Anytime politicians force a new "energy saving" scheme upon the public, we should all be wary.
The consumer pays for it and the politicians turn it into a great public relations bonanza.
After all, their constituents love "free" energy or the chance to show that they are getting rid of that pesky oil that we rely on.
Unfortunately, as alchemists discovered centuries ago, there is no "perpetium mobile" or, "free energy." Politicians spurred on by government and environmental pressure groups are enamored by the prospects of saving energy and reducing carbon dioxide. The latter can be solved, at least partially, if we all stop exhaling since humans along with all animals and bacteria are the largest CO2 producers.
Now let's separate myths from realities for some of the darling schemes of the environmentalists:
Story Continues Below
Wind Turbines — a Lot of Hot Air?
Here the myth is "free" energy. Wind turbines are typically sold to municipalities by emphasizing that the operating cost is less than the cost per kilowatt-hour from fossil fuel fired power plants.
This is generally true. However, what is usually not considered, in the pay-back analysis, is the high cost of capital.
Part of the reason for this neglect is that capital cost is partly offset by government subsidies or tax breaks. If one adds the real cost of capital invested plus interest expenses, then the comparison becomes negative.
In other words, the wind turbine, during its approximate 25-year life span, produces less money (energy) than was originally invested. The real joker is the fact that wind does not blow steadily. It is generally assumed that a wind turbine only operates 25 percent of the time at full load.
Well, you might say, every time I drive past a wind turbine farm I see that the blades are spinning, even when there is little wind. The reason is that large turbines feed their electric power directly into the power grid. That means they have to rotate at constant speed in order to maintain our 60 cycle AC frequency. So, if there is no wind, then they use electricity from the grid in order to keep spinning. In these instances wind turbines actually use electricity instead of producing it.
Electric Cars Off to a Slow Start
The latest trend is towards electric, i.e., battery-powered vehicles.
I looked aghast at a photograph published in a local news paper showing a car being connected to an electric power cord. The caption said: "Ford plugs energy savings." This is of course a ridiculous statement.
If anything, battery-operated cars use more energy than equivalent gasoline-powered vehicles. That's because the electricity used to charge the batteries has to come from a typically fossil fuel using power plant spewing CO2 into the air. Then, batteries have an efficiency of only about 80 percent; that is for each 1,000 watt input, you only get 800 watts back. Then there is another 10 percent to 20 percent power lost in the electric motor and drive train. Finally, electric cars are much heavier than an equal horse-powered conventional car due to the great weight of the batteries.
To accelerate a battery-powered car therefore requires more energy than the gasoline driven car. So instead of refining the oil into gasoline, we have to burn it in a power plant, and then transfer the electricity (at a loss) to our homes in order to charge the batteries.
Finally; we have to convert it back into mechanical power through an electric motor. A rather awkward and inefficient method, I should say.
The Truth About Ethanol
It was remarked, that if there was no Iowa primary, then nobody would force us to put ethanol in our tanks. This has a ring of truth to it, since 97 percent of all U.S. ethanol (we might as well call it alcohol) is produced from corn.
The myth is that we use ethanol to replace oil. The unfortunate reality is that here again we have a case where we utilize lots of oil or other hydrocarbons to save a little oil (gasoline).
Here's why: In order to grow corn, we have to use fertilizers (based on hydrocarbons, mostly natural gas), pesticides (based mostly on oil), agriculture machinery, and transportation (using oil and gasoline). According to James M. Kunstler in his book "The long Emergency," it takes the equivalent of seven gallons of oil in order to produce one gallon oil worth of energy in corn.
There are some who will dispute the seven gallon oil requirement. Even if we assume that it takes only one gallon of oil, this still would make the concept economically absurd, especially in view of the fact that one gallon of ethanol gives you only seventy percent of miles per gallon compared to a gallon of gasoline.
The corn then has to be converted into ethanol using up another 0.6 gallons of oil equivalence. Now let's see, we have used up the energy equivalent of 7.6 gallons of oil in order to produce 1 gallon worth of energy from corn. Wow! Despite the subsidies, ethanol is only competitive if the oil price stays above $50 per barrel. Ethanol, like gasoline, contains carbon and therefore produces CO2.
The Hydrogen Hoax
Remember a year ago when all the pundits said, Why not burn hydrogen in your car, the lakes are full of the stuff? Well, it does not work that way since water is already "burnt hydrogen," and you cannot burn it twice.
In order to produce hydrogen, you have to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen atoms. This is typically done by a process called electrolysis, a very energy-consuming process.
Oil is burned in a power plant in order to produce electricity for the electrolysis process, to separate the oxygen. Roughly speaking you use three gallons of oil in order to produce the equivalent of one gallon oil in the form of hydrogen. Well, you might say, the car that runs on hydrogen does not produce CO2. Yes, but how about the CO2 that goes to heaven from the three gallons of oil (or gas) that is burned while producing the hydrogen?
It certainly behooves us to conserve energy and to reduce our dependency on oil and natural gas. However, let's do this in a rational and efficient manner. To believe that scientists will somehow "invent" future fuel is wishful thinking since it violates natural laws. The only rational alternative is either fission or fusion technologies; i.e., build nuclear power plants.
Editor's note:
Hollywood Hates America -- Read the Inside Store Here
Hollywood`s Incredible Bias Exposed
Investors are making fortunes in commodities – find out how you can too – Go Here Now
Hold the Toothpaste – Fluoride Is Toxic – Click Here Now
