E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, author of the new textbook "Physics and Technology for Future Presidents," says Barack Obama could learn a lesson from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Using offshore oil to solve America's liquid energy security issue poses a bigger problem than previously thought, he said.
You won't find the professor's answer to the problem in the back of the book, but it can be summarized in two words: natural gas.
"The thing the president really needs to know is that we have huge supplies of natural gas; that although it's not liquid, compressed natural gas is an alternative fuel for U.S. automobiles. And U.S. policy has not taken advantage of that in any significant way," Muller told me today.
Natural-gas drilling is fraught with controversy, but in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, policymakers and energy-industry executives may well shift their focus from offshore oil to onshore natural gas, Muller said. That's not something Obama is likely to talk about when he visits the Louisiana coast to assess spill damage on Friday. He's more likely to play up his administration's new steps to go slow on offshore drilling. Nevertheless, Muller said the oil-spill crisis provides Obama with a golden opportunity to widen the debate over America's energy options.
Multiple-choice questions
Muller addresses energy policy, climate change and many other hot-button political issues in his textbook, which is an academic spin-off of "Physics for Future Presidents," a book that's geared for less scientifically inclined audiences. The 532-page textbook covers twice as much material as the earlier book, and includes all the features you'd expect from a classroom text (including multiple-choice and essay questions at the end of each chapter). Muller says the text already been adopted by 15 universities in the United States, plus another university in Pakistan.
"The strangest place it's been used [as a textbook] is actually not in Pakistan, but in San Quentin," Muller said. He's heard tales of inmates at the California prison sitting around in the exercise yard, discussing physics. "That's the one place where I guarantee there's no future president coming out," he joked.
Muller said he's heard that first lady Michelle Obama promised to pass along a copy of the book to her husband, and he's gotten feedback from "very high-level people" in the administration (though he's not naming names). He's also proud of the warm reviews that "PFFP" has received from the left side of the political spectrum (Huffington Post) as well as the right side (National Review).
"To get good reviews from both sides on issues that are as contentious as terrorism, nuclear war and global warming is very gratifying," he said. "This is stuff that Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Physics is nonpartisan."
Pros of natural gas
So here's Muller's take on post-spill energy policy:
"When you're talking about energy, there are really three issues that get confused: global warming, local pollution - that's the issue that has thrust itself in here - and liquid energy security," he said. The United States has plenty of fossil-fuel energy reserves, in the form of coal and gas, but the challenge is how to put those reserves to use, along with energy alternatives, while addressing those three key issues.
The energy industry had thought increased offshore-oil drilling could boost America's liquid-fuel supplies, even though it wouldn't really address the global-warming issue. Muller said "the crisis caused by this spill reminds us that there's another dimension to liquid fuel that is bad for the environment" - that is, the potential for pollution on a regional scale.
The way Muller sees it, compressed natural gas offers a viable alternative for fueling the nation's automobiles. The greenhouse-gas impact of natural gas consumption is slightly less than that of burning gasoline. Natural gas contains more energy per pound than gasoline, although it's not as dense. America's energy infrastructure might have to be reworked so that drivers "fill 'er up" from a natural-gas pipe rather than from a gasoline hose. Natural-gas-fueled autos might have to have a shorter range than gasoline-fueled cars. But Muller thinks the problems are solvable.
"Natural-gas automobiles are much closer to widespread use than the president's favorite alternative technology, electric cars," he said. "I believe the physics says that his alternative is a poor choice."
There's far less energy in a pound of car batteries than there is in a pound of gasoline or natural gas, even when you're talking about the high-tech batteries that go into a Tesla or a Chevy Volt. "This is not a realistic alternative for the bulk of the American people," Muller said. "It will work only for wealthy Americans."
Cons of natural gas
Natural gas is not without its own serious environmental issues: In addition to the greenhouse-gas impact, some gas-extraction companies have developed a bad reputation, as shown in the award-winning documentary "Gasland."
"What they do in order to extract natural gas is, they'll drill horizontal wells into shale, and then they'll pump water down and crack the rock [to release the gas]. You have this water that comes back up, and what do you do with it? You could clean it, but in the past the industry has not done a good job of doing that," Muller said.
