Wind and Hydrogen
Electric cars are coming. Period. They simply have too many too great advantages to not. All kidding about the long extention cord aside, the biggest problem has always been the supply of electricity, and that can now be handled. How this will all shake out is yet to be seen, but here are some ideas.
All of this is covered in more detail in one or more other essays. This is just putting it together with perhaps a bit different idea. Not really a plan, as that would require running the numbers. I can't run all of them, so only present this as an idea.
In many ways hydrogen is a great fuel. It is high in energy and it alone can currently be used in a practical fuel cell. There are all manner of fuel cells out there, and some, hopefully, will someday be developed to the point where they are usable for cars, but right now, only the hydrogen fuel cell is really usable. Even it is too expensive, but that is mainly because of the platinum catalysts used in them. Recycling the platinum or use of other catalysts, such as nano-particles from the Fe-Co-Ni group may reduce cost significantly. In the meantime, they do work and can be used for cars.
On the other hand, there are real problems using hydrogen. It is a very low density gas under all reasonable conditions and that makes it hard to handle. Probably impractical to produce large quantities at large plants, then ship it around to where it is to be used. Hard to carry enough in a car, but if you will tolerate a range of say 150 miles, about 2 hours on the interstate, it probably can be done. And of course the real trick is to produce it where needed as needed. This is what is done with a "reformer", which is an onboard chemical plant to break down a liquid fuel, such as gasoline, into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen can then be used to supply a hydrogen fuel cell for an electric car. Several companies are working on that approach. Many problems with a reformer, not the least of which is to clean up the hydrogen, removing sulfur and carbon monoxide and other things, which will "poison" current membranes.
Wind energy is attractive as the wind is free. It is also sporatic making it unsuitable for putting directly onto the grid. It is being done, mainly as a political manuver, but there are real problems trying to get much wind energy onto the grid.
Let's start by looking at three approaches to electric cars. First is the extended range commuter, generally known as a serial hybrid, such as the Chevrolet Volt. A 16 kwh lithium ion battery expected to retain at least 12 kwh for about 10 years, and using about 8 or 9 kwh per charge cycle. Capable of 40 miles, then a small ICE driving a generator to keep going indefinitely as long as you put gasoline in the tank. Second, all electric, such as the Tesla. A sports car with a 53 kwh Li-ion battery, capable of about 200 - 240 miles with sports car performance. Third the Phoenix, a sport truck, whatever that is, with a 35 kwh lithium titanate battery that can be recharged in 10 minutes, and good for about 100 miles. Might also mention the GM Equinox, an SUV running on hydrogen, with a small NiMH battery, used only to supplement the hydrogen fuel cell. About 160 - 200 miles range.
I think the extended range (Chevy Volt) will be a design concept that will really take hold and sooner than you might expect, be all over the place. A mere 40 miles sounds too small, but consider that about 80% of all driving in this country is less than that. Most people will be able to drive all week without using a drop, yet if they need to go farther, can without any concern. Excellant design, and there is more. Recharging over night allows time to work for you I might digress at this point and point out that energy is power multiplied by time. More time, less power for the same energy. Switching to units as that probably means more to most people, and using electricity, we can say power is volts times amps. One volt producing one amp of current is one watt of power. That is not much and you usually see it as a thousand of them, a kilowatt. Energy is then volts times amps times hours and is measured in watt-hours, or more usually in kilowatt hours (1000 of them) or megawatt hours (a million).
Now this is physics, you are stuck with these products. No development can change them. Better designs may reduce the energy needed, but for a given amount of energy, you need some combination of volts, amps, and hours whose product is the energy you need.
Recharging 8 kwh in 8 hours (overnight) obviously requires a kilowatt of power. At 110 volts, that is just over 9 amps, and is very doable. The standard wall outlet is 15 amps at 110 volts. There is another advantage as night is off peak. Demand is down, plenty of electricity is available, the grid managers will even appreciate some more draw as it balaces the daily power they supply. All things considered, I am convinced the extended range commuter will be a very successful concept.
Now look at the over the road pure electric, such as the Tesla. Actually, lets assume a 4 place sedan with the lithium titanate battery, which can be recharged in 10 minutes. Assume 35 kwh giving a range of 200 miles. Both of these are quite acceptable, I think. Problem is, you pull in to a filling station and recharge your 35 kwh in just 10 minutes, time is against you. That is 1/6 hour, so you need 6 times 35, about 200 kw. At 250 volts, reasonable for the battery voltage of an all electric, that is about 800 amps. That is a scary current, needing a large cable (think wrist sized, or at least large garden hose), and if the station has a half dozen bays, each being used simultaneously, that is 1.2 megawatts. Could dim the lights of a bunch of houses.
A typical house these days is wired for 200 amps. At 110, that is only about 20 kw. Just one of these cars being recharged need about 10 times as much. Several of them will put a heck of a demand spike on the grid, and after a few minutes, will be off. That can make it rather difficult to manage the grid. Now I know the current attitude is for the government to simply mandate like Boss Hogg saying, "tend to it, tend to it", but I think some thought better be given to making it possible and reasonable if you want it done.
Here is an idea to adress two problems by addressing them together and providing benefits that hopefully will make them worth while. If the numbers work out, go for it. If not, forget it. I am not in favor of pushing something impractical such as corn to ethanol.
Start out with serial hybrids such as the Chevrolet Volt. That is actually a good first step, but it only throws away the transmission and improves gas mileage up to about 50 mpg. Worth while, but only a step. Actually, two drive motors would eliminate the differential as well.
Next, replace the ICE - generator recharging plant with a direct methanol fuel cell. There is a problem with that as they are not yet there. The big problem is that the membrane currently used, nafion, is permeable to methanol. Meaning methanol seeps through. This is tolerable for a lap top, fatal for a car. MIT has announced a new membrane that is impermeable to methanol. Right now it is a labrotory curiosity, but may be developed or something similar or better, which will allow a practical methanol fuel cell for cars. A cheaper catalyst is also needed.
Once you have the direct methanol fuel cell, you will have quite a car. Few machined or moving parts to wear out and a fuel that should easily be cheaper to use than gasoline. Reduce imports. Significantly less carbon dioxide, but still some, so you will continue to have static from the activists. I personally am not concerned with the CO2, but they have political clout and it is better to not have to fight them if possible. In addition, no fluids: motor oil, transmission fluid, coolant.
There will be a problem getting methanol available everywhere, but it is already on the market and can be quickly added at filling stations as they see the market for cars. For one thing, most stations already have extra pumps for gasahol, but since all gas now has to have ethanol (government), they are not needed and can be used for methanol. Maybe the first manufacturer can close a deal with soime chain like Break Time to add it just before the cars hit the market. There should be enough advantages that it will catch on quickly.
Now notice that there is no reason why a direct methanol fuel cell cannot work directly with pure hydrogen. Need to blow out the liquid switching to hydrogen, bleed out the hydrogen switching back, but that is minor engineering. By simply adding a presure tank for hydrogen and a fuel line and a few odds and ends like a pump or two, you can have a car that will run on either methanol or hydrogen.Why add hydrogen? Potentially a cheaper fuel, quite renewable, and no emmisions at all other than water vapour.
Why would filling stations fool with it until there are many cars out there and why would anyone want them before hydrogen is readily available? Good questions and I think I have an answer. An arrangment with the grid managers to price electricty according to demand and supply and buy and sell from/to filling stations to level out supply. Something they already would appreciate. Variable pricing could easily be handled by computers with the price going up when the grid needs more, and down when they have more than they need. It would be worth a bit of bother to them to not have to start up or shut down base plants quite so soon.
This could encourage filling stations, at least along the interstate, to put in a wind generator, an elctolysis unit, and a storage tank for hydrogen. Add a hydrogen fuel cell and some electronics, and they would be ready to sell energy to the grid, electrolysing water to make hydrogen when the wind is blowing, then running it through the fuel cell to produce electricity to sell to the grid when the price is highest.
Notice that both the wind generator and the electrolysis unit need practically no attention. If this could be done at a profit, these could spread across the land, being helpful to the grid managers and adding a bit of profit for the stations, as well as using wind energy in large amounts without the headachs for the grid managers as the present direct connect does. Now as soon as cars able to use hydrogen show up, all that is needed is dispensing equipment to fill their tank as the hydrogen is already there. If a station sells more hydrogen than their wind generator is making, they could buy electricity from the grid when the price is low, electrolys water and store the hydrogen for a while until needed for a car.
Every hour or two, or three of travel, such a car could pull into a station. Perhaps put the battery on quick charge for cheapest energy. Fill the hydrogen tank at a bit more cost, and the methanol tank at yet more cost, but still less than gasoline. Then on down the road running on the battery until it gives out. Then use hydrogen until its tank is about empty. Switch to methanol and when it is getting about empty, pull in again. Probably need a rest room by then anyway.
There are problems. Can you store enough in a car to be worth fooling with it? The Equinox has 3 cylinders under the floor behind the rear axle. They are pressurized to 10,000 psi. That is too much. I don't want to be around them. This gives a range of about 160 - 200 miles. In our 3 way sedan, there would be no need for so much range as the others take care of some. Maybe you only need a single tank, tucked in somewhere, and at a lower, safer pressure. It would still have to be cylindrical or spherical, so would be hard to fit just anywhere, and would it make any sense to even fool with it for just a few miles? In addition, electrolysis and a hydrogen fuel cell would not be 100% efficient. You probably would be lucky to get 75% of your energy back. The ability to store it might make it worthwhile and if energy is free enough, maybe you can afford to waste some. You still have to pay for the equipment, you still have the benefit of distributed and stored power. I am just afraid it would become government mandated, paid for by a never ending subsidy. Kinda like the hydrogen fuel stations in California that allow the Equinox to operate. Provided by the government and will never pay for themselves. The whole thing is just a demonstation of.... I really don't know what; perhaps the futility of using hydrogen as an automotive fuel.
Maybe a bit more practical would be to concentrate on the serial hybrids and full electrics. If the filling station had a bank of batteries, kept charged over time, and used to recharge the car batteries, maybe the power peaks could be spread out enough to get by. This could still support a wind generator, charging the batteries when the wind is blowing, either direct to the car if able, or into the batteries when no or few cars, supplemented from the batteries when too many of them or not enought wind. You would not have much oportunity to charge a lot ahead overnight as the batteries are too expensive (I have seen $1000 per kwh), but an investment of a few tens of thousands could make the filling station work, from the grid or a local wind generator, and per station could allow the grid to more easily handle wind generators.
I don't know the cost of installing a wind generator, but it should be less along the interstate than out in a field in a wind farm as there would be no need to build roads. I have seen estimates of electricty from wind costing 5 to 10 cents. From the grid it is currently about 8 - 12, so it might work. Incidently, one advantage of electric cars is energy cost. Assuming 35 kwh for 200 miles and 8 cents per kwh, that is $2.80 for a recharge, and about 1.4 cents per mile. For ICE, assuming 30 mpg and $2.00 per gallon, that is 6.7 cents per mile, about 4 times as much as the electric.
All sorts of advantages here. Maybe it will work. If some or all this comes to pass somday, remember you saw it first here.

