Making America independent of foreign oil imports is not so much a matter of economics as of missing technology
I have always liked Arthur Laffer's approach to situational analysis. He cuts right to the heart of the matter, and then shows what works and what doesn't. He always has a good reason for his conclusions, as well. On December 18 an op-ed by Dr. Laffer appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the subject of energy independence, which he believes the incoming Obama administration should forget about. While the goal is worthwhile, and desirable, I believe that Laffer is right, for the immediate future. The reason he cites for his conclusion stems from the fact that the United States imports so much oil that at under present circumstances cutting off foreign sources would mean gasoline at 20 dollars a gallon here, while other nations such as China would have an increased supply available; because they compete with us for the world's oil they would be able to buy all that we have decided not to. It amounts to subsidizing our competition and starving out selves.
This is, of course, a bad idea. Industries that depend on petroleum-based energy including transportation, automobile manufacturing, and construction, would under such a program, suddenly find themselves without an energy supply, or without a market for their goods. Who would buy a car with twenty dollar a gallon gas? So much for saving the Detroit Three auto makers.
But what Dr. Laffer misses, in addressing the issue is the problem of technology. I can hardly fault him, as he is an economist and it is natural for him to address Mr. Obama's constant refrain about creating new jobs in "green industries" as an issue of finance and taxation. But still, the issue of technology should be one that jumps out and confronts just about anyone looking at this question and Dr. Laffer isn't just anyone. I feel compelled, therefore, to address it myself from the technological angle.
The chimera of "green jobs" is one that has reared its head from time to time and has some small amount of substance, but not much. What we have today is the ability to reduce energy use by, in effect, turning out the lights automatically when we leave the room. We can build homes and office buildings smarter in their energy use, but this is unlikely to generate a significant number of new jobs. Instead, it redefines the old ones so that our construction workers install new equipment to make the buildings more efficient. Result; very few new jobs. The new equipment needed can and will be built by existing companies, with an existing work force. Where there may be some new work in this sector is in retrofitting old buildings. This will be limited because there is only so much you can do to an older building, sad to say.
Meanwhile, much of the rhetoric has focused on the automobile industry; another area already well staffed. Building more efficient vehicles may employ some new people in engineering, but not in assembly, where there are many more positions. What's more, if these new vehicles are not up to consumer standards, they will not sell, and if no one buys them all of the companies making them will be in trouble in short order. Electric powered vehicles have been a goal ever since the dawn of the automobile. The trouble is that so far they do not live up to the American standard of being able to take you anywhere you want, any time you want with a five-minute recharge after a 300 or 400-mile trip segment. Driving from Houston to California in a Chevy Volt would be impossible. Some engineers have been focusing on fuel cell powered vehicles, but they have not been sufficiently practical as yet to make a dent in the market, have a seven figure price tag, and there is the additional problem that we don't have hydrogen refueling stations everywhere. A lot of changes will have to be made before this is a practical reality.
Lastly, using hydrogen and electrically powered vehicles presents another problem. Hydrogen needs to be split off of water molecules by means of electricity, and pure battery powered vehicles will require electrical recharging stations. Both of these mean that we will need much larger amounts of electrical generating capacity to make them practical. Today we have four major forms of electrical generation; hydro, nuclear, and coal and natural gas fired generators. The incoming Obama administration has clearly stated that coal and natural gas are in disfavor. Nuclear is considered unsafe, regardless of its impressive record here in the US, and Hydroelectric generation is limited to those areas where water can be stored behind dams to power generators. This is limited by geographic considerations. You can't build hydroelectric stations in the Great Plains. Some alternative energy pundits have suggested wind power, but it has a poor track record, and has already earned the wrath of environmentalists because the wind turbines are a hazard for birds. Many of the wind generators built in the 1970's are falling into disrepair, and were built largely because of tax incentives, and not because they were a good source of long term revenue or power.
In the long run, we are going to have to decide where our priorities lie. Right now we don't have the infrastructure or technology available to make any of the alternative power sources practical without serious changes. In order for the needed changes to take place we will need significant investment, and investment requires expectation of a profit. People are not going to invest in hydrogen fueling stations until they believe that there will be enough hydrogen-powered cars on the road to use them. Likewise, people are not going to buy the cars when they can't get fuel.
