This Dog Won't Hunt

Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Energy Committee, backed out of a nonpartisan agreement with Senator Bingaman’s proposal to add a greenhouse gas provision to the pending energy bill. The provision would have introduced an emissions trading scheme that would take effect by the year 2010. The senator’s position changed after a private meeting with Vice President Chaney.

Conservative
“Function: transitive verbInflected Form(s): con·served; con·serv·ingEtymology: Middle English, from Middle French conserver, from Latin conservare, from com- + servare to keep, guard, observe; akin to Avestan haurvaiti he guards1 : to keep in a safe or sound state ; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of 2 : to preserve with sugar3 : to maintain (a quantity) constant during a process of chemical, physical, or evolutionary change- con·serv·er noun
Function: nounEtymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin conservation-, conservatio, from conservare1 : a careful preservation and protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect2 : the preservation of a physical quantity during transformations or reactions
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French preserver, from Medieval Latin praeservare, from Late Latin, to observe beforehand, from Latin prae- + servare to keep, guard, observe -- more at CONSERVEtransitive senses1 : to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction : PROTECT2 a : to keep alive, intact, or free from decay b : MAINTAIN3 a : to keep or save from decomposition b : to can, pickle, or similarly prepare for future use4 : to keep up and reserve for personal or special useintransitive senses1 : to make preserves2 : to raise and protect game for purposes of sport3 : to be able to be preserved (as by canning)” Online Merriam-Webster

One would think that the prudent choices made by a conservative political leader would be for the stewardship of the realm. Ah, but what parts of the realm are we conserving? One might: maintain the status quo, strengthen the elements that produce the greatest marginal return, look to the greatest immediate benefit, look for a long term benefit, for that which benefits a certain viewpoint or --- the action which benefits everyone. These are certainly not easy choices. At some level, one must believe that the choices favoring stewardship of the realm, or some part of it, are made by all of our elected leaders. The real question, one might ask, which side of the cultural revolution are you on?

It would seem tempting to take the position favoring stability, If energy, communications and the media combine to comprise the overwhelming source of the tax base and the economy, then it would seem understandable that well meaning stewards of the realm would do their utmost to preserve and foster those elements. (What’s good for GM is good for the country, to paraphrase Roger Smith) The fact that these elements comprise the bulk of campaign contributions and technical information provided by lobbyists doesn’t hurt much either. These traditional institutions of energy, communication and media seem to have the vote as well. They posture themselves as the surrogates for all their employees. If we fail, they imply, our employees are out of work.

In a sense, these traditional institutions do actually vote for us. One might do a study to determine how much money they spend to influence one actual vote. It could probably be done statistically by measuring dollars spent on advertising lobbying and PR compared to outcomes and numbers of votes cast. Carrying that line of thinking one step further, we are probably casting our vote with our $200 phone bill, our $3 per gallon gas, and our $16 CDs. Even health care may fall pray to the hidden tax and collusion to defraud that results from the tax revenue of medical care. If medical care became tax deductible, one might see a sudden end to spiraling health care costs. No bureaucracy wants to give up its windfall revenue source for the common good, when job performance evaluations rest upon the enhancement of that revenue source.

A clear example of our government colluding to defraud is the auctioning of communication frequencies. The government can’t wait to force HD digital TV because it will mean the FCC will get their hands on the forced abandonment of analog frequencies that can again be auctioned off to the communications industry --- to the highest bidder. The auction bids are really high because the wealthy old phone companies can out bid their smaller competitors or bid them into bankruptcy, while the cost of the bid is passed through to us as a hidden tax. The government thus enjoys an ill-gotten gain by colluding with a process that should be an anti trust violation.

Energy has a similar history. Look up the “Tea Pot Dome scandals.” Gridlock seems a skimpy excuse for our lack of an energy policy. Is there a benefit to government sustaining the status quo? There must be. “What’s good for the multinational is good for the world.” I don’t think so. It would seem patently obvious that total energy independence for the US is a vital strategy. There was a time prior to WWII that energy independence was indeed a fact. “America runs best on American oil!” That time is long past. So is the time for oil. As our oil resources ran down, we began importing ME oil. Instead of getting off our duffs and developing a more efficient alternative, we supported our oil companies in the exploitation of foreign resources. More profitable for the oil companies, more taxes for our government. No noticeable problem at first, we had a reserve, but the problem was insidious. Is there anyone who would deny the unintended consequences of poring trillions in oil revenue into the violent cauldron of hate that is Middle East? Now we have the multi-national oil companies serving as an international utility and a commodity price fixed by a ME cartel of nations who’s interests and culture are hardly in line with our own.