Super Capacitors

Super Capacitors

Within about the last decade there has been a rather interesting development that seems to be largely unknown in the everyday world, but that could have profound effects upon energy production and use in general, and electric cars in particular. This is devices refered to as super capacitors.
A battery stores chemical energy. A current passes through it and the energy drives chemical reactions. These can then be reversed to produce a current in the opposite direction. Batteries have been and remain quite useful, but they are limited. These chemical reactions take time, limiting the power that can be drawn and the charging rate, and generally, after maybe 1000 charge-discharge cycles, the battery is pretty well shot and has to be replaced. The electrolytes and other materials, such as lead and nickel, present real problems for disposal.
A capacitor stores electric charge. Charges (electrons) come in one side, others go out the other, and a potential (voltage) developes. The energy stored depends upon the voltage and the total charge. For conventional capactitors, the amount is piddling: most capacitors are rated in micro farads. The super capacitors can store orders of magnitude more, clear up to hundreds or even a thousand farads. A capacitor can be charged with no delay and most are limited only by heating of the leads if the power gets too high. They last practically forever, forget about charge-discharge cycles, and usually contain nothing of much problem for disposal.
It might be useful to look at some values using more familar units. Most electrictiy is bought by the kilowatt hour. That is 1000 watt hours. A kilogram is about 2.2 pounds. Forget capacitors. The typical super capacitor will store about .5 to 10 watt hours/kg. An outfit in Cedar Park Texas (EEStor) is claiming 200 - 300. A lead acid battery may store about 30, a Li ion battery about 120 - 150. Gasoline is about 12,000, which should give you some idea why it is such an excellent fuel. However, the thing to note is the EEStor super capacitors are claimed to have about twice the capacity of Li ion batteries. The price is already less and dropping, and they never wear out. An outfit in Canada, ZENNergy, is developing a car supposed to be on the market next year, with about 250 - 300 mile range and the ability to charge in 5 minutes. That would be with substation power, but the 250 mile charge could be had at home in about 10 hours.
Now that is a very, very interesting development if they can pull it off. With 250 miles you can cross Missouri, Kansas City to St Louis. A 5 minute charge on the road at 200 mile intervals, would be quite practical. Remember, this would be at about 1/5 the cost for gasoline, and the vehicle should be very simple and reliable, and cheap also.
Speaking of pulling it off, Lockheed - Martin has recently agreed to partner with EEStor, and considering what Lockheed has acomplished over the years, that makes me rather confident they have something. It also helped ZENNergy as their stock jumped about a third. On the other hand, the Chevrolet Volt is slipping and is now rather disappointing. Estimated price up from $20 - $30,000 to $40,000, which is too much, the 3 cyclinder 1 liter engine getting 50 mpg, now up to a a 1.5 liter 4 that will probably get only 40, which is not impressive, and the latest ad I saw said 2010, up from Nov 2009. The ZENN will also beat the 100 mile range Nissan.
The capacitor is mainly used for voltage smoothing and is important for ocillators. The super capacitors (SC) can be used for power smoothing, and that could be important.Of all the forms of "alternative energy" generaly mentioned by activists, only wind has any potential, and that is only if the very real problem of sporatic availability can be solved. For a given wind generator, the power output goes up and down, and if you have a lot of them it could drive you crazy trying to match the generated power to the load. If a bank of SC is provided at each generator, or a bigger bank for each farm, then while the wind is blowing, part of the power could be put on the line, the rest going to charge the SC. Then when the wind dies, draw from the SC bank. This could make wind power practical, provided you could afford enough SC. Remember, there are likely to be still days, and you have to have the needed capacity on line, even if the wind hasn't blown for awhile, so SCs are not the compleate answer.
Whereas there is easily enough wind for all our needs, provided it can be harvested and smoothed out to match the demand, solar is needed for food. However, that in deserts could be used, and that which strikes buildings is wasted anyway. Solar panels taking the place of roofing could provide a lot of power where it is needed, particularly for home air conditioning, provided you could smooth it. Put panels on the roof and a SC bank in the basement, and you might get by most of the time. Charge up the SC bank when the sun is shining, use from it when it is not. I like the idea of using the sunlight falling on a house to run the air conditioning for that house, but this would also require the SC bank to be affordable. You also would probably have to have electric power from outside anyway, and that spoils much of the reason for going to the trouble. Nevertheless, it could reduce the generating capacity needed for the country.
Another way to smooth wind power would be to use hydrogen. Now I cannot see hydrogen as a practical fuel for cars because of all the problems distributing it and carrying enough of it around. However, if your wind farm was right next to a hydrogen plant, excess power while the wind is blowing could be used to electrolyse water. The hydrogen could be stored in large tanks, then fed to big fuel cells to generate electricty as needed. With a stationary plant, storage is much less of a problem as the weight and size of the storage tanks would be of little concern, and much higher pressures could be safely used that could be for a car. If days worth of hydrogen could be stored, then the changing of the wind would be no problem, just set things up for the average.
Something that would be better would be to convert the electricty from wind farms to liquid fuel. Sort of like photosynthesis, but using electricty rather than sunlight for energy, and converting carbon dioxide and water to alcohol or hydrocarbon instead of to carbohydrates and proteins. Methanol would be about the simplest and would have the bonus of being able to be used in a direct fuel cell. This fuel could be collected and transported to be used for transportation fuel, or it could be used to generate electricty as needed. It being then replaced according to how the wind blows. Liquid is easier to handle and store than gas, and this could provide several days worth, giving much better power smoothing.
I am no organic chemist, but I have noticed a lot of the simpler reactions seem reversable just using different temperature, pressure, and catalyst. The overall reaction would be: 2CO2 + 4H2O -> 2CH3OH +3O2. If the fuel cell reaction can be easily reversed, that might be the way to go: CO2 + 3H2 -> CH3OH + H2O. The hydrogen could easily be obtained by electrolysis of water. That I know needs no special conditions, just an electrode, such as platinum, that can stand up to pure oxygen. Of course you would have the problem of separating the water from the methanol. That can be done, and the water could be sent back for electrolysis again. The oxygen is useful, but might be produced in such large quantity as to lower its price such that it would simply be dumped into the atmosphere. No one should complain about the oxygen, and the CO2 alarmists should appreciate the use of CO2. Ideally, that would be from the atmosphere, but at 350 ppm, that is awfully scarce, so it would probably be better to locate next to a coal fired plant and use the CO2 from its stacks. Excess could be strored in tanks when the wind doesn't blow.
The only way to make wind power practical for large scale usage is some form of power smoothing, and this seems best.

Public Transportation

Public Transportation

For public transportation to succeed it is necessary to fill the seats. Fill the seats and it is successful, fail to fill them and it fails. It is as simple as that. That is a sufficient, but absolutely necessary condition. The necessity is often overlooked. Liberals will resort to coercion, but ultimately, it comes down to a simple fact: if it is useful, people will use it, if not they wont, at least if they have any choice in the matter. Both the Japanese bullet train and the French high speed rail between Paris and Lyons are successful. The maglev line in Shanghai is reportedly only about 20% full, so it is not sucessesful and is sort of an expensive tourist attraction. Why not full, I don't know, but that illustrates the problem of providing public transportation and makes clear it is not just a problem with Americans loving their cars so much they refuse to ride public transportation. Somehow, the maglev line is not as useful as it should be.

Probably the biggest problem with public transportation is figuring out how to get enough people going the same place at the same time. I have ideas on this, for a little later. Another problem is the cost of setting up a system. I have two examples. California is proposing an 800 mile high speed rail line, essentially from north to south with a couple of spurs. Price tag, about 40 billion. That is about 50 million per mile. Pittsburgh is proposing a 54 mile line from their airport to downtown, then on east to Greensburg. About 3.1 billion, or 57 million per mile. That sounds like a lot, but is about what it costs for a 4 lane bridge about a mile long across the Mississippi. Also, to put it into perspective, the origional cost for interstate highway was about 1 million per mile, maybe about 5 times that in today's dollars. Also, consider that just one year of the ethanol subsidy would build 175 miles of maglev line like for Pittsburgh, and just the 2007 tax for Exxon-Mobile would build 640 miles of the California line. The government throws that kind of money around every day. You know what they say in Washington: "A billion here and a billion there, it eventually adds up to real money."

For either line, if they can fill the seats with frequent departures, they will be worth every penny. If not, they will be big wastes of taxpayer money.

Maglev (magnetic levitation) is a subject for a whole essay for it alone, but I want to mention a few things here. Maglev "levitates" or floats about 1/4 to 1/2 inch from the track using a magnetic field. The same magnetic field can be used to provide propulsion, so no physical contact is needed. This means no wheels, no dragging of a contact along an overhead electrified cable, so no friction, no wear, no noise other than a bit of wind noise, not noticable below about 120 mph. This allows higher speed, about 300 mph compared to about 150 - 200 mph for high speed rail and lower operating costs. It can climb a grade about 3 times as steep, so needs fewer tunnels. Also, since the higher speed and electrified track needs to be elevated, this means no fences, and little or no obstruction. Practically anything can cross underneath the track anywhere, whereas the high speed rail will require an occasional overpass, else it is an obstacle that divides the country it crosses. Except for the support pylons, maglev uses no land. All this makes the slightly higher cost per mile well worth it, and I think maglev wins hands down over high speed rail. Besides, it is high tech and quite cool!

