Topic: Energy
A Path to Energy Independence. This article explores energy independence from conservation and efficient operations to alternative fuels.by Dean Weldon
(Liberal Libertarian)
Friday, January 18, 2008
If we could become independent from foreign oil, many of our problems will be solved. We wouldn't have to make up excuses to occupy and control oil producing nations. Our reputation in the world would grow from destabilizing fewer nations. The money we would save from not having to protect foreign oil investments alone is worth the change. A combined effort consisting of alternative fuels, conservation, and efficiency will play a role in shaking off this evil monkey.
Many years ago, some long-haired slacker had nothing better to do than watch apples fall from the tree; he came up with this:
F=M*A
Force = Mass * Acceleration
In this formula, if the acceleration is kept the same and mass is halved, the force is also halved. If you reduce the weight of a vehicle by half, then the amount of energy needed to move it is also cut in half. Although this does not equate to a doubling of mpg, because other forces (resistance) are acting equally on both examples, there will still be a significant increase in mileage. Half the mass traveling on the roads saves not only fuel, but a tremendous amount of natural resources along with their associated transportation costs.
Reducing the mass in cars through the use of different materials and by innovative design is helping to bring the average mass per passenger vehicle down. The popularity of the SUV, however, has more than offset these advances. When you drive to work, observe how many people drive alone in a vehicle that will carry five, six, or sometimes 13 passengers. Some people need the capacity or capability (4WD) of certain automobiles, and they should have the right to use them. Most of us are driving way too much automobile. Reevaluating your present transportation situation could lead to changes that benefit the environment and your pocketbook.
When the weight of automobiles was reduced in the late seventies through the mid eighties, traffic fatalities went up. Today, through design and the use of constantly developing alloys and materials, cars are retaining the crash survivability of heavier models. Packing a few thousand pounds less to the convenience store is a simple and inexpensive (probably saves you $) method of energy conservation.
Efficiency is a percentage of how much power is produced compared to the potential power of the fuel being consumed. There is no argument that the potential energy of ethanol is less than gasoline. The people who argue against ethanol stop giving you information at this point. What isn't addressed is the fact that you can modify your gasoline engine to run pure ethyl alcohol and achieve greater returns. There are numerous websites with this information. Race cars use alcohol, and they are all about power and efficiency.
Using food crops, or crops within our food chain (feed corn), can not be expected to fulfill our fuel needs without adversely affecting the food markets. Also, corn isn't a very good source of ethyl alcohol. Many crops can be grown in a wide range of climates that are better suited to producing fuels.
Problems exist in the transportation of ethyl alcohol, due to a caustic interaction with certain types of rubber. The seals in established pipelines and their replacement costs are the main concerns in this area. If the alcohol being produced is wide-spread with many smaller refineries, over-the-road transportation is all that is needed. Transportation costs overall should come down as fuels are produced locally. Related industry will then supply steady jobs benefiting the local economy. Biodeisel does not share the transportation issues that exist with alcohol.
These are a few of many steps toward freeing ourselves from the shackles of foreign oil, and remember, freedom is neither easy nor free.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Dean Weldon, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, January 18, 2008
Last modified: Friday, January 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dean Weldon only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dean Weldon is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-01-18 15:08:30
I couldn't help but notice that you avoided any discussion of the financial impact of the changes you discussed. Why is this always left out of the equation?
I'd like to see alternative energy advocates actually selling their merchandise to the population in the free market as a way to save money. If they can do that, then there would be no need to talk about alternative fuels on a political website.
On the other hand, the fact that they're not willing to do that suggests that they really don't care about the cost...which is why they usually just end up making other people angry.
If you really believe in this stuff, if you really believe that it has a legitimate market, then sell it and make a few bucks in the process. Otherwise, get out of my face, because if you can't sell it in the open market, you're really just trying to justify selling it by stealing taxpayer dollars to pay for it. That's dishonest.
If hemp were used for this purpose it would eleviate the concerns about supplementing food for fuel. Hemp also has a better efficiency rating than any food crop that has been tested (it also regenerates itself). Most of the studies on ethyl alcohol ommit the use of hemp, because it is a schedule 1 drug, which means that you need special permission from the DEA to study (in the US). http://www.hemp4fuel.com/
Dr. Paul introduced H.R. 1009: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 the passing of this bill would help the economy in many more ways than just alternative fuel.
You can't expect the energy independence crowd to actually compete or present reasonable debate. They need the government subsidies to distrupt the Corn supply for so called "bio fuel". This has lead to Mexican Tortillas price skyrocketing, US Beef prices increasing, and more government subsidies being used for this so called "alternative fuels".
George W. Bush tried to allow Oil (pronounced all) companies to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, but of course the followers of the worlds most deadly religion, environmentalism, protested this and plans to allow US Oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Let us not forget that Ron Paul, if by some act of the flying spaghetti monster, gets elected his libertarian policies will get shot down faster than a quail durring duck season. This is just the way this crap is. Life would be a lot better if we had more libertarian republicans in office rather than liberal statists, but FSM knows that won't happen.
Your analysis is lame. Reducing the mass of vehicles is only part of the equation. However, you need to look at total energy usage. Mechanical work is the application of your force over a distance:
W = F x d
So if more people worked from home, or carpooled, there would be fewer trips and fewer fuel used to accomplish the same amount of work.
The drawback of making cars lighter is that fatalities and expensive injuries from car crashes will increase. So what you saved in a few more mpg you lose in health care costs and lost productivity.
Unlike the rest of the world, the United States is a much larger country. I routinely worked 50 miles away from home, before I was able to work out of my home as a consultant. I spent two hours a day on the road, so I needed a safer vehicle that could maintain 70 mph. I moved closer to a train station, so that I didn't have to drive at all. The train was safer and more reliable, since I didn't have to drive through traffic jams. I was less likely to fall asleep driving, after working a double shift. I would argue that mass transit could be a better deal for taxpayers than building more highways. I could own a tank, if it could get me to train station, and still be ahead on fuel savings.
As far as energy independence goes, we have plenty of sources right here in North America. Canada has plenty of oil near the North Pole, if the Russians don't get it first. The ANWAR oil reserves in Alaska are huge. Mexico has plenty of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. If we brought our 160,000 troops from Iraq and put them on the Rio Grande, we could get all sorts of trade agreements. Venezuela and Brazil are also in this hemisphere and have plenty of oil.
But our government policies encourage dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It's that "d" in my equation again. Reduce the distance and you get all sorts of efficiencies. We got to get out of the business of importing crude oil from 10,000 miles away.
Personally I'd like to let free market economics find the solutions. But as a side note I kind of like the idea of electric cars like the Tesla. http://www.teslamotors.com/
It uses lithium ion batteries and light weight materials to achieve a range of 220 miles per charge. They say the electricity cost is about 2 cents per mile. The people behind this car realized that you could not start a company from scratch, develop all new technology and be able to sell it for the price of an economy car. So they built a high performance sports car which they knew they could sell for a high price. (It does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds). That's a great way to develop the technology. Once they have that down right they can work on less expensive cars.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Dean Weldon, all rights reserved.