RE: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

Al covers a lot of territory in his e-mail! I'll comment on some of his
points.

Advances in biology vs. energy
I'm not so sure the example from biology is all that relevant to energy
supply. Yes, great strides have been made in biology (so they say; biology
was not my favourite subject!) but the same can be said for computational
science. I remember using a slide rule to do my calculations, I remember
using a mechanical calculator in the 19060s and I remember how our entire
cafeteria at the lab was drawn to the first HP 35.

When it gets to energy, we're dealing with at least two aspects. One if the
supply of energy and the other is the form in which this energy can be made
available for us to use (there is also the "limits of growth" but the dire
predictions of the Club of Rome have not come true).

Energy supply
When it comes to energy supply, "all" we have is what God, in His wisdom,
gave us in the way of fossil fuels, uranium, solar energy (the source of
hydro, wind and solar), whatever residual heat there is in the Earth
(geothermal energy) and some more esoteric energy sources such as tidal. My
guess is that this supply ought to be sufficient for all of us on Earth.
One of our mandates is to be good stewards of these resources. Are these
sources finite or infinite? Probably infinite, when we compare the solar
flux to the Earth's population. The solar energy received by the Earth is
~350 W/m2 (McFarland et al., Energy Physics and the Environment). About
half of that is returned directly to space. So, ~100 W/m2 is probably
available for us to use, but not in the form we get it. One hour of solar
energy hitting that m2 of surface space would result in 0.1 kWh.

To link the solar energy flux with something we all are familiar with, cars,
McFarland et al. state that the "engine of a mid-sized automobile (mass =
1500 kg) traveling at 90 km/hr (60 mph) might use energy from the fuel at a
rate of 70 kW" (that's equivalent to 9 L/100 km or 27 mpg (US)). To travel
100 km would take ~80 kWhr. That's equivalent to the solar flux hitting 800
m2. The lot on which our home is situated is ~70' x ~150' or ~1000 m2. To
be sure, internal combustion engines are very inefficient because there's a
lot of waste heat and electric cars would be more efficient (even if
allowing some energy to be used to heat the interior of the car and, at -30
C, believe me, some heat is needed). Anyway, if we were going to capture
solar energy and convert it into a form suitable for use in cars or planes,
the real estate needed is not insignificant. That's before any conversion
losses! Better to use the solar energy flux for passive heating of our
homes, where possible. A low-tech solution withour conversion losses.

It's no doubt true that extracting uranium from seawater makes no economic
sense, especially when we have large uranium deposits. In fact, previously
economically viable uranium deposits (Northern Ontario) have been abandoned
in favour of the very rich deposits in the Athabasca basin Northern
Saskatchewan (one core sample taken from the ore body contained 40% U!).
But, from an energy perspective, the energy required to get uranium fro
seawater is probably less than the energy that can be obtained in fission.
As with all commodities, if the demand is there, exploration will look for
more uranium deposits.

There is probably enough uranium for some time to come and the uranium
resources can be extended by going to mixed oxide (U,Th)O2 fuels and breed
fissile U-233 (although fuel reprocessing is not easy as HF is needed to
dissolve the spent fuel).

Al writes, "Nuclear energy has some promise, but I really cannot agree that
it will be a satisfactory answer either." I don not agree. Nuclear power
has proven to be quite a good solution. France and Japan, in particular,
have seen the advantages of this form of energy production. Note that, in
both countries, most of the rail system is electrified and rail transport
is, basically, nuclear powered. Not that nuclear power is the sole
solution. An energy mix is needed. In my province, ~95% of the electrical
energy is obtained from hydro developments "up north" but even our
provincial utility is getting involved with wind power.

Technological optimism
In the developed world, we have become enamoured with technological fixes.
Robert Wauzzinski spoke about this at last year's (2005) ASA conference. No
matter what the problem, it's assumed that there is a solution. And it may
well be that there is a technological "fix" on the horizon but what if there
is not? Will the technological fix create other problems? The use of coal
certainly led to great strides in economic well being in the UK and Europe,
but also led to air pollution problems. Even though anti-pollution devices
are now mandatory and air quality is much better, there are many places on
Earth where air quality leaves much to be desired.

Alternative lifestyle
As I have mentioned before in this forum, before we can even make an
intelligent decision on where to save energy, we need to know where the
energy is used for. Of course, we can always "let the market forces decide"
but that does not help the "widows and fatherless" much. I'm not convinced
that "market forces" and Christian values are synonymous. Society in NA has
evolved on the premise that fossil fuels are abundant and inexpensive.
That's why we have such a mobile society, sprawling suburbs, and global
economies. One has to wonder, though, if sitting in a traffic jam in a
private car between one's home and one's place of work ranks high on the
"quality of life" index. We seem to accept this way of life because we are
used to it or because we see no alternative.

I've deleted most of what Al wrote; if you need to refer to his comments,
they are archived on the ASA site.

Chuck Vandergraaf

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Al Koop
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:33 PM
To: drsyme@cablespeed.com; glennmorton@entouch.net; dfwinterstein@msn.com;
ttveiv@mts.net; pwcook@optonline.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

Let me try to address optimism/pessimism questions in science using examples
from biology--which I have been involved in for 35 years or so. Take
DNA/genomic sequencing. In my opinion, that scientific process has gone
better than most optimists would have dreamed. Greg Sutcliffe got his Ph.D.
at Harvard sequencing the plasmid pBR322 with 4300+ bp in the late 70's.
Now a bright high school student could do 100x that amount of bp in a week.
The human genome project came in early and under budget.

<snip>
After looking at this area extensively, I am convinced that most Americans
believe that with money, technology, and intellect we can somehow find an
acceptable solution to virtually any problem.

What do I think will happen? I think there are limits to growth. Taking a
wild stab into the unknown, I am guessing that in 2016 the world will be
producing somewhere between 80 and 90 million barrels a day. That means
that the world will either miraculously find some alternatives to compensate
for the missing 30-40 million barrels or some life styles will have been
significantly altered. What will happen in the United States and Canada?
We use 30% or so of the world's energy with only 5% of the population. We
have the most room to take up the decrease by living much more efficiently
and using less energy. Will we? I hope so, but I think there is a good
chance we will pull a David like in 2 Samuel 12; we could be like the rich
man with many sheep and cattle who goes to the man with one lamb and takes
that lamb away from him to prepare a meal for the traveler instead of using
one his own. I can see the US with its military and economic power making
sure that it gets its energy needs met at the expense of some poorer
countries that just cannot compete. How the world political system plays
out with decreasing energy sources will indeed be something to watch.

If I had to guess, the two things that would seem to be the best
possibilities for future projects would be solar fuel cells and electric
energy storage. If we could somehow store protons on a membrane and get the
energy to do that from the sun, we could get the hydrogen economy off the
ground. We could strip the protons off water molecules using solar energy
and store it on a membrane that could easily be transported and kept in
storage. But I don't read that anyone sees that as being viable anytime
soon, if ever. Having some way to store significant electrical energy in a
small battery would also be greatly beneficial. This is a pretty mature
field however, and the prospects are not yet clear for significant
improvements from what I have read. I don't think right now there is any
alternative energy source that has the promise that stem cells do for
medical care, but I cannot rule out the possibility that some new project
with great potential may soon become evident. !
The trouble is that, in my opinion, we really are not putting enough effort
into this problem. We should divert funds from NASA and NIH into more
studies in this area of energy production. Nuclear energy has some promise,
but I really cannot agree that it will be a satisfactory answer either.
Received on Thu Jan 5 11:30:24 2006