There is another aspect of public transportation, and that is local. In large cities there is bus, and sometimes trolly. What can you do in a small town where there are not enough people going somewhere at the same time to support bus? If you can't afford a taxi, how do you get around? It is no wonder people like cars. They are practical. Can you design public transportation as flexible? Well, maybe yes. People are discovering golf carts.

Of course they have been discovered long ago. I remember some young Russians, probably here for an olympics, who were quite taken with them. Not interested in golf, but facinated with the carts. They rode them as much as they could. All across America, people have discovered they are rather ideal for getting around in small towns and quiet residential areas of cities. Quiet, easy and cheap to operate, no maintenance beyond checking the tires ocassionally. Police like them as they are not so intiminating as autos for pedestrians; less likely to run over kids. Many municipalities have responded by passing ordinances declaring them street legal provided certain requirements are met. So far, those are usually reasonable: adequate brakes, turn signals, and lights, and operated only where the speed limit is 35 mph or less, which turns out to be about the whole of any town, with the possible exception of the outer portions of the highway through it, or much of a city except for main routes.

Already businesses have sprung up to provide conversion kits to make carts street legal and some are being manufactured street legal to start with. In Mexico Missouri there is a plant manufacturing a derivative that is the right idea, but a bit expensive, about $7000 to $11,000. That is getting up toward the price of a car and is missing one of the main objects. It also probably uses lead-acid batteries. Of course the market for carts is somewhat limited and they are sold to people who can afford a country club membership, so carts themselves are rather pricey, $5000 - $9000, and are powered by lead-acid batteries, so they may have a market to start with. Soon, if the market developes and millions are sold, the Chinese will get in and with their slave labor may market a lithium ion battery powered vehicle at a resonable price.

This would be great for small towns and quiet neighborhoods, especailly for older, less rambucous people. With practically no maintenance and low operating expense, a little old lady could own one and drive herself to the store, the doctor, and church, and not have to depend upon an Oats bus. She could go where she wanted, when she wanted. An overnight charge providing about 20 miles is plenty for most towns. and with the lithium ion batteries, probably 100 miles. A hand carryable battery could provide enough to get home or somewhere useful if someone ran down their battery before they got home, much as a gas can can do now.

I would like to see the states get involved and standardize requirements, and allow for going by back roads outside of towns and cities. I am very much afraid of the federal government getting involved as we would soon be faced with airbags, antilock brakes, and the whole smear that would make them as expensive as cars, ruining their advantages.Transportation without fuel would be good for the country and I would like to see it. The ability of people who cannot afford or drive full fledged cars to get around in their neighborhoods is highly desireable. These could even be used in cities to get from home to the station to catch a train to work. If you don't want to leave it there all day, someone could drop you off, take it home, and come back to get you in the evening, as is done now with cars.

I realize these would not be suitable for all weather conditions, such as in a snow storm and as such may not catch on quite so well in Minnesota as in Alabama, but for short range transportation, they would be fine in most. There would not even be any need for heater or air conditioning, just dress appropriately and put up with it. A top and a windshield would take care of most rain, though you would probably want wipers and might want side curtains. They could even have a light plastic body, but please, no heavy impact absorbing bodies such as are required for cars. A roll bar and an orange triangle on the back to designate it as a slow vehicle would probably be appropriate.

So what does this have to do with public transportation? Well, consider computer power and memory is now enormous, compact, and cheap. With just a few servos for accellerator, brakes, and to turn the wheel, and suitable sensors and programming, these things could drive themselves. If this sounds a bit too much like science fiction, please note that science fiction has already caught up with us in a lot of aspects of our daily lives. It wont take much that is not off the shelf now. And then you really have something, including personalized public transportation.
Please note that a lot of this is possible at 35 or less. At 70 in heavy traffic, it is a much, much more difficult problem.

It could easily have a data set with all pertinant information about the town or neighborhood, and could download by wireless any updated info, or the map for another town if you drove there. Don't believe that? Check the little gizmos by Garmin now found in many light planes that make navigating a snap. They even have terrain.

Now with this data base and someway to tell where they are, the rest, though not simple, is quite reasonable. GPS could tell them about where they are, or suitable beacons could be provided. Each street could be provided with a consistant center line that could be followed, staying properly positioned on the proper side. Digital cameras are now cheap and powerful. It could observe the center stripe using a camera and edge following software. It would know where the stop signs were, or/and they could be observed directly with the camera, or lines could be painted across the street as is done at airports to mark where you have to stop before entering a runway. The camera could scan both ways looking for movement before advancing. Stop if a kid runs out in front. Add a proximity sensor, such as ultrasonic, or just some good software using the camera, to keep from running into the vehicle in front, and with them knowing the entire town, they could find their way around.

Now you could drive it to work or the station and tell it to go home, and it could on its own. You could program it to return when you want to go home. This could result in a line of them faithfully waiting for their masters outside the station or the place of work each evening. "Home, James".

Now you see where this leads? Driverless taxis. Call for one and give your address. The nearest one available is dispatched by wireless and finds its way to your address. You get in, insert a card (credit or special charge card like one} to activate billing, then speak the address you want. Voice recognition decodes it, the cart knows where it is and how to get there, and after it stops, you pull your card out to end billing. It reports the charges, by wireless, to the dispatcher and either waits there or is directed to go somewhere else. You could have a drive yourself taxi. It moves around on its own between fares, but the fare can drive it, maybe at a higher speed than it travels on it own. Lower speed would be easier for autonomous control and although it would take it longer to get somewhere, what is time to a pig?

Now with cheap vehicles and no driver, most anybody can afford to use them, and you have public transportation going where you want, when you want, and the seats are at least half full. You do not have to own a vehicle to get around and old people who no longer can drive can still get around. Energy usage is reduced and it is from the grid, not fuel. Looks good.

On an unrelated note, though I suppose it is as it all comes down to energy. You may have heard of the Pickens Plan. Maybe even heard an advertisement. In case you haven't, a Texan is purposing to build enough wind generators up and down the great plains to supply 20% of our electricity. The natural gas saved by that will then be available for transportation. He proposed to do this as a private venture, wanting nothing from the government other than the right of ways needed for transmission lines. Sounds good until you look a little deeper as I did. Turns out he owns a lot of water rights and Dallas needs water. He may own more water than anyone else in the country, and he needs to move it. Those right of ways may be used for more than, or in place of, moving electricity.

Wind power sounds good, but remember it is often not available, thus all those transmission lines to try to move it around from where the wind is blowing to where it is not. A typical wind generator produces about 1 megawatt, when the wind blows, but you better not count on it for more than 20% to 35% of the time, depending upon location. A typical nuclear plant is available well over 99%, meaning it is almost always available. It will also be rated at about 2 or 3 gigawatts. Do the math and you will see it takes about 5000 to 10,000 wind generators to match one nuclear plant. If you are a wind power enthusiast, sorry, but that is the way the world works.
Now the thing that caught my attention was the natural gas saved would be available for transportation. Natural gas is not used for transportation to any extent in this country, and is only used for electricty generation in the peaking plants, as it is about 4 times as expensive as coal. True, the peaking plants are being grossly overused (something to worry about for the next heat wave) and additional electric supply could reduce that, but use it for transportation?

A natural gas fueled ICE produces about 10% of the CO (carbon monoxide) that a gasoline fueled ICE does. As a result, it is sometimes used where the air is restricted. I have worked in a larg warehouse where a natural gas fork lift was used when the electric one was busy and an order needed to be gotten out. It could be used for a little while without poisoning us. Natural gas is sometimes used in fleet or even farm tractors where it is available and cheap. It also reduces the engine maintenance. But there are problems using it, much the same as hydrogen, it requires a pressurized tank and has limited range, about 180 miles for a car and that is with a tank so big they leave out the spare tire so there is a little room left for luggage.

So what is this use for transportation he has in mind? Turns out he has some scheme that as near as I can make out is to get a large number of people to switch from gasoline to natural gas with him somehow making money on it. Now that will probably require government mandates, which will probably be justified on the basis that it is a cleaner fuel, and will help protect the planet form global warming or some such.

Interestingly, it seems Nancy Pelosi is an investor, getting in on the ground floor and standing to make a bundle. She also can influence the government, especially if the democrats increase their control of congress to veto proof majorities as they expect this fall. Now as a democrat, she wants high priced gasoline as the democrats believe high energy prices and a sluggish economy means more seats for them, but apparently she stands to personally gain too if she can keep gasoline high, as that will encourge more people to convert to natural gas.

This whole scheme has a fatal flaw: natural gas is in short supply and expensive, and the democrats are preventing increasing the supply. We may have to import more, but unless we can tap the methane hydrates, we are not going to have enough to support this scheme. And remember the wind does not always blow and it takes hours to get a coal fired plant up and running or shut down. Far from the natural gas saved from electricity generation being used for transportation, it better be reserved for the peaking plants that will need to be heavily used as peaking plants instead of base plants if we ever get up to 20% of our electricty from wind. If that happens, the supply will be going up and down and the peaking plants will be very active.

Cycles

Cycles, Energy, Electric Cars

Milankovitch Cycles
It is possible to calculate the solar energy received by the Northern Hemisphere as a result of the earth's movement about the sun and the resulting median temperature. Milankovitch did just that and published it. His calculations cover hundreds of thousands of years because they are cyclical and the orbital parameters are well known. These result in cycles of various periods and net results can be calculated. Calculations can also be made for the Southern Hemisphere, but that is not as interesting as the much greater amount of water and less of land leads to a moderation of effects.

The main and most rapid cycle is the daily 24 hours cycle we call day and night. Most everyone is familiar with it and knows there is a sizable temperature change associated with it. This is modified by weather, terrain, and locality amongst other things, and is heavily influenced by the length of daylight.

This brings us to the second cycle, the annual cycle of the seasons. This results from the tilt of the earth's axis to the plane of its orbit, and the annual orbit itself. As a result, at one time the earth is leaning away from the sun and six months later leaning towards it. Near the equator this does not much matter, but farther north, it makes a big difference. At the latitude of Columbia Missouri, the day and night lengths vary from about 9 to 15 hours. That makes for a lot of net heating during summer and net cooling in winter.

