Energy and Civilization
In Chapter 1, the sources and utilization of energy are put in perspective with emphasis on several events in history that either have shaped our current energy infrastructure or reveal what is possible. The Standard oil monopoly provides a good example of how powerful energy industries can become. World War II provides an example of what can be achieved in the way of advances in technology when such advances become a national priority. More recently, Tesla Motors marketing and oil fracking technology are providing stability and options in the energy sector in ways that were not predictable 10 years earlier.
Keywords
oil; fracking; nuclear; batteries; technology
The remarkable improvement in the standard of living in the United States during the twentieth century is unprecedented in world history. Travel that once took months can now occur in hours. Viruses that had the capability of genocide have all but been eradicated.
These advances are attributed to technology. Technology has proved to be decisive in winning wars, and good technology choices have determined the fate of countries and empires.
Technology is not science; it is the way that science is used to make those things we use such as automobiles, refrigerators, and computers. Science education begins as part of the K-12 education made available to all in the United States. Technology is usually covered in engineering and medical-related education programs. The average person receives an education on technology through conversations with friends and through articles written by journalists who are not educated on technology.
The average person is not well informed to provide informed influence on how nations should proceed to use and develop new technology. While it is not within the capabilities of a single book to provide a complete education on technology, a book is capable of presenting more complete descriptions of the advantages and of specific technologies such as the energy-related topics presented in this book.
A first step to providing more complete descriptions of energy technologies is to identify the source of energy and how all the forms of energy at our disposal share a common origin. We simply tap into energy sources at different stages of its passage through time.
Energy in Today’s World
Sunlight is yesterday’s atomic energy. The energy stored in wood and vegetable oils was yesterday’s sunlight. Yesterday’s wood and vegetable oils are today’s coal and crude oil. Yesterday’s coal and crude oil are today’s natural gas. A description of these natural energy stockpiles and their history sets the tone for subsequent discussion on technology using these energy reserves.
Nature used time to transform the sunlight to wood, oil, coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Today, man can transform these reserves in a matter of hours. Relatively simple processes for converting petroleum into gasoline have evolved into technologies that allow coal to be chemically taken apart and put back together at the molecular level. Fuel cells can convert chemical energy directly to electricity without combustion.
To understand the advantages and disadvantages of nature’s various energy reserves requires an understanding of engines and power cycles. Studying the text on gasoline engines shows in a matter of minutes how these machines work. Likewise, processes for converting coal into electricity that took a couple centuries to develop can now be quickly explained.
At the start of the twentieth century, suitable liquid fuels were rare, and the proper match of a fuel with an engine was an art. Today, we can move vehicles or produce electricity from energy originating in petroleum, coal, natural gas, wood, corn, trash, sunlight, geothermal heat, wind, or atomic energy. Each of these can be used in different ways. Natural gas, for example, can be used directly in spark-ignition engines, converted to gasoline fuel, converted to diesel fuel, converted to hydrogen fuel, or used as fuel to produce electricity.
Today’s world is one where technology can do much more than what might be cost-effective or sustainable. For example, it is possible to use an atomic accelerator to convert cheap metals into gold, and it is possible to separate from sea water many valuable metals including gold and uranium. These technologies are simply not cost-effective either from a “dollar” or “energy input” perspective.
So, which technologies are the right technologies to use today to provide us and our children the best possible futures?
The process for unlocking the potential of technology starts with asking the right questions. Both history and science are part of the story we tell.
Gasoline from Coal Technology
In 1940, Germany was converting coal into high-quality diesel and jet fuel, and they were able to sustain this industry (aside from allied bombing) using coal that was considerably more expensive to mine than the vast, rich reserves of today’s Wyoming coal. Wyoming has vast supplies of coal in 40-foot thick seams just less than 100 feet below the surface—it can literally be harvested and loaded into trucks for a few dollars a ton.
