Alternative Energy Sources

Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, APR 2010.

The past several days I have read many comments in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. My silence on the issue was intentional because I did not wish to appear as if I were politicizing this disaster. Many of you know I am a staunch Conservative and capitalist and I grew up on Pensacola Beach. Additionally, I believe in accountability and do not like it when either party 
wishes to spin facts to further their agendas. Many times individuals read

an article or a quick post and share it with their Facebook friends. In some instances, the article is an editorial and lacks credible primary sources and is portrayed as fact and then becomes fuel for the argument. I prefer to research all sides of an issue, and then make my own choice and opinion. I welcome healthy spirited debate on issues but do not allow character attacks or name-calling. 

Alternative Fuels
The US and almost all industrialized nations are dependent on fossil fuels and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Yes, it is true that our government and others around the world have chosen to limit research and development funds for Alternative Energy Sources. In many instances, oil companies have actually purchased patents for alternative energy sources from inventors to then shelve the idea so they (oil companies) would not have to compete with it. Possible alternative energy sources include natural gas, coal, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, biomass, and hydroelectric. As with any resource, there are both pros and cons. I would like to address just a few.

States Impacted by Spill.

Solar
Interesting fact: one square meter of solar panels would power a 100-watt light bulb for 8 hours. A “typical home” in the US uses either electricity or gas to provide heat—heat for the house, hot water heater, dryer, and stove/oven. If you choose to power your house with solar electricity, you would have to use natural gas appliances for all heating needs. In this case, you would only use electricity for the lights, TV, computer, refrigerator, and washer. This averages out to approximately 600 watts per hour; for 24 hours, that is 14,400 watt-hours per day. Most solar panels can generate 70 milliwatts psi of surface. On average, the “typical home” will receive 5 hours of usable sunlight per day. This then totals 350-milliwatt hours/day. In this situation, you would need 41,000 sq inches of panels for the house that does not have AC. This is roughly 285 square feet. In addition, you would need a battery bank, an inverter, and a huge unobstructed backyard. Remember this is w/o AC; this would at the very least double the figures above. Many homes do not have this much free space to erect such a structure or an open location where several homes/businesses could erect a solar farm (Janet Ramage’s book “Energy: A Guidebook.)

Wind Power
Wind power is another option that on the surface appears to make sense, but in reality, fails miserably. Denmark offers the best example of a country that invested huge sums of cash hoping to decrease their import of electricity from other countries and actually thought they would be able to export electricity. With the wind coming off the Atlantic Ocean, they constructed huge farms and in 2004 only contributed 3.3% of the nation’s electrical requirement. In reality, windmills appear to be simplistic: a tower with a huge fan attached that is then connected to a shaft that is connected to a commutator and then an armature. As the shaft, the commutator, and the armature rotate, it produces a magnetic flux—positive and negative poles—and voltage is then induced through brushes. This electricity is then introduced into the power grid. Unfortunately, the turbines at electrical plants cannot be turned off because of the variability of wind. Turning them off takes a huge amount of electricity to ramp up and down and increases the production of CO2. (The Utilities Journal). David J. White, “Danish Wind: Too Good to Be True?”. JUL 2004). Throughout Europe, all windmills produced on average less than 20% of their rated (theoretical) capacity. The British and American Wind Energy Associations plan for 30% but fall short of this mark. In California, the average is 20%. Again, this is because winds are not sustained to reach or achieve peak performance. Additionally, extremely high winds also decrease efficiency. Any wind speed over 30 mph decreases marginal utility because of increased wear and tear on equipment. In high winds, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. The fan must have a safety “switch” installed to keep speed low. Problems with dead bugs halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine. Also, the build-up of salt on offshore turbine blades similarly has reduced power generated by 20% to 30%. Countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, Japan, Spain, and England have halted or decreased funding for windmills because of decreased efficiency and increased operating costs. For windmills to be competitive with fossil fuels, they would have to increase by 900,000 percent. Costs to consumers would skyrocket. This is not a viable option for widespread power production in either the near or the far future.

