radiation. The critical question that has to be answered is the following: how strongly is heat radiation actually absorbed (or trapped) by the greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O? On this one answer rests the entire justification for fighting or not fighting global warming.
 
At the beginning of 1860, the British physicist John Tyndall measured the infrared absorption of several gases contained in our atmosphere, namely oxygen, nitrogen, H2O, CO2, ozone, hydrocarbons, etc. From his experimental results, he concluded that H2O vapor was by far the most strongly infrared-absorbing gas in our atmosphere, critically controlling its temperature. The effect of all other gases, including CO2, on our temperature was small.
 
The absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O in air are shown below. Presented is their absorbance as a function of frequency from 4000 to 400 cm-1 and also as function of wavelengths from 2.5 to 25 microns. One micron = 10-3 mm = 10-4 cm. With earth's surface temperature at 16.85 deg C, it would emit heat radiation that roughly approximates the black body curve with intensity maximum at 1000 cm-1 (10 microns).
 
When viewing these graphs (spectra), attention is focused o the bottom line, presenting zero absorption. H2O shows a strong absorption stretching region that stretches from 2000 to 1250 cm-1 (5 to 8 microns), and a weaker absorption region that stretches from 556 to about 400 cm-1 (18 to about 25 microns). Viewing the H2O absorption spectrum, one concludes that it is a very strong greenhouse gas. However, this fact is almost never mentioned by the green activists.
 
The CO2 spectrum shows a strong absorption line at 2380 cm-1 (4.2 microns), which may justify calling it a greenhouse gas. Clearly, this strong absorption line will absorb considerable infra red radiation at this wavelength, but only over a very narrow spectral region.
 
 
The figure above shows the infrared absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O in air at sea level, at 28 oC and relative humidity of 76%. The high humidity swamps the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 [3].
 
The main issues are two observations that cast doubt on whether CO2 is a dangerous, highly polluting (highly infrared absorbing) greenhouse gas. First, the weakness of the group of absorption lines stretching from about 735 to 625 cm‑1 (3.6 to 16 microns). Second, the presence of a wide spectral region stretching from 2273 to 769 cm-1 (4.5 to 13 microns) where CO2 is almost completely transparent for heat radiation. This means this "greenhouse" gas has a wide part of its "roof" missing, allowing large portions of infrared radiation to escape into space.
 
It is also important that there are a great differences in concentrations of H2O vapor in our atmosphere that is often 10,000 ppm and higher, while CO2 is present at 385 ppm (about 0.04 percent). Even a tenfold (or higher) increase in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere would only result in a very weak greenhouse effect. There is absolutely no need for anyone to switch to a so-called low-carbon economy, based on biofuels, wind power, and solar power to reduce global warming.
 
Because H2O is an efficiently heat radiation absorbing gas, it shows the greenhouse effect. Indeed, this effect is regularly observed at regions of high air and H2O temperatures, which are present along our Gulf Coast and Florida. During summer, people complain about living in a sweatbox, with this stickiness extending into the night. In these regions, the weather service reports high air temperatures, together with very high water vapor concentrations in the air.
 
The Carbon Dioxide Cycle
 
Green activists mostly ignore the fact of the existence of a global CO2 cycle. This cycle consists of three parts.
 
The first part consists of all CO2 generating sources, namely burning hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel), manufacture of cement, coal, wood, volcanoes, and rotting leaves and wood.
 
The second part of the cycle is a sink for CO2, namely its conversion by chlorophyll contained in leaves and grass to carbohydrates and oxygen. CO2 is man's best friend. Without CO2 in our air, there would be no humans or animals living on earth. Humans and animals must eat to live and breathe oxygen. Humans mainly eat starches (carbohydrates), fats/oils, and meat.
 
Chlorophyll is the compound that makes leaves green. Leaves absorb sunlight and CO2 and produce (by photosynthesis) carbohydrates and oxygen. Consequently, planting more green plants to reduce CO2 concentration makes good sense. Experiments performed at the Department of Agriculture in the 1990s showed that increased CO2 concentrations in air increases the growth of green plants [4].
 
The third part of the cycle is the oceans that can act as sinks as well as sources of CO2. Our oceans cover over two-thirds of our earth's surface. At several places, these oceans are also very deep. In short, our oceans contain gigantic amounts of seawater. Oceans affect our weather in several complex ways. When sunlight falls on ocean surfaces, about eighty percent is absorbed. Small changes of the sun's intensity will first affect sea surface temperatures. Long lasting temperature changes in the sun's intensity will affect deeper layers of seawater. However, the warming and cooling of seawater is a rather slow process because of water's rather high heat capacity and huge volume.
 