Synthetic fuel production, as an alternative to crude oil that was not available, was sustainable in Germany in 1940. Why is it not sustainable today with cheaper coal, 60 years of scientific and technological advances, and pipeline distribution that does not rely on costly petroleum tanker shipment from the middle east? Originally, the German synthetic fuel process was designed to produce refinery feedstock. Can the synthetic fuel industry compete today by producing a fuel that can be directly used in engines? If the refinery could be bypassed, the cost advantages of synthetic fuels might advance it over petroleum alternatives but not at the low price of petroleum in January 2015.
South African synthetic fuel (the German Fischer–Tropsch process) facilities were able to sustain production of synthetic oil from coal in competition with world crude oil prices at $10 per barrel in the late 1990s. Canadian syncrude (synthetic crude oil) facilities are reported to be producing petroleum from oil sands at $10–$12 per barrel. The oil sand reserves are estimated to be about the same size as world reserves of petroleum. Today, Canadian oil sands are used instead of imported oil—the technology is sustainable and profitable.
Why have South Africa and Canada been able to incubate these industries during the past few decades while the United States failed and, today, remains without a significant synthetic fuel industry to replace crude oil imports that exceed $200 billion per year? Lack of competitive technology is not at fault.
Repeatedly, US voters have given the mandate to foster cost-competitive alternatives to imported petroleum. Do US policies foster the development of replacements for petroleum, or do US policies lock in competitive advantages for petroleum over alternatives? When you get past the hype of fuel cells, ethanol, and biodiesel, a comparison of US tax policies on imported crude oil relative to domestic fuel production reveals practices that favor crude oil imports. These and similar policies are the economic killers of a technology that might eliminate the need to import fuels and would create quality US jobs.
When considering alternative fuels understand that the liquid fuel distribution infrastructure and the refineries are controlled by corporations with vested interests in gasoline and diesel fuel. With this and other barriers to commercialization in the United States, the most likely options to succeed are those that do not rely on new fuels and distribution infrastructure. The two options are electrical power and natural gas, and of these, natural gas imports have recently been significantly reduced by production of natural gas from domestic shale oil deposits.
Natural gas provides limited advantage over petroleum, but recently the price of natural gas per unit of energy has become competitive with gasoline. Electrical power provides a domestic alternative that does not rely on a new fuel distribution infrastructure—a reliance on diverse indigenous energy supplies creates stability in prices and reliability in supply. Electricity is the one option that can substantially replace petroleum as the transportation fuel. Of the options to produce electrical power, nuclear stands out due to its abundance and its fuel supply provides electrical power without the generation of greenhouse gases.
The utility of electrical power is extended to automobiles with “plug-in” hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEVs can use electrical power to replace all imported oil without producing air pollution. Use of PHEVs could reach cost parity with conventional gasoline vehicles in a matter of months if development and production of the technology was made a national priority. In a decade of evolution, the average consumer could save $1,000–$2,000 over the life of a vehicle using these technologies rather than the conventional gasoline engines.
Having missed the entry positions on technologies like Fischer–Tropsch fuels and Canadian tar sands is PHEV technology an opportunity? If PHEV technology is the right opportunity at the right time, is it also the last real opportunity before other nations challenge the economic might of the United States?
What about nuclear energy and nuclear waste? Can the fission products in spent nuclear fuel be separated from the bulk of the waste—the bulk being mostly uranium that when recovered can be valuable as fuel?
Sustainable Nuclear Energy
Figure 1.1 summarizes the legacy of 30 years of nuclear power production in the United States. While much attention has been paid to the radioactive spent fuel generated by commercial nuclear power, the fact is that 30 years of fission products from all the US facilities would occupy a volume less than the size of a small house. On the other hand, the inventory of stockpiled fissionable material in the form of spent fuel and depleted uranium could continue to supply 18% of the electrical power to the United States for the next 350 years without additional mining and while reducing any waste or hazard. This fuel inventory is a valuable resource and represents material that has already been mined, processed, and stored in the United States.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel emerges as the key to sustainable, abundant, and cheap electricity. Reprocessing is removing the small fraction; that is, “the fission products” from spent nuclear fuel … recovering the bulk that is potentially valuable nuclear fuel. The removal of the fission products is easier (its chemistry) than mechanically concentrating the fissionable U-235 isotope (isotope enrichment), used to convert natural uranium into reactor fuel grade uranium. The energy inventory illustrated in Figure 1.1 is available with chemical reprocessing of the spent nuclear fuel. Generation IV nuclear reactors should be developed to use the “whole ton” of natural uranium. These technologies can actually use the “nuclear waste” generated by the existing fleet of commercial nuclear reactors. This electrical power would be generated producing little to no greenhouse gases while eliminating the spent fuel stored at the nuclear power plant facilities. About 3.4% of spent fuel is fission products. Less than 0.5% of the fission products require long-term radioactive storage or burial.