Summer and winter are affected by cyclical changes such as el Nino and la Nina, as well as by rather chaotic and random weather patterens. Some are mild, some are severe, but on the average over a long term, fairly stable.

These two facts, the tilt and the orbit, are widely known. Not so widely known is that the earth's orbit is elliptical, not circular. Currently it varies from about 90 to 94 million miles from the sun. Even less known is that the tilt is describing a slow circle, taking about 26,000 years, if I remember correctly. This precession or "wobble" is caused by the interaction on the earth of the gravitational attraction of the sun, Jupiter, and Saturn. The other planets are not important as the inner planets are too small and the outer planets are too far away. The earth acts as a big gyroscope, and this precession can be seen by playing with a gyroscope or even a toy top. Who these days plays with a top any more? Older people remember them and gyroscopes are sometimes available here and there.

The precession would not be important if not for the elliptical orbit. Over tens of thousands of years, the point in the orbit at which the axis is leaning away (winter) changes from the closest approach (where it is now) to the farthest approach. That 4 million mile difference means milder winters (now) and more severe winters (later and formerly). The summers also change from milder to more severe, but their effect is less, as a result of the strong feedback from snow and ice. Snow and ice strongly reflect solar radiation and drive the earth into and out of the glacials with smaller changes in that radiation received from the sun than you might think.

Each winter, snow fall increases and moves south. The snow line, where it does not melt before the next snow, moves south. Snow and ice reflect a lot of the solar radiation, so cause a further cooling and more snow. Eventually, the heating for the approaching summer breaks the feedback cycle and it begins to melt back north. There is usually a noticable delay in the onset of the movement both directions.

There is another effect, not widely known. The eccentricity of the orbit causes the orbital speed to increase as the earth approaches the sun, sort of going down hill into the gravity well, and decrease as it moves away, sort of climbing the gravity hill. As a result, it takes less than 6 month on the close side (where the orbital speed is greatest) and more than six months on the far side. About a week shift either way. This increases the influence of the winter part.

The net effect of these factors is to give the third cycle, the ice ages; that is, the procession of glacials and interglacials. A glacial starts when the permanent snow line, where it does not melt in the summer, moves far enough south that snow accumulates, packs into ice, and becomes thick enough to start flowing south. That is the contenintal glacier, or ice sheet. The period is in the small tens of thousands of years, and gives a nice match with data from the last four ice ages, and fair match on some before. The record is based upon ice cap cores, which give good data for about the last 400,000 years, and upon sea floor cores going back even farther, but getting less definite farther back. It took years to work out techniques, but they now have a very detailed record, believed to be reliable, giving average temperature and average CO2 levels, and several other things, based upon tiny bubbles trapped in the ice and the isotopic ratios of the elements found in them.

Less important, but still noticable, are various longer period cycles caused by changes in the orbital parameters caused by Jupiter and Saturn. These include changes in the tilt, several degrees each way from the present 23.5 degrees. Changes in the eccentricity amounting to a few million miles, the orbit sometimes more circular, sometimes more elliptical. Changes in the tilt of the orbit relative to the plane of the solar system. These lead to changes in the timing of the onset of glacials and interglacials, and show up in the record.

There are other possible effects from the possibility of a thin disk of material in the plane of the solar system, gas clouds encountered as the solar system orbits the galaxy, changes in solar output, etc. There are also random effects from vulcanoes such as Pintatubo, Tambora, Krakatoa, super vulcanoes such as the one at Yellowstone, outpouring of basalt such as the Snake River Basalts and the Deccan Traps, asteroid strikes such as Sunset Crater and Tunguska, and so on.

The main cycles are definite, the more subtle ones less so, and perhaps because of random effects or subtle ones not yet appreciated, some of the more subtle cycles are not always seen. For example, a 100,000 year cycle is missing the last 2 or 3 times around and no one knows why. Nevertheless, the Milankovitch cycles explain the record of glacials and interglacials so well there is little doubt they are the cause.

During the last four glacial - interglacial cycles, CO2 has followed temperature, going from about 125 ppm in the glacials to 250 ppm in the interglacials. It should be pointed out that it is rather definite that the cycles are caused by the Milankovitch cycles, so the CO2 levels are following, not causing them. The CO2 level may act as feedback, but it is not clear why it changes. Perhaps weathering of carbonate rocks being reduced while covered with ice, perhaps absorbtion in the oceans. At any rate, none of this could have been caused by man burning fossil fuels, although man may be involved after about 8000 years ago with the development of agriculture.

The most recent glacial ended about 12,000 years ago as the ice sheet began to retreat. As recently as 6000 years ago there were still remnants of the ice sheet. Since then, there have been a number of swings. One of the most notable was the Younger Dryas, just after the start of the current interglacial, when Europe became very cold and dry again for about 130 years, pretty well uninhabitable. From about 800 AD to 1300 AD there was the Medieval Warm Period when a colony was established in Greenland and flourished. This was followed from about 1300 AD to 1850 AD by The Little Ice Age, during which the colony in Greenland had to be abandoned. Since that time, about the last century and a half, the earth has been warming again. Rebound from The Little Ice Age? General rebound from the last glacial? Burning of fossil fuels, which started about then? Actually hard to tell.

CO2
That brings up the current uproar about CO2. The level in the atmosphere has increased on up to about 350 ppm and that has happened mainly in the last century and is plainly caused by burning fossil fuels. No argument. During that time, the average temperature has edged up a half degree. Also no argument. What is the effect of the CO2 and what will be the further effect? Well, therein lies much uncertainty and argument. Much nonsense, much jumping to conclusions, much passion, little dependable information. To say it is higher than at any time in the last half million years is debateable as the record is not of fine enough resolution to be sure there were no spikes at intervals before now.

CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas; that is, it absorbs in the infrared, so allows visible radiation from the sun to pass through, but the infrared (heat) radiation going back is absorbed and re-radiated, slowly working its way out. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 act as a blanket of insulation and slow the loss of heat, thereby raising the temperature.

Thank goodness, else the earth would be an ice cube. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. No argument. The trouble is methane also is and is about 23 times as effective. Water vapor also is and is even more effective, although it tends to stay in the troposphere while CO2 is also found in the stratosphere, so CO2 may be more effective overall than you would expect. Water vapor amounts vary widely, and there are also clouds that are very effective at reflecting visible radiation before it ever reaches the surface, and vary widely in extend over time. Hard to say what the effect of water is. Possible feedback, such as more clouds when warmer (or colder) further complicate estimates.

It all gets very complicated and no one knows just how to account for it all. There are models, and one for CO2 has predicted the raise in temperature over about the last 2 decades fairly closely, but has apparently failed over the last 5 years, showing a raise that has not occured. All very complicated and not the sort of thing to hang your hat on. Yet there are people so convinced we are destroying the planet, or will within 10 years, that they will just about jump on you and stomp you if you suggest maybe it isn't quite so definite. Algor predicted the 10 years to doom about 2 years ago, so I guess it is only 8 years now until the earth burns up or something.

You have to realize there are people who actually believe him and of course it would be serious if true. The fact that it may not be is of no concern to zealots. Unfortunately, political decisions are being made based upon these assumptions being true, and you have to realize that, to understand what is going on. Heck, they might even be true, but in that case we are probably doomed anyway, because there is no way we can quickly get off fossil fuels. I really don't like people who are shallow thinkers and don't bother thinking a few levels deeper. Sudden dropping of fossil fuels would condemn lots of people to death, and ignoring that is not rational. Maybe there are too many people on this planet. I think so. A lot of problems would be easier to solve if there were a few billion fewer people. What we should probably be discussing is how we choose all those billions who have to go and how we are going to get rid of them. That might be cruel, might be inhumane, might be inhuman, but at least it would be rational. It wouldn't be easy because people tend to have the annoying habit of trying to stick around in spite of your best plans. At least it would be rational. Getting rid of fossil fuels suddenly is irrational.

Of course by now it has become something of an excuse to transfer weath from the developed countries to undeveloped ones, allowing them to generate the CO2 so their standard of living can rise, giving benefits to more total people. The fact that our standard would drop is considered desireable as this envy of the more fortunate would like to see us punished. It all gets very complicated, and though I am not much concerned by the plight of polar bears, I am concerned the snow pack out west is melting earlier, which can lead to a water shortage. Fights over water could become serious.

I find it amazing that something so basically harmless as CO2 can be so feared, but that is what has happened. Rational thought is out the window. The glaciers are retreating! Well, they have for a long time. They may be retreating a bit faster lately, but the very idea of ice ages developed by observing retreat of alpine glaciers and correctly interpreting clear signs of earlier retreats. They have been generally retreating since the end of the last glacial. Maybe they advanced a bit during the Little Ice Age, maybe retreated a bit faster during the Medieval Warm period, but in general, they are retreating. After all, we are early in an interglacial. What do you expect, colder waeather? The next glacial will not be along for awhile.

We can't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, purportedly because of the wildlife (what little there is up there), but the real reason is fear of CO2 from burning that fossil fuel. There is even concern about the polars bears in ANWR, but last I heard polar bears eat seals. They hunt them in Hudson Bay when it freezes over. How many seals are you going to find inland at ANWR? Mountain seals perhaps? The real reason is opposition to CO2. Within the last year a new refinery and additions to another near the tip of Lake Michigan were turned down. CO2 bad! A coal fired power plant in Kansas was turned down. CO2 bad! Anything that emmits CO2 (other than a loud mouthed politician) is likely to be opposed and prevented. We also can't drill more in the Gulf of Mexico although other nations are. There is lots of oil down there and off the coast of South America, but to use it would add CO2. CO2 bad!

The use of ethanol is not only tolerated, but encouraged, on the mistaken belief that it is CO2 nuetral. The theory is that the corn picks up all the CO2 from burning the ethanol. That would imply no energy expenditure to produce it. Since it takes as much energy to plant and harvest the corn and turn it into ethanol and distribute it as you get from the ethanol, that simply isn't true. Or more correctly, every ton of CO2 from ethanol use is matched by a ton of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuel to produce it. Since the zealots are not being rational, that does not seem to bother them. Suggest methanol, which would probably be produced from fossil fuel, and they have a fit.