Bio-fuels
Bio-fuels (biodiesel, ethanol) are promising assuming we can fund and implement a feasible distribution network. The main drawback to ethanol is the allied increases of alternative uses of corn. As we use more acres of land to produce corn suitable for ethanol (no it is not the same type of corn used for human or animal consumption), it displaces land used for consumption. Consequently, prices of corn and corn products will increase (less supply same demand yields higher prices); prices of milk and beef will increase (less corn for feed, increased prices); prices of chicken and eggs will increase (same argument). It is also more lucrative for a farmer to plant an acre of corn intended for ethanol production compared to consumption, which would raise prices higher. The amount of corn required to produce enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV is equivalent to feeding one person for a year. Also, the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is negative for producing ethanol. Whether we use traditional fossil fuels or ethanol, the energy expended to get the energy produced is greater. Not efficient use of energy—six units used to produce one unit. (Science Daily, 2005).

Regardless of which alternative fuel we attempt to use, there are some uses that cannot be substituted, i.e. airliners, 18-wheelers, and construction equipment without major mechanical changes. At one time, I knew the percentage of total fuel consumption these users represented; it was around 30%. This is a lot higher than I would have thought. However, I could not find a percentage in the quick search I conducted.

Other Countries
Assuming the US changes course and uses an alternative energy source, we still have the problem of other countries remaining dependent on fossil fuels. This is one of the reasons “Cap and Trade” will fail. Other countries have neither the desire, incentive, nor financial ability to change. Additionally, if we chose to stop offshore drilling for US consumption, other countries, China, Russia, Germany, et. al. would continue drilling off our coasts and receiving all the benefits from the oil. 

With respect to other countries, the US only imports 21% of all of its oil from Middle East countries—the largest from Saudi Arabia (15%). Our neighbors to the North and South (Canada and Mexico) account for most of our imported oil.

Some have argued that we went into Iraq to gain control of its oil reserves—or we went to war over oil. To date, we have received very little of the oil Iraq produces and if we do receive oil, it is to be purchased based on the spot rate. Even before the Iraq invasion, the US imported less than 3% from Iraq. (Department of Energy website.)

Obama Administration
BHO’s administration exempted BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling from an environmental impact study. The Interior Department exempted BP’s calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year. Three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely. The decision made by the Department of Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP’s lease at Deepwater Horizon a “categorical exclusion” from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on 06 APR 09—and BP’s lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions—show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, 05 MAY 10). 

Also in recent days, there have been several comments and links to a huffingtonpost.com editorial by Joseph A. Palermo in which he references an interview of Michael Brown, former FEMA Director in the Bush administration by Neil Cavuto of Fox News. From the White House Press room Robert Gibbs, made similar remarks in an exchange with Fox News Reporter Wendell Goler. Mr. Gibbs said during the interview, Mr. Brown accused the Obama Administration of leaking the oil on purpose. He stated: “Mr. Brown, FEMA Director Brown under Katrina, intimated on Fox—and it wasn’t, I will editorially say, that it didn’t appear to be pushed back on real hard—that this spill was leaked purposely in order for us to walk back our environmental and drilling decisions, and that the leak that we did on purpose got out of control and now is too big to contain.” I was watching “Your World with Neil Cavuto” when the host interviewed Mr. Brown and did not hear him either explicitly or implicitly say the Obama Administration caused the leak. The closest he came to such is in the following “…And I think the delay was this. It’s pure politics. This president has never supported big oil. He has never supported offshore drilling. And now he has an excuse to shut it back down.” The following day Mr. Cavuto addressed the allegations and included a link to the entire interview, Mr. Gibbs’ comments, and a transcript of the interview. I’ve included the link at the bottom of this note. While this might make for good debate among those who believe in the tri-lateral Commission, black helicopters, and other conspiracy theories, to think a President or his administration would create such a disaster to advance their agenda is as absurd as a President and his administration blowing up buildings to have a reason to go to war.