Technologies are available that allow nuclear power to meet every aspect of sustainability. The inventory of uranium that has already been mined will produce energy longer than scientists can reasonably project new energy demands or sources.
The Critical Path
Within the past decade, there were serious concerns about the availability and high price of liquid fuels for automobiles. The past couple of decades have seen fracking (hydraulic fracturing of shale formations containing “tight oil” and natural gas) yield new and significant US reserves of fuels. At the same time, the nuclear industry is on track to build new nuclear power plants and several electrical and PHEV automobiles are on the market and on an evolutionary path that can improve and sustain their presence.
The past decade has witnessed a transformation from “urgency” in our energy plight to an era of real opportunity. If handled carefully this opportunity will yield sustainable and abundant energy for centuries, major improvements in quality of life (faster and lower cost transportation), and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Sources of Energy
The past 100 years are like a blink of the eye in the history of the earth, yet, within the last century, scientists have unraveled the history of energy. This story goes hand in hand with the history of the universe. Following energy back in time takes you to the origin of the universe.
Your body is powered by the energy stored in the chemical bonds of the food you eat. The energy in this food is readily observed by taking a match to a dried loaf of bread and watching it burn. Both your body and the fire combine oxygen and the bread to form water and carbon dioxide. While the fire merely produces heat in this reaction, your body uses the energy in a very complex way to move muscles and produce the electrical energy of your nervous system to control motion and thought.
Both your body and the fire use the chemical energy stored in the starch molecules of the bread. This energy is released as chemical bonds of starch and oxygen and are converted to chemical bonds in water and carbon dioxide. Even the molecules your body retains will eventually return to carbon dioxide, water, and minerals.
The energy in the chemical bonds of the food came from photosynthesis that uses the energy from the sun to combined carbon dioxide and water to produce vegetation and oxygen. While the oxygen and carbon stay on earth and cycle between vegetation and the atmosphere, solar radiation has a one-way ticket into the process where it provides the energy to make life happen. Without this continuous flow of energy from the sun, our planet would be cold and lifeless.
The radiation that powers the photosynthesis is produced by the virtually endless nuclear reaction in the sun. In this process, hydrogen atoms combine to form helium. When hydrogen atoms join to form more stable helium, the total mass is slightly reduced. The lost mass is converted into energy according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2. Enough mass (hydrogen) was formed during the birth of the universe to keep the stars shining during the past 13–14 billion years, the best estimate of the age of the universe.
The presence of different elements in our planet, solar system, and galaxy reveals energy’s history. All forms of energy on earth originated at the birth of the universe. Our life and the machines we use depend on energy’s journey, catching a ride as the energy passes by. We are literally surrounded with energy in hydrogen, uranium, and chemical bonds that limit our use of this energy largely determined by our choices and, in some cases, our pursuit of technology to better use available resources.
Nature’s Methods of Storing Energy
All forms of energy, whether nuclear, chemical energy in coal, chemical energy in petroleum, wind, or solar, are part of energy’s journey that started with the birth of the universe. In our tiny corner of the universe, the energy output of the sun dwarfs all other energy sources. Nuclear fusion in the sun releases massive amounts of energy. The only way this energy can escape from the sun is in the form of radiation. Radiation output increases as temperature increases. Somewhere along the journey, the sun came into a balance with its radiant energy loss tending to decrease the temperature at the same rate as the nuclear fusion worked to increase the temperature. In this process, the outward force of the constant nuclear explosions is balanced by the sun’s gravitational force to form a nearly perfect sphere.