That abomination of an energy bill calls for greatly increasing the supply of ethanol, but not of oil or coal. The amount of ethanol sounds impressive, but we are already using 10 times that much gasoline, and it will take all the corn to produce most of it and the rest will have to be imported. We import ethanol to lessen our imports of oil? How does that make sense? We are now importing about 13% of our gasoline for lack of refinery capacity, because we have not been allowed to build or upgrade refineries for some 35 years.

Then there is the commitment to develop hydrogen. Of course political commitments can and often are dropped as quickly as they are made. Hydrogen is a great fuel in some ways. High energy content, about 2.5 times as much as gasoline BY WEIGHT. Thus 6 pounds of hydrogen has about 2.5 times the energy of 6 pounds of gasoline, but the 6 pounds of gasoline is just 1 gallon, at atmospheric pressure. A liquid, easily handled. Hydrogen is a gas, a very very light gas. Those 6 pounds will occupy about 8000 gallons at atmospheric pressure. How big is 8000 gallons? About the size of an 18 wheel fuel tanker you see on the highway. It hauls 48,000 lbs, 24 tons of gasoline. Even with the 6 pounds being equivalent to 2.5 gallons of gasoline, that means you would have to have your car followed by about a half dozen tankers to supply you with enough atmospheric hydrogen to equal a tank of gasoline.

Begin to see the problem? Of course you could compress it. At 350 atmospheres, about 5000 psi, you would only need two 40 gallon tanks of hydrogen to equal a 16 gallon tank of gasoline. Want to play with 5000 psi hydrogen? It leaks readily. It embrittles steel, so can't be distributed by pipe line. It would just about have to be produced locally, either by reforming a hydrocarbon, such as methane (natural gas), or by electrolysis of water. The former produces CO2 (CO2 bad, think reforming will be allowed?), the latter will require a lot of electrical capacity, requiring coal fired plants, and guess what, more CO2. Of course they think in terms of the electricty being generated by wind or solar, but that is too limited and a bit more expensive. How in the world will you get hydrogen without offending the zealots? Remember, hydrogen is just a means of moving energy like the distribution lines for electricity. It is not a source of energy like coal or oil.
Rather than run electricty to a hydrogen plant, it would be simpler and more efficient to just run the electricity to a recharging station for an all electric battery car, provided you could recharge quickly, and now you can. More later.

Hydrogen does have a real advantage in a fuel cell. It is about the only material for a practical fuel cell as singly ionized hydrogen is just a proton and readily passes through a PEM (proton exchange membrane). It is the only element that can do that. The fuel cell is pretty simple and dependable if pure hydrogen can be delivered to it. This can be done by reforming a hydrocarbon fuel, such as methane, in the car, just before the fuel cell instead of at a fixed plant, with the hydrogen then needing to be transported. Using a liquid fuel like alcohol is even better as it is far easier to handle. Two alcohols, methanol and ethanol, can even be reformed in the fuel cell, making it even simpler. Water has to be added and the temperature raised. For methanol, the temperature is modest, about that of an ICE, and one third of the water from the exhaust can be recovered and used, and the reactions are simple and dependable. For ethanol, the temperature needs to be above the boiling point of water, which would be acceptable in a big chemical plant, but not good in a mobile one. Also, the reactions are quite touchy; so the fuel cell would not be reliable. Of the two, methanol is quite practical, ethanol is not.

Methanol can be produced in large quantities from coal, petroleum, or oil shale, or from such things as wood scrap, after all, it is known as wood alcohol. It can even be made from ethanol, so indirectly from grain, switch grass, etc. The overall reaction is C2H5OH + H2O -> 2 CH3OH. If I had it to do over again I might go into chemical engineering instead of physics. Facinating.

Methanol can be distributed by pipeline, if corrosion can be handled, or by tanker, same as ethanol. Trouble is, CO2 is also produced along with the methanol and also in the fuel cell. The zealots will not hear of it. There is no interest in this practical and available means of producing electricty in a car. Instead, the effort will be made to tame hydrogen, an exotic fuel, perhaps for the far future, but not hardly appropriate now.

Batteries
For about a century, pretty well the entire 20th century, the lead - acid battery was about it. It is still around, virtually unchanged. Oh, it is now sealed and the life has improved from about 2-3 years to about 5-6 years, but still, pretty much the same battery. Other than accessories, such as starting the engine, it is not very useful. It has been used in golf carts, but is not up to the needs of an electric car.

In the last decade or so there has been rapid development of others; NiCad (nickel - cadmium), NiMH (nickel - metal hydride), and Liion (lithium ion). The litium battery has about 20 or more times the energy capacity of the lead - acid and can be used for a car. The basic lithium ion still has problems, the main one being a slow charge rate and heat buildup. Both these problems have now been solved, at least well enough to get started. They were caused by use of graphite for the anode. Lithium ions could not attatch readily, only about 1 per 6 carbon atoms, and being the wrong size, they caused stress, producing the heat, which limited the charging rate, and giving a life of only about 1000 charge cycles, about 3-4 years typical use in a car.

Now they have lithium titanate which can be formed into very uniform nano particles, giving much more area to the anode, allowing many more lithium ions to attatch, and they are just the right size to avoid the stess. This leads to a much higher charge rate and a life of over 15,000 cycles, meaning they will outlast a car. The old ones needed about 6 hours to charge, the newer ones about 10 minutes. That is fast enough for a recharge on the road at a fast charge station, and with about 35 kwh (kilowatt hour) capacity, giving a range of about 150 miles, and that makes an all electric practical for over the road. At a typical 8 cents per kilowatt hour, that is about $2.50 worth of electricity per charge, but of course you would need about twice as many as gas tank fill ups, and some overhead, but still a good deal cheaper than a tank of gas.

Electric Cars
Why electric cars? I believe that of all the technology available or even on the horizon, only electric has the potential to give important advancement to cars, and that such advancement is somewhat urgent because of growing problems with energy supply. To repeat something I have pointed out before, the ICE (internal combustion engine) has served well and in some applications, such as aircraft and boats, probably will continue. However, the ICE suffers from a rather narrow efficiency curve, and for automobiles, most of its operation is well off the peak. It takes too long to start and get it ready for use to be able to shut it off while waiting, and start up causes problems with pollution, so it has to keep running, wasting fuel during the frequent waits in city driving. It also cant do regenerative braking, a big plus for electrics in city driving.

An aircraft engine can cruise at about 80% - 90% of maximum power, or where ever its best efficiency is, but an automobile is almost always running at 20% or less because it needs to produce lots of power to accelerate and pull hills.

Far more power than is needed for cruise. There is no good way around this. There are V8s that lock the valves on one bank to become a 4 cylinder for cruise (GM Cadillac), but they still have to lug around all that weight, and they are complex, meaning reduced reliability. There are small ICEs with an electric boost (Toyoda Prius), with all sorts of extra weight and complexity. There are other kluges, none satisfactory. All ICEs are complex and have a lot of machined parts, meaning expense, lowered reliablilty, lubrication, wear. The electric motor is near ideal. Only one moving part, the rotor, only 2 wearing parts, the bearings, ability to start immediately, so able to stop while waiting, and a broad efficiency curve, giving high efficiency at just about any speed. They generally don't need a transmission or differiential, saving a lot more machined parts that need lubricating and that wear out. Regenerative braking recovers energy when stopping, which is frequent in city driving where most driving is done.

Their big problem has always been the supply of electricity. A long extention cord..... The lead - acid battery just wasn't up to it, but the lithium titanate battery is. We finally have a practical battery for a simple, reliable, inherently cheap and efficient car. I want one.

I think all the technical details are there. All that is left is implementation. Now I don't accuse the big car companies of being either too stupid to notice or too contrary to give us these neat cars, but I do think they will drag their feet as long as possible. Consider the billions of dollars worth of investment they have in tooling, training, and plants to turn out the conventional car with a conventional ICE. They do not want to jepordize this investment with a sizable change. They can make more money tinkering and adding all those gee-gaws so common in SUVs. Look at the recent car show in Detroit. Just more of the same really, and emphasizing styling. Oh there were concept cars and talk of such things as hydrogen, hybrids, electrics, etc., but I think it obvious they really would rather just stick with what they know. At least until the competition forces them to reluctantly change, and they think hopefully that will be years as the large companies competing with them will also be reluctant.

Chevrolet keeps talking about the Volt, showing it, and assuring everyone it is about ready to go as soon as a better battery is available. Surely they have heard of the lithium titanate battery, but probably hope you haven't. They will keep dangling it until a competitor appears, and it takes a lot of investment to start up auto production, so as long as the other big guys are content to wait, so can they.

Unfortunately for them, there are other ways. A start up called Phoenix has tapped into several things out there. They have made arrangements with a South Korean auto maker to import cars without drive trains, and with a consortium to supply 35 kwh lithium titanate batteries, and with several other suppliers for motor and controls, and about all they have to do is put them together and roll them out the door. At first they are targeting fleet users of pickups and vans and expecting about 100 miles range, but a small sedan could get up to 150.

Note that this would work well for a taxi fleet as all that would be needed would be a fast recharge station. A taxi cab running low could pull in and in 10 minutes be back on the street. Fuel costs cut to about 20%, no pollution. For a city like New York where most of your downtown traffic is taxis, that could make a heck of a difference in air quality.

For a commuter, this would be a heck of a car. Rarely would you be limited by range during the week and overnight charge in the garage would be practical, even up to the 150 miles though that would maybe need 220 volts such as for a dryer. A two voltage charger could be provided, probably built in, and for about 70 miles a day you could get by on a standard 110 volt 15 amp outlet.

Now what would you do if you want to hit the road? Well, two things come to mind. First, provide fast charge stations. This would require greater electric supply at the filling station as 35 kwh in 10 minutes (1/6 hour) would require nearly 200 kw or about a fifth of a megawatt. That is substation power, but could be provided. Providing the power would be a problem, particularly the peaking. To give some idea of what a fifth of a megawatt amounts to, the max power supplied to a new house, typically 200 amp service, amounts to about 25 kilowatts. You need the maximum power for 8 houses to recharge one car, though you only need it for 10 minutes. These could be installed in truck stops first and within a year could be clear across the state, then pop up increasingly all over the place at other stations. Second, put a methanol fuel cell and fuel tank and a bit of plumbing and controls in the car, adding a bit of expense, but then whenever you wanted to hit the road all you would have to do is fill the tank. Your first 150 miles could be on battery, then contine on fuel cell. Of course methanol pumps would have to be installed at stations, probably in place of the E85 pumps now.