The role temperature and pressure play on the solubility of CO2 in water is best explained by studying the physics of beer, champagne, and sodas. When you remove a beer from the refrigerator and open it, you hear the sound of escaping gas, or CO2. Pouring the drink into a glass generates foam and bubbles as CO2 escapes the liquid. With increasing temperature, CO2 bubbles continue to escape the liquid. However, with rising temperature, the generations of gas bubbles stop.
 
These observations are explained as follows. CO2 in water has a high solubility that critically depends on pressure and temperature. Considerably more CO2 is absorbed at higher pressure than at higher temperatures and low pressure. For example, twenty percent more CO2 is dissolved at fifteen degrees Celsius than at twenty degree Celsius.
 
Because of the huge volume of water contained in our oceans and the high pressures present at the ocean's depths, prolonged small temperature changes can critically affect the amounts of CO2 that can be absorbed or emitted. It has been estimated that our oceans contain as much as fifty times more dissolved CO2 than found in our atmosphere. Further, it has been estimated that about seventy percent of earth's active volcanoes are located in the ocean's floors.
Consequently, oceans play a critical role in regulating CO2 concentrations in our air. Depending on wind directions, considerable changes of CO2 concentrations occur in the air over large land areas close to oceans.
 
Over the last five hundred years, our earth has slowly been coming out of the Little Ice Age. Slowly warming, our earth's average temperature is approaching twenty-three degrees Celsius. This increase in temperature seems to be linked to sunspots activity. This slow warming has caused our oceans, somewhat delayed, to emit some CO2. This explains the observed increase in our air's concentrations of CO2. However, some of this increase in CO2 may also be man-made.
 
In summary, a small rise in our oceans' temperature over many years has caused the increase in CO2 concentrations in air and not the other way around.
The warming cycle observed between 1977 and 1998 seems to be over. Now we have entered into a new global cooling period. Our temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade. The winter of 2008 - 2009 is even colder. There are no indications whatsoever that global warming is unstoppable.
 
Almost Useless Green Energy Sources:
 
Contrary to widespread beliefs, renewable energy sources like biofuels, wind power, and solar power will never solve all of our energy needs, nor will they reduce global warming. There are a number of reasons why these sources will never replace gasoline and diesel, as green activists hope.
 
Biofuels
 
Generally, biofuels are made from dead but recently alive biological substances, mostly produced by photosynthesis. To obtain large amounts of biofuels, one has to set aside huge areas of land. Bioethanol, the inferior replacement for gasoline, is produced from edible feedstocks such as corn and sugar. Biofuels have to be grown, requiring water and fertilizer. Then they have to be collected, dried, fermented, and distilled.
 
Growing food staples that are turned into fuels will automatically raise food prices, and did so in 2005/09. Producing large quantities of bioethanol will drastically reduce the amount of foodstuffs that can be eaten. This in turn will bring starvation to Americans and many millions of people worldwide. Indeed, over the last few years, prices in food have risen all over the world. Biofuels generate more problems than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.
 
Table 3
 
Yields of ethanol from corn, together with acreage needed [5].
 
m = million, B = billion
 
Total U.S. farmland:                                                      300 m acres
 
Used for corn: (about ¼ of total)                                    73 m acres
 
Gasoline/diesel used in U.S. per year:                           170 B gallons
 
Yield of corn per acre:                                                   140 bushels
 
With about 2.5 gallons ethanol per bushel, the
yield of ethanol per acre:                                               350 gallons ethanol
 
Yield of equiv. gasoline per acre:                                    233 gallons gasoline
 
(67 % of ethanol)
 
Yield from 11 m acres:                                                    2.6 B gallons gasoline
 
(about 1.5 % of total)
 
Yield from all 73 m acres:                                                17 B gallons
 
(about10 % of total)
 
Yield from all 300 m acres                                               70 B gallons
 
(about 40 % of total)
 
This table illustrates that bioethanol will never solve our huge demand for gasoline. Even if all the available acreage of cropland in the United States were used to provide us with bioethanol; it would provide only forty percent of our gasoline and diesel needs. However, we have not accounted for the energy needed to produce ethanol. Taking this energy into account, one ends up with about a twenty percent production, while costing us one hundred percent of our cropland.
 
Recently, Dr. Chu expressed similar reservations being interviewed by M. Nuhuis. He stated: "Corn ethanol has not the ultimate solution to decreasing our dependence on oil, and neither it is the ideal climate solution" [6].
 