Before life evolved, solar energy shined on the earth. If you close your eyes and look at the sun, your face warms while the top of your head receives little of this warming energy. The radiation causes the earth’s equator to be warmer than the poles. These temperature differences cause wind in the atmosphere and ocean currents.
Before life existed on the earth, the sun’s radiation formed water vapor and caused it to rise from the oceans into the atmosphere. This water vapor catches the wind and is blown to the mountains where it is cooled to form rain. The high elevation of this water in the mountains is pulled by gravity giving it energy to flow downhill. Rocks and gravel dissipate this energy on its journey back to the oceans—the potential energy from water’s height in the mountain is converted to the kinetic energy of the water moving through rapids and eventually to thermal energy as it reaches the ocean.
The first primitive organic life appeared on earth about 3 billion years ago. Progressively, more complex molecules were formed. The key to life on earth was the molecule chlorophyll. This is nature’s “workshop tool” that takes water and carbon dioxide from the air (plus a “pinch” of minerals), powered by solar energy to give us photosynthesis first occurring about one billion years later [2]. Small variation in the chlorophyll molecule produced the spectacular variety of green plants—potential food and fiber that supported life for our early ancestors.
When the earth was formed, the geological record showed that the atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide and some really toxic gases. The toxic gases were gradually removed by natural chemical reactions. Photosynthesis allowed the carbon dioxide in the air to be combined with water to form vegetation and oxygen. The removal of carbon dioxide and replacing it with oxygen was an essential step providing for human development from animals and the evolution to man.
The vast majority of the early vegetation fell to the ground and decomposed combining with oxygen returned it to carbon dioxide and water. Some fell to the bottom of swamps where oxygen could not reach it as fast as it piled up. At locations where fallen vegetation accumulated faster than oxygen and microbes could convert it back to water and carbon dioxide, the deposits were buried deeper and deeper making it even more difficult for oxygen to reach them. After a sufficiently long time, the vegetation rearranged into more stable deposits that we call coal. Different types of coal developed depending upon the depth, temperature, and moisture of the deposits. This preservation process was particularly effective in swamps where the water reduced the rate at which oxygen could reach the fallen vegetation.
The surfaces of oceans, lakes, and ponds were inhabited by bacteria called phytoplankton (small, floating, or weakly swimming animals or plant life in water). The cells of these phytoplankton contained oils that are in some ways similar to the corn oil used to cook French fries. When these phytoplanktons died, most of them were converted back to carbon dioxide and water by the oxygen dissolved in the water or by animal feeding. Some were swept to ocean depths where oxygen was absent. Here they accumulated. These dead bacteria were often buried by silt. The combination of time and pressure caused by the overburden of water and silt transformed these deposits, in the absence of oxygen, to petroleum oil.
In the turmoil of erosion, volcanoes, and general continental drift, large deposits of coal and oil made it back to the surface where, in contact with oxygen, they oxidized back to water and carbon dioxide. Other deposits persist for us to recover. Still other deposits were buried deeper, reaching higher pressures due to overburden and higher temperatures, due to the earth’s geothermal heat. There, the coal and petroleum converted to a combination of natural gas and high-carbon deposits of hard coal or carbon in the form of graphite.
Over tens of millions of years, the solar energy working with life on earth continued to form the energy deposits of coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Currently, yesterday’s radiation is available as vegetation such as wood, corn, palm oil, etc. Today’s radiation is available as sunlight, wind, ocean currents, and the hydro energy of water in high-altitude rivers and lakes.
The legacy of the universe is all around us. Compared to our consumption of energy, the fusion energy available in the hydrogen of the waters of the ocean is almost endless. Uranium available in the soil and dissolved in the ocean can produce energy by fission. All atoms smaller than iron could be fused to form iron while all atoms larger than iron could undergo nuclear decay or fission (splitting) to form iron; both processes involve the nuclei of atoms and release vast amounts of energy as they naturally occur.