Conclusions
In closing, I want to clarify a few things about my own beliefs. First, I think the oilrig explosion and subsequent ecological fallout are devastating. The loss of human life is paramount. Nothing will ever restore the loss their families feel. Obviously, any potential ecological losses, loss of, or decrease in seafood industry, and economic losses of tourism dollars will impact the Gulf Coast for years to come. I support responsible drilling, and upon careful review of the number of oil rigs off the US coast, and the number of barrels of oil that are pumped and then “transferred” back to the coast via pipelines, the percentage of loss or spilled oil is extremely low. I heard the other day, that the safety ratings, with respect to loss/spillage to barrels pumped (USA), are better than the airline industry worldwide. I understand the argument if only one baby out of one million is dropped in the delivery room those are good odds, unless it is your baby that is dropped. We do not know the cause of this explosion, and furthermore, while the USCG has termed BP the “responsible person” that does not imply criminal negligence or civil liability. Additionally, many are quick to jump on the anti-BP bandwagon and choose to boycott the company until the Gulf Coast is restored to a state before the explosion. I will not attempt to dissuade you from doing so but think for a moment of some of the products you use every day that are oil derivatives; many developed or further developed by BP and its subsidiaries: Legos, Velcro, lip balm, erasers, hockey pucks, rubber gloves, elastic bands, perfume, bubble gum, synthetic fabrics, straws, toothpaste, lipstick, ballpoint pens, computers, sneakers, plastic dishes, artificial limbs, garbage bags, balloons, band-aids, fertilizers, fishing rods, pantyhose, parachutes, soft contact lens, VCR and cassette tapes, soft drink bottles, plastics, and over 3500 other products. 

Are we a nation dependent on the petrochemical industry? Yes. Should we invest in alternative energy sources? Most certainly. Ironically some of the best advances in alternative energy sources come from space exploration—you simply cannot use petroleum-based products in space or to get there, but funding for space exploration has been decreased and subsequently, the products of discovery and invention (technology transfer) have slowed. So where does this leave us? There are many things that we can do to conserve energy and thus decrease the demand for fossil fuels. Turning lights off when not in use; changing thermostats, decreasing the number of errands (automobile), replacing less efficient appliances with newer ones, using photochromic glass (smart windows) and/or thermochromic glass (repels or reflects sunlight) in new construction. Additionally, we can inform our representatives that we want funding for alternative energy sources. Of the sources, I did not mention but offer great promise is natural gas. 

Natural gas or Methane (CH4) burns cleaner than oil-based fuels but is more expensive due to production cost; this should decrease with greater production (economy of scales). When used in automobiles—Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is less efficient because of the lower compression ratios of combustion engines designed for oil-based fuels. However, engines designed specifically for CNG have higher compression ratios and therefore do not lack in performance or fuel economy. When used as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) it offers greater specific energy (energy per unit mass) than traditional kerosene-infused aviation fuels. Another advantage is the ease of Hydrogen production. You will notice that Methane has four Hydrogen atoms when water is introduced the result is Hydrogen (H2) and Carbon Monoxide (CO).

In closing, I would urge each of you to not: simply point fingers at BP specifically and “Big Oil” in general; argue we should decrease our dependence on Mid-East oil (only 21% comes from this region); believe that there are viable alternatives in wind, solar, and ethanol. More importantly, we should not politicize the oil rig disaster; let’s first stop the leak, and clean up the mess. When those are completed, we can then seek to discover the cause of this explosion and attribute or assign civil responsibilities and possibly criminal responsibilities. This is a bi-partisan problem and it deserves the brightest and most informed individuals seeking solutions from both sides of the political aisle.

If you disagree with what I have written, let’s discuss it. In fact, I challenge each of you to do your own research on the issues and make your own decisions. Do not take my opinion and make it yours. I researched most of this information several months ago helping my oldest daughter with a college paper and most of the data is still current. You will be surprised at what you discover, and how your views might change if you just start researching.