Muller said he'd like to see Obama put together a study group to take a hard look at energy alternatives, building on the momentum generated by oil-spill outrage. All the options should be covered, including an intelligent approach to natural-gas drilling. "The drilling has to be accompanied by legislation that will assure that local communities can benefit, and that environmental damage will not be done," Muller said.
I'm still partial to approaches that go beyond fossil fuels - including terrestrial solar and wind, biomass, bacteria and algae, "negawatts" and nuclear, even space solar power and fusion in the long term. But Muller is correct that power portability has to be part of the equation. It'd be great to see revolutionary new battery technologies and ethanol/methanol initiatives, but maybe natural gas deserves some consideration as well, at least as a short-term alternative. What do you think? Feel free to leave your comments below.
Bonus round: I'm including four multiple-choice questions from "Physics and Technology for Future Presidents" below. Take a crack at giving the correct answers in your comment (for example, "1:A, 2:B, 3:C, 4:D"), and I'll weigh in with the answer key on Friday.
1. Which of the following contains the most energy per gram?
- A. TNT
- B. Chocolate chip cookies
- C. Battery
- D. Uranium
2. Compare the energy in a kilogram of gasoline to that in a kilogram of flashlight batteries:
- A. The gasoline has about 400 times as much energy.
- B. The gasoline has about 10 times as much energy.
- C. The gasoline has about 70 times as much energy.
- D. They cannot be honestly compared, since one stores power and the other stores energy.
3. Coal reserves in the United States are expected to last for:
- A. Hundreds of years.
- B. Three or four decades.
- C. 72 years.
- D. Less than a decade.
4. The efficiency of inexpensive solar cells is closest to:
- A. 1 percent.
- B. 12 percent.
- C. 65 percent.
- D. 100 percent.
Update for 4 p.m. ET May 28: I've added the book's answers to the questions as a comment below (#32).
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
1:D, 2:A, 3:B, 4:A
Great timely topical article Alan! We really need a new alternative to gasoline powered cars in the near future and natural gas does offer promise as we have considerable reserves. However it will be expensive to put out a new infrastructure of natural gas stations as well as the automotive companies biting the bullet investing in the new tech while they're sucking wind recovering from the global recession. First and foremost we need to make sure our government regulates the dirty energy industry properly and oversees that they do not make any more massive messes like BP Oil just did fouling our Gulf of Mexico.
I'll play your quiz Alan. 1) D 2) D 3) A 4) B I have a bad feeling about this.
Energy density is only a concept molded by current technologies. Propane has a near btu density as gasoline and much better for an internal combustion engine. When you run out of fuel just go to your barbecue and use the LPG to get to a filling station. Similar to a junper cable. Emmissions is another ig plus for this fuel system which is already all around us. But the technology that really needs a shove is using PV cells to charge up your car so that you never need a visit to the gas station again. That technology as a power source is real and also exists here and now but needs more work on the cost of production. I am certain that the PV power for the average consumer is what we should be aiming for. Environmentally that should be the focus of forward thinking businesses that won't bend to the oil barons wishes.
The technology for CNG powered vehicles has been available for decades... our local utility company had all of the trucks used by the meter reading department equipped until the function was outsourced many years ago.
"He's more likely to play up his administration's new steps to go slow on offshore drilling."
Maybe Pres. Obama will be there to concentrate on the crisis at hand, rather then bring up somethig like natural gas. Sorry Mr. Muller, that the Pres. isn't going there to push "your" ideas on natural gas. You'll just have to be satisfied with having your book pushed on this blog.
WSJ, like MSNBC, merely says that the top kill has been paused. It doesn't seem to have been called a failure yet.
My guess at the quiz: 1:D (assuming it the right kind of isotope), 2:C (total guess), also note on D, power is a rate - how fast work is done, not potential energy, 3:A (We've got LOTS of coal), 4:A
Muller is right - liquid energy is very problematic. It is so useful; it has high energy density, it is transportable, and we have a great distribution system. But we don't have much left, and its production can be very dirty. Maybe a CNG-hybrid has some promise.
Unfortunately, I think that many of the renewables, wind, solar, bio, will consume so much land and cause such environmental damage in their construction and operation that they'll never be more than a niche solution. I think the long term solution to high density electricty production that doesn't produce greenhouse gases is nuclear. Disposal is a political problem, not an engineering problem.