It should probably be pointed out that more energy will be needed on the grid and this means more major transmission lines. More are needed anyway if wind energy ever becomes available at an important level as it will mainly be obtained in out of the way places like North Dakota, but used elsewhere in big cities. Naturally this will be expensive. Now there is a stimulus package that would give us something useful. Unfortunately, it is an election year, so lots of votes to buy, so we will be out 150 billion or so with nothing to show for it but more debt.

I hope this gives some idea of possibilities. Wouldn't it be loverly! Now if we can just get people to calm down over CO2.

One further note. I have not found anyone expressing interest in a riding lawn mower, but it should be obvious a battery powered electric riding lawn mower would be the cats meow. You would not even have to have a fast charge battery, the old slow ones would be fine. If it should run down, it is in the yard and can be reached with an extension cord. I want one of those too.
Three more thoughts. First, in defense of Chevrolet, they need to get it about right at the start. They do not want to roll out a few million Volts and have serious battery problems. Even with the fast charge batteries, they need to be pretty sure they will indeed last 15,000 charge cycles in almost all cases. It is one things to demonstrate that in the shop, it is another for them to last in actual use, being jolted for years and exposed to high and low temperatures. Note that a singe cell failing can ruin a battery. The probability of a lead - acid cell failing is small and with only 6, still quite small that one of them in a battery will fail. The battery will be replaced in maybe 5 years anyway and for maybe $50, so that is good enough. To get the power and energy needed, a lithium battery to power the car will have to have maybe hundreds of cells. They are going to have to be very reliable, or some mechanism built in, such as the shorting shunts for serial Christmas tree lights to keep the string working if one fails.

Also note that the Volt, if equipped with a fast charge battery, will maybe be a better choice than a Phoenix. You can run the first 40 on grid only, after that, gasoline until fast recharge stations become available, then more and more use them and cut gasoline more and more. You would still have the gasoline option for long trips when you don't want to stop. You could get a fast charge every time you stopped for rest room or to grab a bite to eat and cut your expense. Only 3 minutes for a 40 mile charge. This is a lot more flexible that the Phoenix, the gasoline is already available and methanol isn't yet. A bigger battery, say 80 - 100 miles would probably be in order. The Volt could always be equipped with a fuel cell once methanol was available.

Secondly, size and cost. These are not dinky little batteries you can pick up with one hand, and they will probably cost thousands of dollars. Production and competition will quickily bring down the cost, but initially, these inherently simple and cheap cars are going to be a bit expensive because of the batteries.

Third. If you really want to reduce CO2 rather than just redistribute weath, then rather than have the government mandate a reduction and levy fines if not met, consider the chemistry involved here. For an ICE, gasoline can be represented by octane, C8H18. Note there is 45% as much carbon and therefore CO2 as hydrogen. For methanol (for a fuel cell) methanol + water, CH3OH + H2O, note there is only one carbon atom for 6 hydrogen, so only 17%. Much less already, and since the fuel cell is much more efficient than the ICE, probably no more than say 4% - 5% as much CO2 per mile. Of course there would be some more CO2 while producing the methanol, and alternatively, if energy from wind or nuclear was available, running on all electric could get down to 0. It isn't quite that simple, but gives you the idea.

It could be 10 years, it could be 20, but I would bet in about 2 years we are going to see some interesting things on the highway.

Transportation

Transportation

I do not expect energy to ever again become cheap. The main problem is population. Liberals think it is unfair for anyone to have anything someone else does not have, without regard to circumstances. The U.S. has been criticised for having only 5% of world population while using 20% of world energy. Really nothing wrong with that and it is a result of technology and a high standard of living. Instead of worrying about fairness, they should have been thankful it was only 5% of the world's population living like that. The problem came when China and India started moving up. China has fully 1/3 of the world population and when you add India, that makes about half, or 10 times the U.S. population. With 10 times the population they can and probably will have a devastating impact on world resources. To reach the same point as the U.S. they would need 200% of the world's energy. They are a good bit short of that, but clearly are the elephants in the room. They don't have to do much to drive up demand. Only some disaster could ever drive it down and that would be on the order of a bloody war, world wide plague, economic collapse, something like that. Something that could cut the population by a large chunk without tearing up energy supplies. There is now talk of $150 to $200 a barrel oil by the end of the summer, and $7 a gallon gas. The annual climb and drop in gas prices may be over, replaced with a steep climb alternating with a slow climb. This is going to affect just about everything as it always comes down to energy. I want to discus the impact on transportation.

A lot of people seem unable to grasp the problem of population growth. It means you have to keep increasing the supply. Them democrats keep saying "We can't drill our way out of the problem". Well actually, we can. Increase the supply. Some idiot of a democrat said something like "The only solution is to cut demand". That might work if it was a static situation. As it is, we are in the position of being out in front of a buffalo stampede, we don't dare stop long. We have to keep moving. If you could cut waste and conserve and maybe reduce demand by a whole 10%, then in just 5 years it is all gone. You probably can't do it again, and you better get the supply increasing before you get run over.

I really don't know what we can do in the long run, but oil will keep us going awhile and oil shale will keep us going for quite awhile, assuming we can ever talk the politicians into allowing it to be developed. Maybe hot dry rock will work out and keep us going a real long time. We need those pilot plants to see how well it actually works. We have to do something because China and India are going to be eating our lunch if we don't.

First a couple of news items of interest relative to energy. First, the number of scientists signing for dissent, that is saying there is no scientific evidence for human caused global warming, has now topped 31,000, and is going up daily. I don't know how many have signed the "consensus" that humans cause global warming, but it is much less, perhaps a few dozen. Unfortunately, politicians and many others now just accept it as fact. The cap and trade bill was defeated, but it will be back. Second, there is a recent report I have not been able to follow up on, of evidence for recent underwater vulcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean. Seems this could explain some of the loss of arctic ice prior to this year. Of course, last winter, the ice increased (unusually cold winter). The media seems to have not noticed as someone recently was talking about an even chance the ice will all melt this summer "for the first time" (ignoring previous inter-glacials). Actually, the ice is thicker now than it was at this time last year, but of course they do not want to hear that.

I don't really know nor am able to predict just what is going to happen with transportation, but here are some thoughts.

First, airlines are profoundly and permenantly changing. They use too much fuel and that is never again going to be abundant enough for all these jets and for it to be our only long distance public transportation.

Prior to World War II our long range and a lot of short range transportation was railroad. There was also bus, private car, and even a bit of airline. Since then we have gone to little other than private car and airline. Airline being the only public transportation was a bit awkward, but worked as long as energy was cheap. That is over. I have seen figures showing that even on long non-stop "bread and butter run" from New York to Los Angeles, they were using 75% of fare collection just for fuel. Short hops are even worse for fuel usage and are being dropped by most airlines, with the planes being parked and pilots being laid off.

This is going to be bad for Boeing, as they will sell few new planes, but the biggest problem is it leaves us with just about no public transportation. Soon only the wealthy will be able to afford airlines and the rest of us will just have to drive. I want to discus alternatives, but being who I am, I'll expand a few ideas a bit.

Landings and takeoffs are costly to a large plane. More wear on all sorts of things such as flaps, slats, spoilers, and landing gear. Rubber abraded off the tires on touch down. A jolt, then a lot of jiggling taxiing in. More on the way out, then the engines run full power for awhile getting off and back up to altitude, requiring extra maintenance. Lots of fuel burned during the climb. Short hops will have to go. For long hops, airlines will probably still make sense, but the fares will be much higher. They have to cover fuel costs and still have some left to pay for everything else. The rich and those going a long way will probably continue to fly, especially across the ocean. I do not see a return of passenger liners as a 3 or 4 day trip across the Atlantic does not appeal to todays hurry, hurry crowd. But ships use much less fuel per ton/mile and fares could be so much cheaper with 3rd class accommodations, who knows?

What will we do for domestic public transportation? Well, I think trains are the clear favorites, but first I'd like to present an idea and dispose of buses.

One idea I would like to suggest is to change scheduling to favor minimum time inroute, rather than being on time. A route should start at the same time each time, but then run as quickly as possible and arrive when you get there. Then get back to rolling as soon as possible.
I realize that would foul up the schedual, but with modern communications, I don't think that would be a problem. Earliest times would be posted and be advertised. You would know you would not have to get there earlier. Actual predicted times could be also posted, updated according to what is hapening, so passengers would know when to expect it on any given run. This could be done with computers, requiring no manual effort. A variation in arrival and departure times of maybe a quarter hour on any given day should not be a problem as long as they are available. If there are enough trains, it would not much matter. If you miss one, just catch the next, much like they do for subways.

It would be nice to avoid needless delay. Most public transportation (train or bus) tries to keep to a defined schedual. Often, wait time is built into every stop, just to stay on schedual. It pulls in about on time. A variable amount of time is used to discharge and load passengers. Then it just sits until departure time, leaving right on schedual. I have sat on a stopped city bus for about a quarter of an hour because that was built into the schedual. If no one is getting on or off at a stop, the stop is made anyway, just to stay on schedual. I would prefer to skip needless stops and to leave as quickly as possible.

Bus service could get back on the road for parts of the country where there are no rails. How, I don't know, but if so, I think it should use variable scheduling. In addition, take care of a big problem. If you have ever ridden a bus very far you know it takes about twice as long as driving by car, mainly because every town it comes to, it leaves the highway and makes its way downtown through local traffic, with stop signs and lights. Then has to get back out to the highway. I think the bus stops should always be right on the highway. For interstate highway, make a decelleration ramp and an accelleration ramp, much like a rest area. All that would be there would be the bus parking lot with the bus station next to it, and on the other side of the station, a city street. A city bus stop if the city has them, else just a parking lot. The bus could pull off, exchange passengers, and be back on the interstate in just a few minutes. It could almost keep up with a car.