The geothermal energy (heat) of the earth originated at the birth of the universe. The cosmic forces at the beginning formed the atoms that collected, formed rocks that became earth with a molten center. If the heat were “turned off” the core of the earth would have long ago cooled and solidified. Adding to the heat of colliding masses (the drifting continents), uranium and other larger molecules are constantly undergoing nuclear rearrangements (including fission) from the surface to the center of the earth. The fission energy release occurs in one atom at a time, but the total energy released adds up. The released heat maintains molten magma from earth’s core to near the surface. On the surface we see some of this energy released as volcanic eruptions and geysers.
It is important to recognize that nuclear conversions have always played a vital role in the evolution of life on earth. A natural nuclear reactor actually formed in Oklo, Gabon (Africa), about 2 billion years ago. This occurred when the higher concentration of U-235 existed in the ore at Oklo—the high concentrations actually produced a fission chain reaction of the U-235. When the Oklo uranium ore was recently mined, there was a lower-than-normal U-235 concentration and traces of fission products and plutonium were found in those uranium deposits.
We did not “invent” nuclear processes (or even nuclear reactors). We have learned to control nuclear processes and harness the energy released. We have options on where and how we can tap into available energy sources to power our modern machines and half way through the twentieth century, nuclear power became an option available to meet rapidly increasing energy demands.
Man’s Interaction with Nature’s Stockpiles and Renewable Energies
Primitive man was successful in tapping into the easily available and easily usable forms of energy. He lived in warmer climates where the solar energy protected him from the cold. Even the most primitive animals, including early man, responded to their need to nourish their bodies with food.
As the use of fire developed, man was able to move into colder climates where the energy in wood was released by burning campfires. Animal fat and olive oil were soon discovered to be useful sources of fuel to feed the fire for heat and light. These fats and oils were observed to burn longer and could be placed in containers or wrapped on the end of a stick to create a torch—hence, they are early endeavors into fuel processing. Whale blubber was later added to animal fat and olive oil for food and fuel.
The wheel and axle was another early step in developing energy technology. The wheel and axle assisted man to use his physical energy to move heavier loads. The cart was made more effective moving heavier loads using domesticated animals to pull it. For stationary applications, water wheels and windmills converted the hydraulic and wind energies into shaft work for many applications including pumping water and grinding grain. Wind energy powered ships to explore new lands, establish trade, and expanded the fishing industry.
Machines using wind and hydraulic energy made it possible for one person to do the work of many—freeing up time for them to do other tasks. An important task was educating the young. Time was also available for the important tasks of inventing newer and better machines. Each generation of new machines enhanced man’s ability to educate, invent, discover, and add to leisure time.
Societies prospered when they used the freedom created by machines to educate their youth and to create new and better machines. Inventions/discoveries extended to medicines that conquered measles and polio. The benefits of modern society are available because of the effective use of energy and the way energy-consuming machines enhanced man’s ability to perform routine tasks freeing time for education, discovery, and innovation. Civilization that emerged prospered.
History shows that civilization evolves based on technology. For man, the “survival of the fittest” is largely the survival of the culture most able to advance technology. In modern history, while Hitler’s technology dominated the World War II battle field, Germany was winning the war. As the Allies developed new technology that surpassed German technology, the Allies began to dominate the battlefields leading to military victory.
If you drive through the Appalachian Mountains, you can see how coal seams (varying from an inch to over a foot thick) once buried a few hundred feet underground are now exposed on the open cliffs. The upheaval that created mountains also brought up deposits of coal and oil. At cliffs like these, man first discovered coal. Coal was considerably easier to gather at these locations than firewood, and gradually replaced firewood that was becoming scarce. Marco Polo observed “black rocks” being burned for heat in China during his 1275 travels [3]. Coal’s utility caught on quickly. Between 1650 and 1700, the number of ships taking coal from Newcastle to London increased from 2 to about 600. In 1709, British coal production was estimated to be 3 million tons per year. Benjamin Franklin noted (1784) that the use of coal rather than wood had saved the remaining English forests and urged other counties to follow suit.