1,D
2,D
3,A
4,C this Q is not good because it depends on where you are in the USA for efficiency rating for solar even an inexpensive solar cell. Here in the state of MI I was told the solar is only 45% to 50% where in AZ it would be 95% to 100% I was all so told that in a 10mile square of solar cells in AZ could power all of the US durning the day!! but a thay dont want to due it because of a rodent live there LOL!
Natural gas is the answer !!! I'm an expat Aussie, In 1997 I bought a massive SUV that was converted for natural gas... Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors stuff you get from Politicians, oil companies and the uneducated who open there mouth without thinking... The technology to use natural gas is out there to be used in every single car/suv in America. Its been a great option in Australia for the the best part of 15+ years. The conversion is simple, you attach a tank, not unlike the one you use to fire up your grill, the bigger you get the more mileage you'll get, a simple conversion kit allows your current engine to burn natural gas instead... The entire conversion cost about $2000 and you got that investment back in no time dependant on the miles you drive each year... Believe it or not the price to fill up your Natural Gas car in Australia back then was about 1/10th of the cost of running it on the black stuff thats destroying the gulf... Seriously, this is an option, goggle it and find out... Also, Don't believe the rubbish above about Natural Gas being almost as counter productive to the environment as buring oil... google that as well... There is an option people, harness what's out there and stop the big oil companies from destroying the earth...
Boone Pickens makes the obvious point that big tractor trailer trucks just won't run on electric, a battery big enough to support the truck would be most of the load. He has been calling natural gas the fuel that will handle what electric won't in the long run as oil runs out. H has invested in the largest wind farm in the country and says the wind in Texas will cause a huge energy boom there.
The real problem is our energy policy ( we don't have one ) has nothing to do with the public interest.
Unfortunately we have politicians being paid by the oil industry and nobody being paid by future industries we need but don't exist. When you hear Sarah Palin say "drill baby drill", remember her husband Todd has an oil company job on the North Slope he doesn't even need to show up for, it is that blatant and accepted. Oh, and the Louisiana Legislature just cut off all funding to public interest law firms who would file class action law suits against BP and told the schools if their Law Schools filed any pro-bono class action suits, the whole school would lose funding. That is how much our energy policy is in the public interest.
So things like physics don't really have a chance to enter the picture as things stand. Sad.
Boone Pickens pulled out of the Wind Farm project last year. The costs involved were way above what would be returned. Those big Wind generators cost a fortune, and are constantly breaking down. If you go through Tehachapie in California, you will see about half of them not running. Same near Palm Dessert.
By the way do you know how much of the income to the Gulf coast in general depends on the offshore drilling. I heard that it is in the range of 25% of the incomes in that area. Some towns would go out of business if they were to shut down offshore drilling. And what have you heard about the Mexican accidents that have happened??
As a former planner in the O&G industry, I'd say this article says many sensible things. It does seem to me to be focused too exclusively on natural gas, though. It ignores the fact that nuclear power plant design and construction is getting insufficient attention, especially when compared to western europe. Nuclear can be both a safe and economic source of electricity. It is one part of a sensible solution. It would free some hydrocarbons for more important uses, the future needs of the chemical industry, for example.
Not a lot of people going to strap on a nuke to their car. This article was focused on mobile energy. Why can't we have Natural Gas / Electric Hybrid??
I'm running on Natural Gas / Regular gas dual mode Jeep. In Utah we pay about 90 cents a gallon and have public CNG stations running all up and down the state. I usually drive 1500 miles a month and can get by filling up with gasoline once per month - only used when getting to the next gasoline station if my cng tank runs out. My CNG bill each month is less than $40.00.
This is the best kept secret! I don't want to wait in lines at the CNG stations - so KEEP THIS QUIET!