Bioethanol is about one hundred percent ethanol (alcohol). It cannot be used directly in our cars because of its corrosive nature and poor cold starting properties. Presently, some blends of ethanol and gasoline are used. Biodiesel is mainly produced from vegetable oils. But its shortcomings are similar to bioethanol. The big question is always the same: Should we exchange food for fuel? Biofuels are not really green, but add to air CO2 almost as much as fossil fuels. They actually put more CO2 to the air because of the amounts of CO2 generated to produce these biofuels.
 
In addition, unsubsidized biofuels cost more per unit than fossil fuels. Ethanol is about thirty percent less energy content than gasoline, requiring the use of larger fuel tanks, thus carrying more dead weight around and reducing the range of travel.
 
Today we face the following challenge. There are over two hundred million cars and trucks on America's roads. There are also diesel trains, the merchant marine, and our military, which all consume huge amounts of gasoline and diesel. Clearly, we never will be able to fill our tremendous gasoline and diesel needs with biofuels for the foreseeable future. However, food demand will continue to rise, not disappear.
 
Wind Turbines
 
Windmills have been used for a long time to grind wheat and pump water. Wind power has been the most favored energy source for green activists for generating most of our future electricity.
 
Unfortunately, wind power has severe shortcomings. It does not provide what is promised and is also an environmental and economical disaster. Wind power is supposedly a clean and cheap source of electricity that should replace coal-fired power plants that still generate large portions of our electricity.
 
Engineering studies have shown that wind turbines will generate electricity the most efficient way if they have the following dimensions: The height of these wind turbines must be in the range of 250 to 350 feet, with the highest towers reaching the height of the Statue of Liberty. On top sits the turbine housing, which is the size of a bus, and weighs about fifty tons. The rotor blades span one hundred to one hundred and fifty feet and weigh thirty to forty tons. The entire wind turbine weighs 150 to 160 tons and has about 8000 parts. The amount of steel used for each wind turbine is sufficient to build about 200 cars.
 
To prevent wind turbines from interfering with each other, they must be placed at a certain distance. This results in each wind turbine requiring about fifty acres of space. For economic reasons, a wind farm contains ten to twenty wind turbines. Each of these very heavy wind turbines requires a solid foundation. These foundations are seven to ten feet deep and are about forty-five by forty-five feet square. This hole is filled with about five hundred cubic yards of reinforced concrete. Bedrock must be blasted to obtain holes on rocky mountaintops. All of these wind turbines need to be electrically connected. Electricity generated from wind farms is collected in substations. These substations need to be connected to long distance transmission lines, stretching thousands of miles to transport the electricity to customers. Each wind turbine requires a tank filled with about two hundred gallons of oil for lubrication and cooling. The transformers located on substations that connect to the overhead power lines contain tens of thousand of gallons of oil for their transformers.
 
Heavy equipment like bulldozers, graders, and concrete trucks are needed to build these wind farms. This heavy lifting equipment is necessary to lift the rotors and turbine housing up to heights of two hundred to three hundred feet. Wind farms also have to be serviced regularly. This requires the construction of thousands of miles of solid and wide roads. Together with the power lines, the large areas required for the wind farms leads to the destruction of thousands of acres of our most beautiful countryside.
 
Wind turbines can only be placed at areas that provide unobstructed wind. This condition can be found on mountaintops, prairies, and in seas with shallow bottoms. Wind turbines are "rated" for the wind speed of maximum performance. For a two megawatt (MW) rated turbine, this is thirty miles per hour (mph). At low wind speed, the wind blades may be rotating, but produce no power. Power production starts at wind speeds of about ten mph. Average wind speeds are fifteen mph, where the windmill produces about two hundred- fifty kilowatt (KW). This about eight times less the "rated" value. When wind speeds reach speeds of sixty mph, wind turbines shut off automatically. Accumulation of dead bugs reduces average energy outputs of turbines up to twenty percent.
 
The total electric power consumption in America is about 450 gigawatts (GW). California uses about forty GW. The state plans to generate fifteen percent of our electricity with wind turbines by 2012. One would have to generate about six GW. With one wind turbine generating about two hundred-fifty KW and with 1000 KW = 1 MW and 1000 MW = 1 GW, one would need 24,000 wind turbines that would need about 1,500 wind farms. This would require pouring two million cubic yards of solid concrete.
 
Besides being eyesores, wind turbines do not supply what they promise. Wind turbines provide electricity only when the wind is strong enough, but not too strong. Wind turbines are unable to respond to sudden requests for additional electricity. Therefore, depending solely on electricity generated by wind turbines, leads to uncontrollable blackouts. Wind speed can't be influenced by human power demands.
 