When oil was found seeping from the ground, it could be collected and used to replace an alcohol–turpentine blend called camphene (camphene being less expensive than whale oil) [4]. Eventually, mining and drilling techniques were developed to produce larger deposits of coal and oil found underground.
From a historic perspective, energy technology has tended to feed upon itself and make its utility increase at increasing rates. Large deposits of coal allowed a few men to gather as much fuel as everyone in a community gathered wood a few centuries earlier. Easy and efficient gathering of fuel freed up more time and resources to develop new and better machines that used the dependable fuel supply.
Prior to the nineteenth century, the decisions to proceed with newly demonstrated technology were easy because the benefits were obvious. The vast amounts of virgin wilderness dwarfed the small tracts of land being devastated by poor mining practices, and an energetic entrepreneur could simply go to the next town to build the next generation of machines as local markets were dominated by established businesses/corporations.
At the end of the nineteenth century, vast tracts of land and the ocean were no longer barriers to the ambitions of the people managing corporations. The telegraph allowed instant communication and steam engines on ships and locomotives allowed most places to be accessed in a matter of days. The time arrived when a budding entrepreneur could no longer go to the next town to get outside the influence of existing corporations. In energy technology, the time had arrived when companies became monopolistic energy empires.
The growth of local businesses into corporations with expanding range of influence made their products quickly available to more people. The benefits were real, but the problems were also real. One problem was that innovation was being replaced by business strategy determining those technologies that would be developed.
For energy options to be commercialized today, both technical and nontechnical barriers must be overcome. The nontechnical barriers generated by corporations and their far-reaching political influences are often greater than the technical barriers. These nontechnical barriers must be understood and addressed to adopt new energy options.
Industrial Revolution and Establishment of Energy Empires
Standard Oil Monopoly
The Standard Oil monopoly of the early twentieth century demonstrated what happens when a corporation looses sight of providing consumers a product and focuses on strategies to produce a profit.
After the civil war, men swarmed to western Pennsylvania to lay their claims to land in a “black gold rush.” John D. Rockefeller was among these pioneers. Within 1 year of discovering the economic potential of drilling for petroleum, overproduction saw the price drop from $20 per barrel to 10 cents per barrel. Rockefeller realized that the key to making money in oil was not getting the oil out of the ground but, rather, transporting the crude oil to refine it into products for distribution to customers [5]. Rockefeller crossed a line when he changed his corporate philosophy to one of profiting by stifling the competition through monopolistic control of refining and distribution of all petroleum products.
The Atlantic and Great Western Railway controlled the cheap rail transit in western Pennsylvania and this controlled the oil market. Rockefeller was able to prevent his competition from using that railroad to sell their oil.
This was a change in paradigm for the energy industry. One company controlled the market by controlling access to the commodity. While nations and shipping fleet owners had done this in the past, this time it was different. This was one company operating in a free country aggressively moving to eliminate all competition.
Artificially inflated oil prices were just like taxes, without representation. When previously faced with a similar situation the people united to bring on the American Revolutionary War. The adverse impacts of the oil monopoly were difficult to quantify, unlike a tax on tea, and there was no precedent to show the way to reasonable remedies.
Competitors of Standard Oil were stifled. Some of the competition sold out. High consumer prices, higher than the free market would bear, were the result of this monopoly. Technology and innovation were also stifled. Corporate success was determined by controlling access to the products, not by using the “best” technology.
In the past, improving technology benefited both the consumer and the company. When business “savvy” replaced innovation, the company was at odds with what was good for the consumer. The creative innovation and technology was now forced off the highway of ideas onto the back roads where progress was slow.
For 32 years, Standard Oil profited from its monopoly on oil refining and product distribution. In May 1911, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice White wrote the decision which mandated that Standard Oil divest of assets to break its monopoly within 6 months. This was accomplished by forming six independent “Standard Oil Companies” geographically separated. Five of these firms control the crude oil to market business in the United States today. In 1974, assets of the descendants of John D. Rockefeller were estimated to have the largest family fortune in the world estimated to be $2 billion.1
During the twentieth century, pioneers had reached the end of land in the habitable frontier. The steam engine and telegraph provided the means by which companies could extend their influence across the country and the globe. One can argue that the international nature of today’s mega corporations elevates them to a status as great as the nations they claim to serve. One can further argue that a mega corporation can be a friend or enemy to a society in the same sense that a neighboring country can be a friend or an enemy.