If this disaster doesn't prove to everyone that we need a viable sustainable and environmentally safe alternative to oil, nothing will. I for one have had it!! Everyone talks about infrasturcture costs to build out whats needed to sustain an alternative. How about the billions that will be spent on cleaning up this cluster F@#$!!! ENOUGH The United States is one of the richest and most technically advance countries on the planet and rather than lead the world and set the example of what we can do when we decide we want to. We keep debating the issue while giving the richest companies in the world tax discounts and subsidies to continue doing what they are doing rather than solving this crisis and I'm not talking about the spill but the fact that we are so dependant on oil in general. How long do we listen to all of the fear uncertainty and doubt and all the reasons of why we can't! Can't never could. This country was founded on and built on the belief that we can change, we can do, and there is hope to dream of a better tomorrow. You want to send a message to the President? Send this with it please: President Obama, listen up. You campained on a promise of CHANGE. "Yes we can"... Well, here's your opportunity NOW is the time for Change, deliver on your promise! This one change, this one thing has the potential to have one of the greatest impacts a single person could ever dream to have. Put us in debt for this - beg barrow and steal the money if you have to we waste billions on wars and companies that should have been allowed to fail. Create an industry to bring "power" to the people of the world, create jobs, develop the industry, build the jobs and the infrastructure that leads to a better future, lead the way. Most will follow some will kick and scream along the way, but the reality is all we need is someone to lead. Over half of the population couldn't figure out their way out of a wet paper bag, and are more than willing to follow a leader that is willing to do the right thing, stand up to those who are not and make the hard decsions for them. Paint the picture, have the vision and set the expectation that this is no longer acceptable. This dependance is no longer acceptable. We need a declaration of indepenance from oil. And to all the people who say we can't?? I say "YES WE CAN" We just have to have the will to do so. All that said will I still drive my gasoline powered car tomorrow? Yes, because I don't have a choice, but I assure you that when I do I'll chose something better. Oh yeah the quiz: 1)D,2)D,3)C,4)B
We could have reduced our dependancy on Oil and Coal many years ago but for 2 unfortunate things that happened simultaneoulsy. First the 3 mile island failure, and then at the same time the movie "China Syndrome". These drove the country into a state of abject fear about nucleur power, and all building of Nucleur Plants was halted.
What most people do not know is that only 1 tower at 3 mile island was shut down, and the other towers have continued to function to this day. In fact with some work that has been done on them, they are in the process of being certified for another 10 years of operation.
European countries, France I believe, are almost totally nucleur for their electricity. Had we not paniced years ago, we could at least not be using fossil fuels for electrical power. Chevy did a project pover 20 years ago to develop an Electric car, but bailed out of it after a few years due to inadequacy of battery technology at that time. Now with Lithium Technology Electric cars are more practical, but will require time to become the norm.
I've been laughed at because I drive a Prius. People call it a overpriced and impractical underpowered car. But they are of course those that have never driven one. And I sure like spending $20 for a fillup versus the $45 it used to take for a fillup. And I still go 300-400 on a tankfull. Go figure.
I'm surprised that a physics professor wrote a question for which he does not know the answer.
Question #1- which substance contasins the most energy per gram. The answer is that they all contain exactly the same amount of energy.
E=Mc ^2
Since the mass is the same for each substance the energy is the same. One gram of chocalate chip cookie has as much energy as 1 gram of uranium, TNT, or battery.
Question #2 has the same answer.
I guess the professor assumes that most people know you can get usable nuclear energy out of uranium, but not out of a chocolate chip cookie. When someone makes a chocolate-chip-cookie fueled power plant, then I'll believe you have a valid point -- as opposed to one that is technically correct but utterly unusable.
As for question 2, you are again technically correct, but your answer is only of value theoretically. I hope you don't apply it when you design a vehicle!
Rashnak,
I think you are overlooking something here. If a chocolate chip cookie has the same amount of energy as uranium, why don't we make a cookie bomb? It sure would be cheaper. Okay, so you do have a point, but we cannot extract the energy from a chocolate chip cookie, so therefore it is pointless.
I believe the energy would be released by eating the cookie, thereby your body would generate energy from its consumption. Sitting on the plate, it of course wouild generate no energy.
Actually, the equation you posted applies to moving bodies. The c**2 part states that the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. The professor is correct. You shouldn't play with equations you don't understand.
With a great tragedy comes a great opportunity for change! It's time President Obama starts following through with that campaign slogan of his by taking advantage of the opportunity this oil spill has created.