Because wind power is unpredictable, wind turbines must be connected to a commercial power source that produces a constant level of electric power at about eighty percent of the anticipated demand.
 
The standby electric power sources are in most cases natural gas or coal-fired plants. This raises an important question. Weren't the polluting power plants the ones wind turbines were supposed to replace?
 
Large numbers of wind farms will only supply a small fraction of electricity we urgently need. These environmental costs may be worth suffering if wind farms were able to provide cheap and useful electricity, but they don't. However , the DOE plans to acquire twenty percent of our national electricity from wind power by 2030.
 
Solar and Other Green Energy Resources
 
Solar power suffers from the same shortcomings as wind turbines. The maximum solar panel electricity production is at noon, but no energy is generated at night. Large solar photovoltaic power plants are very expensive. Presently, the best solar cells have an efficiency of forty-one percent. One square yard of these cells cost about $100,000, but deliver only one kilowatt (about one horsepower) [7].
 
Their use makes good sense in isolated locations. Wide use of solar (thermal) water heaters also makes good sense. But they don't produce any electricity.
Hydropower plants produce low cost stable electricity. However, they require storing large amounts of water. Having many of them depends on the geography of the region. Most good locations in the United States are already in use. Some countries are very suitable for them and others are not so lucky. The same applies to geothermal sources.
 
Nevertheless, there are definitely some niches for green energy sources. In America, there are few areas where the wind is almost constantly blowing and consumers of electricity are not too far away. In these areas, wind turbines make some sense. Also, someone living in an isolated area could benefit from setting up one wind turbine. Its output is stored in a battery, making electricity available when needed.
 
From Table 1 it is obvious that the green energy sources are the most expensive solutions. Below I will discuss the merits of the cheapest energy sources; all of them are found at the top of the table.
 
Our Most Important Future Energy Resources:
 
Nuclear Power Plants
 
For our energy future, I believe nuclear power is the most important energy source for producing the cheapest electricity possible. There is absolutely no need for large investments in wind power with its numerous shortcomings and its highly damaging impact on our environment.
 
To be used for nuclear reactors, the uranium must be enriched to contain three to five percent uranium-235. The uranium we mine contains only 0.7 percent of the uranium-235 isotope, the rest is uranium-238.
 
Nuclear power plants produce hot steam that drives turbines. Nuclear energy is obtained from controlled nuclear atomic reactions. Specifically, slow neutrons split the atoms of uranium-235 into two almost equal parts; and two to three more neutrons and considerable amounts of heat are released. Only the uranium-235 isotope undergoes this nuclear reaction.
 
In nuclear reactors, only one slow neutron is absorbed by the fission material. Low neutrons collide with uranium-238, causing them to further slow down, now unable to cause nuclear fission. Our earth's crust contains sufficient uranium deposits to last for many years. An isotope of thorium can also replace it. This metal is about 3.5 times more abundant in the earth's crust than uranium.
 
There are about one hundred nuclear power plants presently operating in the United States. They generate about twenty percent of our electricity. Since 1979, very few new nuclear power plants have been completed. However, the U.S. Navy also operates a large number of nuclear-powered ships. France, a country with very limited resources of coal and natural gas, has heavily invested in nuclear power. Presently, these plants produce seventy-seven percent of its electrical power.
 
One hundred additional new nuclear power plants could have been built during the last thirty years. This would have allowed us to supply forty percent of our present electricity needs.
 
Only nuclear power plants are capable of producing the huge amounts of constant levels of electricity. They would be generate sufficient amounts of electricity to cover many of our present industrial, traffic, and heating needs, without the necessity to generate electricity from expensive and useless wind power.
 
Many people fear nuclear power plants because they are afraid of radioactivity and its possible negative impact on their health. Radioactivity cannot be seen and therefore, as a result, many people fear it might be harmful. Nuclear power should be the preferred source of cheap electricity for green activists because nuclear power plants emit no CO2. However, green activists have used fear mongering and exploited this natural concern about radioactivity to oppose development of more nuclear energy. The reality is that we all are exposed to small doses of radioactivity every day. This radioactivity originates from radioactive materials contained in rocks and sand. There are fewer radio activities emitted from nuclear reactors than from the ashes from burning coal.
 
Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis of Gasoline and Diesel
 
Could the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis be used to put an end to our dependence on foreign oil?
 