While Government can be the source of infrastructure funding, it is probably a bad idea because anything government gets involved in costs more than it should and is rarely completed on time and up to specifications. I would prefer to wait, and perhaps the automobile manufacturers can work out a partnership with the oil companies to provide the car and the fuel together. Hydrogen fuel cells may be the best long run solution, but we will need to get a lot done before they become an everyday reality.
Steven,
“Green jobs” is certainly a fraud, but isn’t a ‘chimera’ (a chimera is something entirely devoid of substance). In fact, it is getting to be awfully darn ‘real’. There are hundreds of existing jobs that easily qualify as “green”. If a job undeniably saves energy, it is ‘green’. For example, as a facilities engineer I am constantly looking for ways to cut energy waste. Therefore, my job is unarguably ‘green’ and has been for as long as I’ve been at it. Similarly, if a job unarguably improves air or water quality (sulfur, NOx), I doubt any of us would argue it is ‘not green’. Ergo, in the rush to approval, hundreds of jobs that previously were simply ‘jobs’ are being repackaged as ‘green jobs’. In fact, almost every job in the world has, as part of its function to cut waste in some form (excepting, of course, bureaucrats and Congress). Nothing new is created, but something new is being sold.
We both know relabeling everything from sanitation-worker to barber to windmill-contractor to promoter as “green” is really about saturating public awareness with the anti-technology message and co-opting all of us into doing the work of radicals for them. We also know that politicians like Obama can stretch this term to fit any jobs they wish. However many new jobs are created and regardless how ‘green’, Obama takes credit for them, even if his administration plays no part in the creation. So, it matters not whether a particular job is functionally green than that relabeling all-and-sundry sells the idea of ‘green’ and undermines the idea we can opt out. The hawkers of hype are perfectly happy labeling every job, regardless of appropriateness, green if that makes acceptance with the concept universal. The object here is not jobs, it is selling the message.
“we don’t have hydrogen refueling stations everywhere”
To your credit you do mention, in the next paragraph, that Hydrogen must be “split off”. BUT, and it is a big but, you do not mention that Hydrogen is just plain NOT available as a primary source of energy. While 75% of the universe is hydrogen, on earth, which is where we live, hydrogen has combined with other elements, such as carbon (oil & gas) and oxygen (water). In order to get hydrogen without these other elements we must expend energy such as solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, coal, gas, or oil. This expenditure of energy is not insignificant and it causes the same kind of costs and risks we have now by burning gasoline. If and when the hydrogen powered cars hit the road, I fully expect a protest movement that will show the Hindenberg Zeppelin burning up with Herbert Morrison shouting “Oh, the humanity!” and that will be the end of the market of H power.
Your statement about the long-range drive ability of the Volt highlights your lack of knowledge on this topic. The Volt can continue driving after the battery is depleted by generating enough electricity with its small gas motor to fully power the car. There is nothing new about series hybrids of this nature, diesel/electric locomotives have been the core of the US rail system for decades. Recharging at your destination will simply return the ability to run for the first 40 miles solely on electricty. Your drive from Houston to CA would be the same as any other car, but you wouldn’t have to stop for gas as often.
Your vision of a hydrogen infrastructure is also outdated. The staggering costs of a duplicate fuel system was seen and addressed. The solution is decentralizing the fueling process. To do so both Honda and GM have developed what is called at Honda a “hydrogen appliance”. These small device will be in your home garage next to your washer, dryer and neglected bicycle. With ranges of 2-400 miles, you would never have to stop at a gas station while in town. Just fill up at home at the end of the day. On the road, there would still be a need for stations, but only on major highways, not on every street corner.
Several prototype appliances are also solar powered, so they don’t Peter to pay Paul. Hydrogen is available as water almost everywhere. Potable water, is however a limited resource nowadays. Treated waste water however is an ideal source, and using it to generate fuel also solves a nationwide disposal problem. The water industry has been looking for a cost-effective justification for double plumbing…there it is.