Might not, the true preservation of the realm lie in the resolution of inherent errors, the environment, the abandonment of failed policies and the purging of institutions that prevent the realm from adapting to changing circumstances? Allow the irrelevant institutions to fail!

The history of energy has been a progressive shifting to the left on the Periodic Table of Elements. Remember that chart on the wall of your physics class. When we started burning wood, we were burning carbon, some phosphates and some complex hydrocarbon products of plant origin. Even back then the environmental consequences of burning all the wood was catastrophic. Much of North Africa suffers today from the systematic denuding of the forests.

The switch to coal represented both a thermodynamic improvement in efficiency, and a reduction in the pressure on the forests as a source of energy. Those places with coal resources thrived in the early industrial age.

The transition to oil was the next shift to the left on the energy scale. It was a shift towards greater thermodynamic energy per weight. Oil too, was liquid and easier to handle. It was cleaner burning, fewer sulfurous impurities and more completely combustible. From a physical chemist’s perspective oil contained more hydrogen and thus more energy.

The next shift was to natural gas, found in abundance with oil exploration and usually burned off as a waste product. Natural gas, methane, CH4, contains yet a greater proportion of hydrogen to carbon, 4 to 1. The yield from burning one CH4 molecule was yet greater heat plus one carbon dioxide and two water molecules.

Now we are cooking, but a competition existed with powerful petroleum interests. Those interests were strong enough to cause streetcar tracks to be abandoned in favor of the automobile. There is no problem with heating our houses with natural gas which results in the profitable sale of what is otherwise a wasted by product, but a total switch to methane threatens the core business of oil companies.

Then there is the issue of the physical state of methane as a gas. One molecular weight of methane occupies a cubic meter under standard temperature and pressure. That’s a lot of gas for not much weight. The liquid state of gasoline is far easier to handle and volume for volume more efficient. The energy is more concentrated unless the natural gas is liquified, LNG.

There seems some evidence that the oil companies are reaching some accommodation with the fact that they will have to make more of a market for their methane byproduct. One might anticipate a strategy based on the present paradigm for oil. That is cheap readily available methane from exploited areas such as the ME or SE Asia, liquified and shipped by tanker. Importing in this manner still relies upon an international utility network or cartel over which we have little or no control. Not good strategy, but we seem committed to the multinationals and reliance upon these existing and politically connected institutions. Here in Alaska our state revenue depends upon oil and expectantly upon natural gas as just about our only significant revenue source.

Hydrogen, in more ways than one, may be the last stop on the periodic table moving to a yet higher thermodynamic yield. We have only begun to solve the problems with compression or liquefaction of methane and hydrogen presents even more of the same challenge. Pound for pound, however hydrogen yields quite a bit more energy than methane, oil or coal. . The gases have the further advantage of working in a fuel cell to generate electrical energy directly. In fact, propane, methane and hydrogen are used in fuel cells today. Furthermore, the energy yield is greater in a fuel cell than in an internal combustion engine. The electric engine is more efficient than the internal combustion engine as well. So, one might look to hydrogen, fuel cell and electric motor for the most powerful and economic vehicle of the future.

What might make a sustainable progression, starting with today’s hybrid vehicles? It might follow somewhat along these lines. First the addition of plug-ins for the hybrids for charging batteries at night, even solar panels. Every bit helps, and it is cost effective at $3 per gallon. Replace gasoline tanks with a compression tank that will operate with propane, methane or hydrogen. It is even conceivable that the same tank could hold any of the three gases, gasoline or diesel and that the engine could run on any or all of the above. Next, replace the conventional engine with a small ceramic turbine no longer connected to the drive train, a pure diesel or gas electric. We have lots of experience with the technology. Finally migrate to gas fuel cell with independent filling stations and presumably oil companies supplying all three gasses and the additional option of solar cell generation of hydrogen at the pump or on the back of the vehicle. In this way, hydrogen might act as a battery or as a transport of electrical energy. Hydrogen is found with methane from swamp water. Some kinds of algae photosynthesizes hydrogen along with oxygen. Plants love carbon dioxide and water. Maybe we could trailer a greenhouse behind our cars. We could have fresh radishes when we stop. The mixture of fuel options, hydrogen, methane, propane as well as petroleum at the pump allows a transition, a diversity and fosters the emersion of the best solutions.