Now is the time to switch to clean energy alternatives, but natural gas is not the solution! While natural gas is cleaner than coal and oil, it is not nearly as clean as nuclear, solar, or geothermal energy. Also, the polluted water waste from natural gas gets dumped right into rivers and lakes and natural gas still emits carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. I would love to see more being done to increase the capacity and efficiency of batteries and fuel cells.
It is time big corporations start focusing on the long term affects their actions have and stop focusing on the short term bottom line tied to the stock price. This oil spill will be affecting our ecosystems for many generations to come.
If we cannot change our thinking during a disaster of this magnitude, then when can we?
http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html
*Long term effects
How do you propose using geothermal energy for transportation purposes? This is an argument for alternatives to oil, right? CNG is a proven alternative today! Another source; just drive by a landfill & you will most likely see them burning methane to prevent explosive buildup. These gases should be collected instead for practical use as an energy source.
I am not in agreement about the use of natural gas to displace gasonline use. Instead, I propose a radical change as a result of this oil spill disaster. As mentioned above, the situation has presented a unique opportunity for the Obama administration. It is time for a paradigm shift in our energy program.
Consider this....
France and Japan rely largely upon nuclear power for their energy needs. Education is the key here. Mention nuclear energy and most people have visions of the Chernobyl disaster and Three Mile Island. Explain the problems of those design and educate the public as to the safety and current use of nuclear power. This will help to forgo the typical nieve public outcries associated with new nuclear power generating facilities.
The plan...
In an unprecedented manner, create a Bill that will require States to install nuclear power generating facilities. The expansive education program regarding nuclear power will lessen the public outcries. Point out all of the nuclear facilities we already have in operation. That in itself will be eye opening to much of the public. Build new nuclear power generating facilities across the country, employing Americans on an unprecedented scale, similar to the 50's with the national highway construction program. Bad economy? What bad economy? This will ween us off our reliance on the middle east for oil. This fortifies the American economy at the same time. It puts people to work. It creates a self sufficient America!! And that is what will allow us to resume a position as a world power. In case anyone hasn't noticed, public opinion of our country is dismal. But I digress.
The next step....and it is a big one!!
After the nuclear power generating facitilities are on line and generating clean, energy dense, power, the fixed site energy needs will be handled (energy needs of homes, businesses and industrial and commercial facilities). Now, let's focus on the mobile energy needs! Are you ready?? Here we go...
We already have a complete and totally adequate distribution network in place for fueling autos. The gas station network across the nation is key. On an unprecendented scale, convert the individual gas stations to hydrogen generating stations (HGS). THese HGS will utilize electrolysis to create hydrogen. Electrolysis requires electricity by its very nature. The electricity is already available on the grid and produced by clean nuclear power generating stations. The gas stations already have buried tanks and garage bays. The HGS can occupy one of these locations. Automakers would supply new fleets that run on hydrogen. BMW has already done exactly this, with a closed network of refilling stations.
The byproducts of this unprecedented and paradigm shift??
Water vapor at the nuclear power stations and spent fuel rods.
Water vapor out of the car tail pipes.
Nothing at homes and businesses.
The other benefit of this paradigm shift? Jobs, jobs and more jobs.
The problem with your proposal is that hydrogen is a very bulky and inefficient energy carrier. Water electrolysis is at best about 50% efficient, while the electrical grid is closer to 97% - much better to power homes and offices with electricity, not hydrogen.
The situation for autos is even worse, as the combination of electrolysis, compression for storage, and H2 fuel cells is about 24% efficient at storing electrical energy, while the combination of charger and batteries is 85% efficient, more than 3x more efficient. Even if we used stationary batteries to store electricity to recharge plug-in cars, that 2 step process is still 72% efficient, still 3x more efficient than going the hydrogen route! Do you really want 3x more nukes, 3x more nuke waste? I didn't think so.
As for using hydrogen in internal combustion engines, that combination ends up with a pitiful 7% overall efficiency, thus very high fuel costs. Worse, the bulky nature of hydrogen assures very short driving ranges and reduced power and performance, and high pressure hydrogen storage tanks are heavy and expensive. H2-ICE really is a non-starter all around.
Then there is the matter of building an expensive hydrogen infrastructure, and the high cost of hydrogen equipment. We've already got an electric infrastructure, lets go electric instead!