It is imperative that the huge amounts of energy available in our coal reserves must somehow be incorporated to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The United States has enough coal reserves in the ground to last us over two hundred years. Presently, environmental regulations limit the recovery of this coal. Enormous amounts of coal are still used worldwide for heating and generating electricity because it is cheap. Coal has been labeled by the green activists as the main contributor to air pollution by producing the largest amounts of CO2, which is completely unjustified.
 
In the 1920s, two German chemists named Fischer and Tropsch achieved "coal liquification" by synthesizing hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) from carbon monoxide and hydrogen using metal catalysts. During the last few years, this method was further refined. We can now synthesize diesel and gasoline directly from coal and hydrogen.
 
To produce large amounts of gasoline and diesel by Fischer-Tropsch, huge amounts of hydrogen are required. However, this hydrogen can be generated by electrolysis of water using cheap electricity produced by nuclear power plants.
 
Using coal and natural gas to produce gasoline and diesel by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis also makes good sense because America also has considerable reserves of natural gas [8]. This is another source for producing relatively cheap gasoline and diesel. Actually, using this method for fuel production presents a way to a low carbon economy. However, green activists have never mentioned this method for producing large amounts of gasoline, jet-fuel, and diesel.
 
This method of producing oil from coal must be seriously considered. In fact, there is no choice. For the next ten years, our demand for gasoline and diesel for our huge fleet of cars and trucks still powered with combustion engines is gigantic. With over two hundred million cars on our roads, a bulk of them will be with us for a long time until they are replaced with electric cars. Using the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of gasoline and diesel allows us to bridge this long time span.
 
As discussed in detail, biofuels fail badly in replacing gasoline and diesel. For a healthy economy and to meet our national security needs, America's addiction to foreign oil must come to an end and this as soon as possible.
 
The United States has spent vast sums of tax money over the last thirty years subsidizing inferior energy technology for political purposes. A huge further expansion is now being forced by the latest economic recovery plan. The real energy needs of America clash with the ideology of extreme environmentalism. The expensive and insufficient amounts of biofuels produced in America will force us to continue to import large amounts of foreign oil. This shortage of motor fuels over a very long time period has the potential to completely devastate our economy and threatens our national security.
 
Car Batteries & Electric Cars
 
Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine and a fuel tank together with an electric motor and an electric battery. When braking, the electric motor acts as a dynamo, converting mechanical brake energy into electric energy that is stored in the battery. This stored electric energy can be used to drive the electric motor to add additional power to the car's engine. Obviously, for driving large distances and rarely braking, hybrid cars are of no use. However, fuel is conserved when driving in cities and braking often.
 
Electric cars are the dream of the future. Electric motors, contrary to combustion engines, are simple, resulting in a large savings in weight and costs. The problem with electric cars is their batteries. They are expensive, heavy, bulky, and must be recharged. There is a price also to be paid for the electricity used to recharge. Recharging the battery also takes time. If large distances have to be covered, very large batteries have to be used. Also, they cannot be used indefinitely, but have to be replaced from time-to-time. All this can make the use of batteries expensive. Consequently, the economy of electric cars is closely connected with the development of efficient and cheap batteries and low-priced electricity.
 
Although not specifically intended by this author, this proposed approach to energy independence would eventually lead to a very low carbon technical society. Using cheap plug-in electricity generated by nuclear reactors could recharge these cheap and efficient batteries. Ideally, this can take place at night so that electric demands are as constant as possible in every twenty-four hour period.
 
References:
 
Dr. Theodore G. Pavlopoulos, "The American Bureaucracy," (January, 2008).
 
1)  A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson, and W. Soon, "Environmental effects of increased atmospheric dioxide," J. Am. Physicians and Surgeons 12, 79-90 (2007).
 
2)  F. Zakaria, "In the Great Ship Titanic," Newsweek, April 20, 28 (2009).
 
3)  J.M. Kauffman, "Water in the atmosphere," J. Chem. Edu. B81(8), 1229-1230 (2004).
 
4)  S.B. Itso and B.A. Kimball, Agr. Forest Meteor. 55, 345-349 (1991), J. Exper. Botany 45, 1669-1692 (1994), Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96 (1997).
 
5)  J. James and J. Powell, "Ethanol will never replace gasoline," The Washington Post, B07. (July 2, 2006).
 
6)  M. Nuhuis, "We are in a war to save our planet," National Geographic, Collector's Edition, 32 (2009).
 
7)  R.A. Muller, Physics for Future Presidents, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
 
8)  T.B. Pickens, The First Billion is the Hardest, Crown Business, New York.
  
Blessings on your success!
Shane <><

 
Lighthouse Publications <><
 "Dedicated to the Never Ending Search for the Creator's calling within You" (TM)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.