There are a number of problems with buses and one is they need too much energy to use a battery, so will probably remain diesel. With cars switching to electric with maybe a 5 to one savings on fuel costs, it will actually be rather hard for a bus to compete with a car for cost of making a trip. Buses have always been more about not having a car than about saving fuel. It might be nice to have bus service all over again, but it probably will not happen.

Trains get very complicated very quickly, but I'll try to keep it simple. They will either be powered by electricity or by diesel. Electric has long been used in the U.S., for a number of reasons, mainly to get away from the smoke of coal fired steam engines. Otherwise, electric did not make much sense as the diesel was cheaper and could use cheaper track. It costs just about as much to electrify track as it does to build the track. Then you have maintenance and higher taxes. Diesel is actually preferable for freight, while electric is preferable for passenger. Diesel fuel was cheap and plentiful. With a low density population and airlines on the way up, passenger service dried up and we gravitated to freight.

In Europe there was a different situation. High population density made passenger service profitable, and short distances made airline not so attractive. Fuel shortages from the war favored electric track, which could draw off the grid from other sources. As a result, much of the track in Europe is electric and suitable for higher speeds than the freight battered track in the U.S.

Passenger service in the U.S. is basically in the Northeast Corridor. It has been undergoing a resurgance in about the last decade with the introduction of Acela trains and completion of electrification of a track from Boston to Washington D.C. This is often refered to as "High Speed Rail", but that is rather laughable as the average speed is only about 70 - 80 mph. Never the less, this is indicative of how low speed rail can re-surface in this country and serve all cities that have rail.

Without going into too much detail, the trains have a "power car" on each end, each with a rounded end for streamlining. Between is a first class car and however many lower class cars that are needed. These make a run about every hour in some cases and basically travel as fast as they can depending upon curves and crossings. In spite of a bunch of mistakes, they have been reasonably successful and for 2007, ridership was up about 9% over 2006.

This line could be extended and others added. Electrification is costly and takes time, but should be done if for no other reason than drawing from the grid, rather than using feul. Regenerative braking can also be used, and electric drive is not as hard on track as deisel, which has a lot of vibration. . This could just keep growing until it covers the country. However, the cost of electrification means it is probably only justified where there will be a lot of people to ride. Probably, what is needed is diesel power cars for trains in the rest of the country. That could get the service accross the country quickly, then electrification could proceed as justified. The speed could increase as the condition of the track is improved.

In a lot of places it would be hard to run frequent trains until the ridership builds up, and unfortunately, that wont happen until the service is there. We had Amtrak across Missouri, originally once a day in each direction. They didn't get enough riders and now are down to about twice a week. That makes it useless as transportation. If I want to get to St Louis I am not going to wait 3 days for a train.

The lack of airline service can help encourgae trains, but I think for service out in the boondocs, something that would probably help a whole lot is keeping it simple. Those Acela trains may work rather well now in the heavy corridor, but where there are fewer riders, all that is needed is something more like a bus. Just a self propelled car with a crew of one: the driver. Keep it low and sleek to keep down wind resistance, and provide a sort of small bin on the back of each seat to hold luggage for the seat behind. Passengers can handle their own luggage as this service will be mainly for short distances anyway and they will usually have little if any. Someone wanting to go a long way may have more and will just have to handle it while riding to a city that has a high speed train station.

True high speed trains will have to be built from the ground up. New right of way and electrified track. New because the track must have only gentle curves and grades and absolutely no grade crossings. They must all be separated grades. The first fatal accident for Acela was when a car drove over the tracks and got hit by a train going only 70. The high speed trains will go at 180 - 200 mph. Yes it can be done, France is running trains at 300 km/hr (187 mph). How they keep them on the track I don't know, but these are new tracks, do not carry freight, and the trains are light, which allows for track in good condition. The track must also be protected with good fences. You cannot have anybody wandering onto the tracks as at 200 mph the time between a train being noticable and it arriving will be small. These will also be much quieter than diesels, so they can kinda sneak up on you.

Now it does not make much sense to speed up to 200 only to hit the brakes to stop at the next station. These should be widely spaced as this service is for long distance, high speed. Maybe something like Indianapolis, St Louis, Denver... Intermediate points can be served by the low speed trains on the old track.

It also makes little sense traveling at 200 for an hour, then sitting for a half hour at a station. They need to work on quick change techniques. For example, have an aisle down the center of the baggage car with shelves or bins on each side. Use baggage carts like at airports that steer from both ends so a string of them will follow the same path. Have a string of them in the aisle ready to go as soon as the train stops. A door opens at both ends of the baggage car. A tug backs in at the front, hooks up the string and pulls it out. Another tug pulls the string with new luggage in the back door, then drops them and goes out the front door. Both doors close and the car is ready to roll. Enroute to the next station, baggage handlers unload the carts and reload them with the luggage to get off at the next stop.

Passanger cars should have a door at each end and as soon as they stop the passengers getting off get up, walk down the aisle and out the front door while the passengers boarding enter from the rear, and as soon as they are aboard the doors close. As soon as they take their seats, the driver, seeing that with closed circuit TV, gets underway. The whole process of slowing down exchanging passengers, and getting back up to speed may only cost 5 minutes. At 200 mph you could go coast to coast in about 15 hours, maybe 16 with stops. Up to about 1000 - 1500 miles you would beat airplanes because you would not waste so much time on each end.

American railroads have a unique problem, from the very first they were taken over by the unions, which, with the co-operation of the government, have managed them ever since. Management has generally been helpless to do anything about it or to be efficient. For example, in the 1950's diesel - electric locomotives took over from steam locomotives and there was no longer anything for firemen to do. The unions did not allow them to be dropped. For the next half century, every locomotive carried a fireman who rode along doing nothing other than draw pay. As far as I know, they still do. In the days of steam a locomotive could go about 100 miles before it needed more water, and the unions demanded and got a full day's pay for traveling the 100 miles. That actually got codefied into law. Management tried for years and finally got it changed: to 108 miles. Brakemen were part of the crew long after air brakes made them unneeded, and crews had to be changed each time a train crossed into another block.

The new rail transportation must be a new world with new, reasonable rules or it is not going to work. A 50 passenger self propelled car that carries a crew of 5 will be hard to justify the operating expenses. A 200 ton locomotive pulling a 50 ton passenger car, like Amtrak, is ridiculous. American rail cars are a lot heavier than common practice in Europe, not because of dense management, but because of rules for crash safety. The cars need to be light, probably using higher tech materials than steel. They need to be aerodynamic, energy efficient. Steel wheel on steel rail and slight grades make them use a lot less per ton/mile than airplanes, but with high energy costs, they need to get as much as they can.

I don't know just what will happen, when and if we will get rail, but it makes a lot of sense in this new world. Anyway, there are some ideas.

Again Energy

Again Energy

Interesting that I had hardly sent an essay stating no sign of the government changing anything about drilling, than Bush announced a 4 point plan basically for doing that. Of course the dems will oppose it as they have the several times previously that he has called upon them to allow drilling. This is an election year and he may not be expecting anything, just doing it for politics. There is something different this time though, public opinion polls (for what they are worth) show 2/3 of the public now favor drilling, up sharply from less than half, just a few months ago. Maybe something is finally beginning to seep into some brains out there, or maybe $4 a gallon for gas is the tipping point. At any rate, we may actually get something done this time. I am not urging you to contact politicians either way, what you want to do is up to you. I am not interested in politics, just energy. Unfortunately, the current main problem with energy is political, and energy needs are getting critical.

Also, I am appaled that this once proud nation has been reduced to begging the Saudis to increase their production, rather than increasing our own.

I intend to give you facts, along with some opinions. The facts you need, the opinions, well, take them or leave them. The first thing to consider is the large population in this country, on the order of 304 million. The only way such a population can be supported on this amount of land is with a fairly high technology. That requires energy. Now we don't really need SUVs, we don't need to heat to 75 in winter and cool to 65 in summer. We don't need to live 50 miles from work and expect to drive there. However, I think it reasonable to stay somewhat comfortable, have adequate food, and a job that can be reached reasonably easily without living next to it. Without adequate energy at a reasonable cost, we are headed back to the stone age. An estimated 1 million indians lived here, that was all the land could support with stone age technology. Do you really want around 303 million people to die or have to move, just to avoid adequate energy supplies?

The point is that this many people need a good bit of technology and that technology absolutely requires a lot of energy, Energy needs are not optional.

The facts are these: currently our energy comes from petroleum, natural gas, and coal. It will continue to do so for some time. Currently our supplemental energy comes from nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and bio. Wishing differently will not make it happen, steps have to be taken. Alternative energy is oil shale. Period. You can consider nuclear as it can be developed a great deal more, if we can get people to get over their fear of it. You can also add deep hot dry rock likely and methane hydrates, possibly . That is it. Ironic that the politicians are talking about taxing big oil to pay for alternative energy, when they prohibit the development of the only form of alternative energy currently possible. But that is politicians.

Wind and solar can be developed some more, but they are SUPPLEMENTAL sources, not ALTERNATIVE sources. The wind does not blow all the time. What are you going to do when it is not blowing? How are you going to move the energy around? Much the same goes for solar, which is not available half the time (predictably, day only), and often not even then (cloudy day). Solar also tends to cover up the land, which can not then be used to grow anything. These should be used wherever they make economic sense, but nowhere else, and you better not try to count on them for more than about 10, maybe 20% of the total. Wave is just another variations of wind. Tide is only supplemental.

Bio is even worse. By the government's own admission there is only enough land for about 25-30% of our fuel needs. There are other things land is needed for, not the least of which, we have to eat. Remember the law of conservation of energy, you can't create energy, only move it around. In effect, bio is merely collection of solar, using plants. The plants, or parts of them, are then turned into fuel. You can't get more bio than the land can raise.

Incidently, you may have heard something sounding like insect droppings can be converted into fuel. That isn't quite it. The "bugs" are micro-organisms, specifically yeast. Now yeast has long been used to produce ethanol from starch, by the well known fermentation process, long used to produce alcoholic beverages. Yeast digests the starch, producing ethanol, CO2, and water. These could be considered waste from the "bugs", but product of digestion is probably better. Ethanol is not a good fuel for several reasons and fermentation involves lots of water. Removal of water takes a lot of energy, making the overall efficiency even poorer. Someone has come up with a genetically engineered yeast that digests cellulose and produces a reasonable facsimile of crude oil. It can be refined just like petroleum crude, so is versitile, and without all that water and a more energetic fuel like gasoline, it is much more efficient. This is a good and importatnt development, but remember, it depends upon bio input, so can never be more than supplemental. It is a good way to clean up waste material.