And remember…nobody ever learned anything while they where talking. So I would recommend “listening” a little more about alternative transportation, before blogging on this topic in the future.
At no point can we EVER consider hydrogen to be a source of energy. At best, it can only be a carrier of energy. The only commercially viable way at present to produce hydrogen for use as a fuel is to split it off from hydrocarbons. Yes, it is possible to split it from the oxygen in water – but only with a huge energy input. That energy must come from another source such as nuclear, wind, geothermal or, in a utopian situation, solar.
Even after producing the hydrogen, there is the difficulty in transporting and storing it. The energy density of hydrogen is very low – meaning that it takes a very large volume of hydrogen gas to provide suitable fuel equivalents for transportation use. This means that large storage tanks are required unless it is stored as liquid or at very high pressures – both offering their own problems.
Finally, hydrogen has the very interesting property of being an extremely small molecule (it exists in nature as H2) with the inconvenient ability to find its way through the interstices in such materials as steel and aluminum. This means that, after we go to the trouble of splitting hydrogen off from whatever feed stock that we choose, we lose a very large portion of it through the very walls of the storage tanks and transport pipes that we rely on to make it available for use as fuel. The loss is easily 10 percent.
In short, the only advantage hydrogen offers is the fact that is an abundant and clean-burning gas. The difficulty is in producing, transporting and storing it in sufficient quantity and with suitable efficiency to make it a viable fuel.
SBD wrote “Your vision of a hydrogen infrastructure is also outdated. The staggering costs of a duplicate fuel system was seen and addressed. The solution is decentralizing the fueling process. To do so both Honda and GM have developed what is called at Honda a “hydrogen appliance”. These small device will be in your home garage next to your washer, dryer and neglected bicycle. With ranges of 2[00]-400 miles, you would never have to stop at a gas station while in town.”
Honda and GM did not develop hydrogen generators. They have been around for decades. I have installed several small, low pressure generators in a number of [non-automotive] applications. What SBD fails either to mention or realize is that generating hydrogen this way negates the whole point of going to hydrogen-fueled cars in the first place. Generators use hydrolysis (pass electrical current) to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrolysis consumes far more in (fossil fuel produced) electricity to get hydrogen than you regain from burning the hydrogen (negative EROI) in an engine. Hydrolysis is, by far, the least efficient means of producing hydrogen; and even the best industrial process so far devised consumes more in fossil energy than can be returned as burn energy. There are also a number of safety concerns with generators requiring they be properly installed, serviced and operated if substantial quantities of hydrogen are to be produced, stored (at significant pressure), and transferred to H2 fueled cars. For example, you wouldn’t want this in your basement leaking hydrogen into your well sealed house.
The only means of storing hydrogen at near atmospheric pressures is using specially fitted hydride tanks. These tanks store hydrogen in crystalline form, which are then warmed to release hydrogen on demand (still more energy required).
http://www.greenfuturetechnology.com/ – is this the generator SBD means?; if so it is nothing but an add-on to fossil burning engines and a fake – robs power from battery to make the hydrogen
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm – here’s an example of hydride tanks in a car; this too uses more energy to make the hydrogen than is worth, but at least this guy (barely) mentions the electricity should come from solar panels or a wind generator if the intention is not simply burning fossil fuel in alternative form; he claims he can store enough H2 in four small hydride bottles to travel 350 miles; however, if you read carefully, all he is really doing is extending the normal driving range of a gasoline engine that is mostly burning (you guessed it) gasoline! Caution: check with an engineer before burning hydrogen in your car’s engine without first modifying fuel and emission controls, oil seals, &c, or you could seriously damage your car or self. Some of the long term problems I see with this are: a) seals dried out and attacked by hydrogen, b) oil breakdown, c) oil igniting in pan, d) detonation of unburned hydrogen in exhaust manifold, e) catalytic converter or at exhaust pipe exit, and leaking hydrogen (from bottles, hoses and fittings) accumulating in car cabin.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-hydrogen-hype-goin-mobile/ – according to this article, GM came out last year with a hydrogen generator on wheels whose sole purpose appears to be keeping people from realizing the H2 support infrastructure ain’t here yet (while they sell lots of H2 cars). This would make H2 cars toys for hobbyists for some time yet.