Diversification is a concept with merit not only in financial planning but in energy planning as well. Natural gas should be one prong of national energy policy (and T Boone Pickens will be a vocal advocate of this certainly), but so should clean coal (America has abundant coal reserves) and so should nuclear. There is also a place for some forms of alternative energy but in the big numbers it is natural gas, clean coal and nuclear that deserve focus and priority.
Well, I'm glad that some people are paying attention to science and trying to reason solutions to the issues we are confronting. I agree natural gas may be very useful for some transportation applications - LA runs all their buses on it - however I think the reasoning in Muller's critique of electric cars is flawed.
First, we can achieve sufficient range to cover most people's daily commute with today's batteries. The Chevy Volt will go for 50 miles pure electric and more with the on board gas generator. The Nissan Leaf, without the weight of the generator, will go 100 miles pure electric. I'm anxious to see what Tesla's entry will do. Second, The problem in his argument is common with deductive reasoning where we get so caught in constituent parts of a system that we forget to back out and see the whole interconnected thing. He has broken the problem down so far that he only compares the fuel source, but he completely ignores how energy is used by the vehicle in motion. A liquid fueled vehicle uses it's energy to accelerate - period. You can't recover gas from the brakes. But an electric vehicle is able to recover energy in deceleration and it can benefit from gravity on a downward grade. So if you drive from Denver to Aspen, you'll want to make sure your batteries are topped off before heading up hill. Coming home, you may have more charge upon arrival than when you started out... Faster charging is possible with current tech, battery swap stations are being built, and who says we have to rely on batteries alone? We have known how to supply electric power to moving vehicles with catenary for over a century. High Speed Railways have done it for decades at 200mph+. We could easily string up a line over one highway lane (tolled so you are charged for the power) and have a pole come out of your car's roof to contact it. We're at the point where the onboard computer has no problem driving on a highway, so it should be about as safe as anything else, maybe even safer than compressed natural gas under your bum at 70mph.
The difference in transportation 20 years from now is going to be the diversity of fuel sources. Instead of complete reliance on oil, we will be using whatever source is most appropriate and efficient to fit the need, at least I hope so. Electric end applications allow greater diversity in power generation - gas, wind, nuke, etc.... Wouldn't it be nice if most of our energy - whatever it comes from - were domestically sourced? I'm sick of our energy caused trade deficit funding regimes that offend my values.
The key phrase here is "20 years from now"
Go back in history, and see how long it took the entire country to go from horse and buggy to the automobile. But for some reason people think that tomorrow, and I mean Monday tomorrow, we can all be dumping our gas guzzlers and be using wind or solar. I drove from Seattle to Florida in 1955, and we were driving on dirt roads as we crossed Arizona and New Mexico. That was about 35 or more years after the Ford Motor company started putting our cars if I remember right
Why not eat a lot of refried beans and hook a hose to your butt when you drive.
The Fischer-Tropsch process can convert some of our plentiful coal to synthetic gasoline. A similar process can convert natural gas to synthetic gasoline. We also have huge quantities of oil shale in the mountain west. That can be retorted in place to produce billions of barrels of oil. All three methods cost more than getting our oil from the huge reserves in the deep waters of the Gulf, but the same sort of hysteria that has blocked clean and environmentally friendly nuclear power is now likely to make deep water drilling in the US economic exclusion zone impractical. (Of course the companies will now simply drill outside the US exclusion zone, in Mexican waters, Cuban waters, etc, so it won't really slow down oil production in the Gulf much.)
High pressure natural gas as well as high pressure hydrogen are fairly dangerous in case of accidents, or in case of leaks in enclosed areas like home garages or commercial parking structures. Handling is more dangerous for relatively untrained people than the familiar gasoline. Range is also shorter than an equivalent volume gasoline container too. None of this is a show stopper, but still, if we can continue to use familiar liquid fuel at a competitive price instead of these more problematic gases, it would be to our advantage to do so.
I am a huge fan of nuclear power. I think we should convert virtually all of our electrical generation to nuclear. But we aren't ready to electrify our road network (we know how, we just aren't willing to spend what it would cost), and battery electric vehicles will never meet our needs at anything close to a reasonable cost or with anything close to a reasonable range and refueling turnaround time. A liquid fueled combustion engine is really the only reasonable choice for transport for the foreseeable future. Synthetic gasoline or diesel will be with us for a long time.