It makes sense to convert waste material, lawn clipping, used cooking oil, etc. into fuel as you have to dispose of it anyway, but to grow crops for fuel does not make much sense. Switch grass on marginal land not used for anything else makes some sense as it protects and builds the land and you can have it collect a good bit of solar, but growing corn for ethanol is insane. Anyone who passes on blather about we could shift to alternative sources such as bio, has not done their homework, checked the facts, done the math. With one tenth the present population, bio would be feasable, with the present population it can only be supplemental.

And the population is growing. China gets a lot of flak for their one child per family policy, but it makes a lot more sense than everyone having a whole bunch of kids and not taking into account the population growth. At 2% a year, our energy needs must not just be met, growth has to be accounted for. We can't sit still. Most people seem to understand we have to build a lot more houses and apartments for all those additional people. What is so hard to understand that we also need to build lots of power plants and some refineries? As long as the population grows, energy supply must grow. I am all for conservation, but with a growing population it only buys you a little time. You still need an ever larger supply of energy.

Nuclear makes a good deal of sense. There is the waste to get rid of, but it can be sequestered and really is not that much of a problem. It takes a long time to build a nuclear plant and they are expensive, but they produce much more power than typical plants, do it for less, and produce no pollution at all, except heat. Very clean, very good sources, we need a lot more of them. We are unlikely to get them because people are afraid of them.

The deep hot dry rock will probably get here on its own, but it might be well if the government would speed it up a bit by taking a few hundred million of the 10 billion annual ethanol subsidy and finance a few pilot plants to prove the concept and get things rolling. Absolutely no ongoing subsidy. Pay as you go or don't go.

Speaking of alternative, plug in cars are sort of alternative uses of energy, not sources. They allow grid energy to be used instead of fuel. Incidently, California is requiring 10% of cars sold in the state to be zero emmission, yet they don't even allow an adequate power system for their current needs. Makes a lot of sense.

In a way, our oil can be considered alternative energy, since we now import 2/3 of our oil. Wouldn't more of our own be a nice alternative? Now oil will not last forever and we need to have something else on line by the time it drops off, but that is not going to be as soon as many expected or still expect. There is a lot more oil than thought just a few years ago. New seismic techniques allow spotting oil that could not be seen just a few years ago, and it can be located to within 100 feet. Drilling can now be controlled amazingly, so is able to hit those tiny reservoirs, often several with one hole, kinda like stringing beads. They can turn a 90 degree corner in as little as 100 feet and drill horizontally about 4 miles, as well as going down 6. They can find and reach lots of oil that was not seen or was out of reach just a few years ago. The amount of known untapped oil has actually increased. For all its faults, oil has a lot of advantages and needs to be used at least until replacements are on line. The activists are looney for wanting to block it in favor of other, "alternative energy", before such is on line. Especially since many of their suggestions for alterative energy simply can't provide enough energy to meet current needs, let alone, future.

Note: that for ANWR, there is no real concern for the polar bears and other critters, as a mere 8 acre drilling site can drain about 50 square miles of oil. You would only need one every 6 or 8 miles across the frozen wasteland. The bears and caribou would hardly notice them, nor would the wolves, mosquitos or flies, and that is about the roster of critters in ANWR.

Note also that just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as a business tax. Any business, in order to stay in business, has to pass on the tax to the consumers. They end up paying for it. Put more tax on big oil (Exxon Mobile reported $32 billion last year), and it will mean higher gas prices as they are a publicly held corporation and obliged to make money for their shareholders, which probably includes you if you have any sort of retirement plan. They would want to maintain their current profit margin, which is the same as it was clear back in the 70's. Their record profits result from record sales, both from increasing demand and the steep drop in the value of the dollar, which means the numbers are higher even if the value is the same. Look it up, they are all publicly held and have to report this stuff.

The idea that the government should tax their "windfall profits" and use it for "alternative energy" is a blatant money grab and is a misuse of terms. It is not a windfall, just the result of sales going up while the profit margin stays unchanged. How much of it do you think would actually go for energy of any kind, and how much into general funds or other projects? Maybe now is a good time to point out that if people are sloppy about the meaning of words it is easy to put things over on them. Maybe you don't care that a chimpanzee is not a monkey and should not be called one, but be careful about windfall profit. Also consensus of scientists. When a commitee of some scientific organization reports a consensus without even asking their members, that is a misuse of the term. Words mean things and a consensus is not a minority opinion. There are far more scientists who have signed statements of opposition to positions than the "consensus" signers of such things as man made CO2 causing global warming. Pay attention to words and their meaning and don't go along with misuse. Supplemental energy sources are not good alternative energy sources. They are different things.

Incidently, California pulled a big one a few years ago when they "deregulated" their power industry. Power companies were forced to sell generating capacity to wholsellers, then buy their power from them at whatever they charged, then sell to the consumers at fixed price. Predictably they ran out of money, with some declaring bankruptcy and others being bailed out by the government, which pretty well took over. All this regulation is not deregulation, but it sure gave deregulation a bad name. Now the government can do much as they please and people are glad to be protected from "deregulation". Words mean things.

Politiicians like to call things something else than what they are. For example, calling an amnesty bill "Immigration Reform". Later they can brag about their record showing they are for immigration reform when in fact they are no such thing. Watch words and what they mean. Don't be duped by assuming they are properly applied.

Keep in mind that renewable energy is currently only capable of supplemental energy needs. Except for nuclear (which is way behind) and hot dry rock (which isn't even much in development yet), all we have is carbon based fossil fuels. We have to use them, we have to produce lots of CO2. This makes the uproar over CO2 very important, critical even. More and more I am getting disgusted with it. I know I have probably bored people with info about other effects and I am going to add to that, but I think it is important for people to be informed that there are other explainations, more plausable explainations, and more going on here than you would think from the media coverage.

Always keep in mind the Goebbels Principle: Any lie told often enough will be believed. Global warming caused by man's use of fossil fuel usage is all pervasive, so much that a lot of people simply accept it now without a doubt. It is even in children's books and stated as simple fact. Any doubter is ridiculed, and "evidence" is presented with little thought and with no alternate explanation. Also keep in mind that science is what is reliable, scientists are not. They are simply people and have opinions and agendas too. Science insists on being open and claims being defended. That is what makes it work.

Little by little, it is being realized the sun is not such a steady star as often thought. Sunspot activity can vary its radiant output by almost a percent. Now that is not enough to notice as you stand in the sunlight on a bright day, but over time, it can add up, for example, The Little Ice Age. Someone checked on the possible effect of radiant increase over the last two centuries to show it could not account for the observed warming, but they left out an important secondary effect. When the sun is active, it sends out a lot of material, the solar wind. This cuts down on the cosmic rays reaching deep into the earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays cause a shower of ions when they hit something, and those act as nuclei causing water to condense into clouds. These low clouds reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. Active sun, fewer deep cosmic rays, fewer low clouds, less cooling, more heating. There is only good data available for the last century, so this cannot be ran back to cover all fossil fuel usage, but for the last century alone, it can account for 85% of the heating claimed for CO2 from ALL fossil fuel burning.

This is just one more of the larger effects known, such as the Malankovitch Cycles. I have mentioned some, by all means not all, and need not list them again. The point is that CO2 warming, if it occurs, is much less than a lot of known effects. In among all them, CO2 warming may not even be noticable, yet it is getting credit for all, and the other effects are being ignored. CO2 is a gnat. They are getting all carried away about a gnat buzzing around their nose while eagles are tearing off their scalp.

There is an old saying in Missouri: "If you don't like the weather in Missouri, just wait awhile". Weather changes. Often. Global warming can change weather patterns, so now it is popular to blame any change on global warming, not just changable weather. Unusually hot, global warming. Unusually cold, global warming. Too much rain, global warming. Drought, global warming. Wind, global warming. And of course fossil fuel burning causing the warming. Just because it could be does not make it so. You have to consider other possibilities. One of the common fallacies of formal logic is "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc". After this, therfore because of this. It can be extended to: if two events occur together, they are related. If you drive for hours on the interstate, at some point a car may run alongside for a ways. It it related to your trip? Do either of you have anything to do with each other?

If CO2 levels increase and the temperature rises, did it cause it? Perhaps the other way around? Perhaps each caused by a third factor? Perhaps neither has anything to do with the other? You cant just jump to conclusions, but a lot of people have. This whole thing has the bit in its teeth and is headed for a cliff. One thing you must consider is that there is a lot of power and money involved. Large amounts, huge amounts, even immense amounts. There may be many well meaning people involved, but there will no doubt be others in it for the money and power. Any time the UN is involved, watch out!

Real scientists who are not signatory to the bogus consensus, will tell you that human activity has probably had an effect on climate, but that they cannot yet even tell you whether the net effect is warming or cooling, let alone how much. Clearing land for agriculture has occured for about 5000 years whereas fossil fuels have only been burned for about 150 years and to any extent, for only about 100. I understand Algor's movie makes a big deal about glaciers that have shortened markedly since about 1850. Happen to remember what happened about then? The end of The Little Ice Age. So the melting was well under way before burning of fossil fuels to any extent. Doesn't that kinda indicate something else was more important?

I probably should wrap this up with some observations. If you think these are just opinions, look up the facts and come to you own conclusions.

There is firm evidence CO2 concentration has gone up from about 250 ppm to 380 ppm during the time of burning of fossil fuels, and firm evidence most of it was caused by the burning of the fossil fuels. There is shaky evidence for a slight temperature rise during that time. There is no consensus among scientists that significant warming has occured, and absolutely no consensus that it was caused by CO2. Anyway, if you consider what consensus actually means. There are other greenhouse gases, most notably water vapor, which is much more effective than CO2 and is responsible for the earth being warm enough to live on. There is no clear evidence yet what effect human activity has had, even whether it is warming or cooling. There are many and far stonger effects on the earth's climate than CO2, such as water vapor and clouds, not to mention solar activity and cycles.

Both candidates are in favor of cap and trade. Hang onto your wallet!