http://hydrogengenerators.info/News/141-General-Motors-US-Government-joins-forces-to-Boost-Hydrogen-Storage.asp – What GM has been working on (and we’ve known about this for many years) is a decent on-board storage system for hydrogen gas than ½” thick wall, 10” diameter cylinders that would account for half the weight of a 5 seat passenger car. So far, hydride tanks are the best we’ve come up with. Making hydrogen economically is only one of the problems facing a hydrogen-transport infrastructure. By far, the biggest problem is storing sufficient hydrogen on-board to actually go further than to your grocery store and back.
SBD,
You accuse Steven of being “outdated”, but it seems your own information was not much better; or you’ve bought some fast sales pitch. If Steven was unaware of the generator option, you, apparently, think it some marvelous recent breakthrough. You are further mistaken thinking we’d be freed from the need to regularly fill up on gasoline (unless you also assume we’re in a hurry to trade in perfectly adequate gas guzzlers for fuel-cell models just so we’ll be fashionably PC).
Bob
Seconding your statements on Hydrolysis, I remember so well, in 1959, when our physics teacher made oxygen and hydrogen then piped them both into a bottle. Removing the tubes from the bottle he put a match to the mixture. The ensuing blast looked like a redstone rocket heading for China. That was hard to forget. He was a great teacher!
Bucky says “At no point can we EVER consider hydrogen to be a source of energy. At best, it can only be a carrier of energy.”
Sure it can. E = mc^2. All matter is energy and energy is matter, one consequence of which is nuclear power (i.e., if this equivalence did not exist, Hiroshima could never have happened). It is more technically correct saying all chemical fuels (including fossil) are ‘mere’ energy carriers in the same sense you associate with hydrogen (i.e., short of nuclear unbinding, all fuel is no better than an energy repository). Both represent stored energy and, where fossil fuels were created long ago via naturally occurring chemical-physical means, hydrogen is now created via man-directed chemical-physical means. Both require more energy to create than is recovered through simple combustion; the real difference being nature has already done most of the work for us in the case of fossil fuels. If we were starting from scratch combining carbon and hydrogen to get gasoline (using, say, wind-power as our energy source), it would be less energy intensive making hydrogen and forgoing gasoline, and with a better overall EROI (energy return-on-investment). Therefore, which of these fuels represents a source v. carrier is largely a matter of starting point. ‘Carrier’, in this sense, simply means a conversion for convenience sake without regard to EROI. As hydrogen is even less convenient than gasoline, the carrier as convenience aspect of hydrogen becomes moot.
A better example of energy carriers would be things like batteries, capacitors, flywheels, compressed-air tanks, &c which store energy kinetically rather than chemically. Here, the difference between source and carrier in this sense is one of persistence. Batteries, for example, hold charge a few months at best, gradually leaking charge over time and degrading physically. The other examples I gave have still shorter storage times. By contrast oil, once formed, holds its chemical-energy many thousands of years. Hydrogen, if properly isolated, has an even longer staying potential, the only trick being keeping it from a) leaking out and b) gradually corroding/interacting with the container.
Yet, even these are not primordial sources of energy. All oil is the product of sunlight, biology and pressure. Wind and solar energy are closer to primary sources than oil, yet they too involve conversion. The sun itself is the product of billions of years of gravitational accretion creating the conditions necessary for nuclear fusion, making gravitational-energy primal relative to the solar-energy we generally regard as ‘primary’. That makes the sun’s mass yet another instance of energy carrier/source, and its fires a transitional state. And, where did this primordial gravitational-energy come from? Why, from the creation of matter itself; either in one big bang of potential matter/anti-matter creation/annihilation or sprung from the mind of G-d beyond which there can be no reckoning.
Any way, the point I make is this: the choice of source or carrier when talking energy is largely semantic. Energy is ultimately finite and withers away to nothing as entropy dissipates it. The more relevant question then is: which source/carrier in any given context results in maximum utility at the least waste and effort?