There are some Batteries being developed that will make Electric cars much more viable in the future. Just the advancement of Lithium technology within the past 5 years has opened up a lot of potential. But the way we here in America use our cars, the Hybrid and/or other fuel source, is going to be around for a long time.
The average person may drive less than 40 miles to work every day, so an electric car that he can charge up at both ends is practical. But then on the weekend, he wants to go to the mountains, it's 150 miles one way. Now what?? And perhaps he wants to tow a travel trailer, or maybe a trailer to haul his trash and stuff around. etc. etc. etc.
I would guess that if those commenting here about the big bad oil companies were to analyze their driving habits, and what is sitting in their driveways, they might want to look at things differently. I look out the window in my neighborhood and see 4 Pickups, 1 Lincoln, 2 travel trailers, 1 SUV, and about 6 other sedan type cars. Mine is the only Prius on the block. I could probably drive it fopr a year on the fuel all these folks use in a week.
You make some valid points, but they don't fit every scenario.
For instance, I live overseas in a major city. My lifestyle is such that I almost never get more than a mile, max, from home. Since public transit is both well-developed and ubiquitous, I don't even own a bicycle, let alone any powered vehicle. On the rare occasion I need to go somewhere further afield, I'll take a bus, taxi, elevated train, or taxi.
My point is the person who wants to go to the mountains 150 miles away might not want to do that every weekend, nor even every month, but only a time or two yearly. If any alternative vehicle can meet his/her daily needs, including in terms of range -- with some margin built into the calculation -- then why not go that route and use some other mode of travel for the rare 150-mile trip? For those who do want to go somewhere beyond the range of an electric car regularly and frequently -- every weekend or most weekends, say, they might consider a second car that's a fuel sipper, or even a hybrid (though at current prices a hybrid well might not be economically logical).
In short, individual needs and preferences vary, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Mine wouldn't work for most people, for instance -- but it would work for some. Others might feel their dream weekend is spent at home, workdays at the job 5 or 10 miles away (electric car range), with maybe an annual vacation they could go on by bus, train, air, or even rental car. And so on.
That's great but we were starting to run out of natural gas several years ago. Until a new, but toxic way to get more out of the ground was invented. It involves using chemicals to break the fractures in the shale underground. Now the drilling companies are dumping the stuff in the creeks and destroying the watersheds.
BP needs to pay for all damages and the execs and other employees responsible for this debacle need to to to jail for the murder of men in the explosion and the devastation of wildlife. How can we continue to allow this ridiculous quest for profits that has the oil companies disregarding safety precautions and having no back up plans for disaster. I hope all those greedy politicians in Washington are really proud of themselves. We all know you take lobby money from the oil companies! That is what Washington is all about and it is what will eventually bring the country down to a third world nation. Bankrupt of money, morals, and motivation. Greedy politicians and greedy corporations do not make for free enterprise. Wake up America....make them listen to the people for a change...obviously voting is not the answer!
BP hired two other companies that were actually doing the work to get the well operational. Their responsibility is only one of an Employer, yet they are assuming full responsibility. At least the oil they produce comes from US sources.
And now there is a move a foot to boycott BP. Well folks you need to bear in mind that for every gallon of gasoline you buy from a company that uses OPEC or Venezuela oil it is estimated that 20 cents of every dollar gets funneled to terrorist organizations. Chavez of Venezuela alone supports Al Queda, and Hamas un ashamedly.
So effectively for ever fillup at a station using OPEC oil and Venezuelan oil, you are buying a clip of ammunation to be used against our forces overseas.
1: D 2: B 3: A 4: A
About the first question, using Einstein's famous equation E equals mc-squared, the amount of energy in a gram of chocolate chip cookies or in a gram of uranium is exactly the same. What should have been asked is how much easily extractable energy there is in each. At first, I thought I should remain silent because it's just nit-picking, but now I believe that it is actually an important distinction. It relates directly to problems with energy storage, extraction, etc. By the same token, burning gasoline to get energy is an extremely wasteful process.
1:D, 2:A, 3:A, 4:B
1:d, 2:a, 3:a, 4:b
Some of you are misunderstanding Einstein's equation. The 'm' is for mass. A gram is a unit of weight, not mass. Plus, I do beleive the intent of the question was about extractable energy. Anyway, here are my guesses... 1) D; 2) A; 3) C; 4) D.