It is not possible to consider the environmental consequences of hydrogen and lighter hydrocarbons without considering energy generation on the electrical grid. Plug-ins in a coal generating segment of the grid may cause more pollution than is saved. Since Three Mile Island, coal has staged a comeback, and nuclear power has dwindled. Some of the largest coal plants are in Indian Territory with native corporations wielding strong economic and political power. Some of the plants burn oil. Sustainable energy is needed at all levels, but this is where a transition to cleaner more efficient fuels remains intransigent, it takes forever. Build a dam and we destroy salmon. Shut down coal or oil and the power lobby comes after you. Go nuclear and the environmental concerns are overwhelming. The latest question revolves around the question, can birds out fly the blades of the wind generators. Clearly solar, wind, thermal, maybe tides and a new kind of contained pellet nuclear reactor could help. One such pellet reactor yields hydrogen as a byproduct of cooling.

Cheap electricity could turn the trend. Should it be subsidized, should the president evoke the War Powers Act to overcome the impasse on energy policy, and even if he could, would he move us in the right direction? Where do you find a leader who knows the science, has the courage and the charisma to successfully lead us through what amounts to messy revolution?

Moving into the quantum aspects of the periodic table and a bit beyond the realm of physical chemistry there is the consideration of fusion. Pound two protons together hard enough to get them to fuse as helium, and we have another deal altogether. Published this month, without much fanfare, an understandable description of a recent UCLA substantiated experiment in Cold Fusion can be read in the Christian Science Monitor. The experiment took place on the workbench using a crystal and a bit of heat to focus an electric field. The energy in, however, was greater than the energy out. Serious hot fusion experiments are still under study.

Additionally, there is the whole concept of anti matter and dark energy. Far away future energy sources but there may still be more natural energy in our immediate environment than is generally recognized. Solar cells are getting better. There is enormous solar EM that we have yet to harness. There is the magnetic field surrounding the Earth, a free energy source --- and an enormous energy in thunderstorms. Ah, driving through Alabama with my long Thunderstorm-mobile, antenna scintillating in the dark.

Well, the way things are going, this dog won’t hunt any time soon. There seems a cultural revolution. Technology is part of it, but passing on of the old monolithic institutions of the industrial age is there too, starting with Viet Nam. Globalization is failing just as colonialism failed under the perception of exploitation. Possibly, forced democracy and capitalism may be less palatable than colonialism under the perception of crusades and multinational corporate exploitation. Capital development too has seemed suspect to struggling subsistence cultures. When you stop to think about it with colonialism there was no requirement for a payback. The colonials were actually more successful in containing malaria than we have been. Sanitation has lost ground with Globalization. What are we about?

I think we had better look to ourselves and not export our own chaos. For me this would start with an energy policy that ends, even abruptly, all petroleum imports! The disruption would be staggering, but alternatives would tumble out of the woodwork. We put ourselves in this position. Let’s fix it. If we were shrewd about it, we should threaten the embargo and let the sheiks reduce the price of oil to all time lows in order to entice us back into complacency. That should smooth out the transition, if indeed, we would not become complacent once more. Talk it up in the UK as well, but stick to the strategy. Subsidize the transition. The economic stimulation of new opportunity, energy infrastructure and intense innovation should be immense. The strategic advantage to us on a higher technological energy plane would be incalculable. Phase out the war on terror and instead make peace on our economy. After all a good Republican is an isolationist. Lets solve our own problems: healthcare for all, state by state and education. Lets fund Social Security and quit messing around. Work for justice, free Information, and let’s solve the Energy challenge once and for all. Maybe this dog could hunt.