I know this is completely tangent to the apparent conversation of this epidemic but are you kidding me RandomB? you honestly believe that a gram is a unit of weight and not mass? A newton is a unit of weight in the metric system a pound is a unit of weight in our dumbass American system, you shouldn't make assumptions.
Rashnak is correct. But, I suspect the author of this article has confused energy with chemical energy.
RandomB, gram is a unit of mass. The pound is a unit of weight.
They are both units of weight. Pounds are the English system, Grams/Kilograms are the Metric system.
Guess it's the pedant in me, but I must insist, the gram is a unit of mass, as is the kg. The fact that they are units in the metric system doesn't change that fact. Google it.
Gotta go with Wayne.
The term "gram" is a unit of mass, not weight. Think of it this way, one gram is the same whether it be on the earth, or the moon. Although an item could "weigh" one pound on the earth, on the moon its weight (as in unit of force) would be much less.
Here:
SI units
In most modern scientific work, physical quantities are measured in SI units. The SI unit of force (and hence weight in the mechanics sense) is the same as that of force: the newton (N) – a derived unit which can also be expressed in SI base units as kg·m/s2 (kilograms times meters per second squared).[8]
In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" is usually used to mean mass, and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of". Used in this sense, the proper SI unit is the kilogram (kg).[8]
The pound and other non-SI units
In United States customary units, the pound can be either a unit of force or a unit of mass. Related units used in some distinct, separate subsystems of units include the poundal and the slug. The poundal is defined as the force necessary to accelerate an object of one-pound mass at 1 ft/s2, and is equivalent to about 1/32.2 of a pound-force. The slug is defined as the amount of mass that accelerates at 1 ft/s2 when one pound-force is exerted on it, and is equivalent to about 32.2 pounds (mass).
The kilogram-force is a non-SI unit of force, defined as the force exerted by a one kilogram mass in standard Earth gravity (equal to 9.80665 newtons exactly). The dyne is the cgs unit of force and is not a part of SI, while weights measured in the cgs unit of mass, the gram, remain a part of SI.
now, hush.
Energy requirements:
Takes energy to dig energy.
Energy to make tools, supplies, machines, drill bits and more.
Energy to get to the site, to run the machines, move rock to pump stuff.
Energy to clean the mess up; replant flowers, trees and more.
Energy to make roads, paths, cables, drains.
Energy to make support structures, steel, aluminum, plastic, glass, wood.
Energy to maintain the above on a schedule and for years.
Energy to upgrade, replacement, renew and repeat.
Energy to lose paving with collectors means loss from natural or farmed growth.
Energy to lawyers, fees to cut your neighbor trees.
If we had a tabulation (spread sheet) of all the energy costs for materials used and manufactured, and the upstream (e.g. new aluminum) and downstream (e.g., recycled aluminum) costs for each of these materials, then we could accurately evaluate a given design by totalizing initial cost, maintenance and dismantling cost.
The design for alternate base energy design-units could be parameterized where each parameter represents a known facet of the design. Thus with each complete design we can compare alternatives such as how fast can we drain the gas reserves to produce transportation fuel vs. designing home heating to keep energy cost low. The net result could be to discover the first and best use of any energy resource given the context or location of its development.
FarmVille could undergo a transformation via an industrial revolution, allowing various energy designs to be evaluated etc.
Here is an eyeopener at: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/lewis/
Challenges for Global Energy Nate Lewis, Caltech
There are substantial challenges (technical, political, and economic) involved with widespread adoption of renewable energy technologies. Prof Nathan Lewis (Caltech) will present an overview of available fossil fuel resources and estimate the remaining years of supply of oil, gas, and coal for use in primary power production.
-> NOT very promissing!
Here is an eyeopener: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/lewis/
Challenges for Global Energy Nate Lewis, Caltech
There are substantial challenges (technical, political, and economic) involved with widespread adoption of renewable energy technologies. Prof Nathan Lewis (Caltech) will present an overview of available fossil fuel resources and estimate the remaining years of supply of oil, gas, and coal for use in primary power production.
-> NOT very promissing!