In 1942, Senator Harry S. Truman led an investigating committee on treasonous prewar relationships between General Motors, Ethyl Corporation, Standard Oil, and DuPont in collaboration with German company IG Farben. Company documents show corporate agreements designed to preserve the corporations no matter who won World War II. Corporate technology exchanges compromised the competitive edge held by the United States entering World War II including leaded gasoline technology (critical for high octane aircraft fuels) and noncompetitive stances on synthetic rubber technology. At the time, British intelligence called Standard Oil a hostile and dangerous element of the enemy. (Stephenson, 1976; Borkin, 1978) [6–8]. Continuation of this behavior led to anticompetitive-related antitrust hearings on leaded gasoline technology against these American companies in 1952.
With technology and innovation taking a back seat to business interests, politics and energy technology became perpetually tangled. The larger companies were formally pursuing their agendas even when they were in conflict with public interest and involved collaboration with the enemies of our nation’s closest allies.
A corporation that profits by providing consumer products more efficiently and at a lower cost is significantly different than a corporation that makes profit by controlling the supply/price of a consumer commodity or product. The Rockefeller Oil monopoly demonstrated that the profits were greater for the business strategy that is in conflict with national benefit. In the end the only punishment was the mandated divestment of the Rockefeller Oil properties. The Rockefeller family emerged as the wealthiest family in the world.
What was the real precedent set by the Standard Oil monopoly? Was it that monopolies will not be allowed, or was it that great fortunes can be made and kept even if you are caught? The consequences are that business practices and not technical merit tend to have increasing impact on which technologies become commercial and ultimately benefit the public. With the introduction of the corporate lobbyist, technical merit is debatably in at least third place in this hierarchy.
Innovation in a World of Corporate Giants
There is little doubt that obstructed commercialization stifles technology innovation. Companies and individuals have no incentive to build a nuclear powered automobile since the government would not allow this vehicle to be used on the highways (for good reason). Restricted commercialization can be good by redirecting efforts away from projects that endanger the public. Restricted commercialization can be bad when the motivation is to maintain a business monopoly and to stifle competition.
History has shown little evidence of the impact of unrestricted entrepreneurism because modern history has been dominated by business activity rather than technical innovation. The true potential of unrestricted entrepreneurism is rarely seen. World War II is the best example in recent history illustrating what happens when we focus on developing the best technology available and the machines to get jobs done. During the 10-year period from 1940, the following technologies were developed:
• Synthetic oil produced from coal
• Mass production of military aircraft and tanks
• Swept wing and flying wing aircraft
• Stealth submarine technology
• A plastics industry including synthetic rubber, nylon, and synthetic fiber.
Many of the commercial advances between 1946 and 2000 occurred because defining technology was developed during World War II. Specific twentieth-century accomplishments that fall into this category are nuclear power, jet air travel, landing a man on the moon, guided missile technology, transistor-based electronics and communication, stealth aircraft including the B1 bomber, and the modern plastics industry.
The technological developments of World War II show what can be achieved when technology and commercialization become a national goal. If technology has inherent limits on the good it can provide, we haven’t reached these limits. We are limited in this pursuit, by public opposition to some new technologies to become part of our societal infrastructure, and by the willingness of corporations or governments to invest in development and commercialization of some new technology ideas.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, politics and energy technology are hopelessly entangled. In 2012, seven of the top ten Fortune Global 500 companies were in energy or energy use technology (e.g., the automotive industry) with a total revenue of $2.4 trillion. Management and business savvy usually trumps innovation in these companies; for example, mandated mileage increases for automobile and trucks imposed with industry opposition.
The United States rose to superpower status in the 1940s when the national focus was on developing and commercializing strategic technologies. History has shown powerful countries fall when the national focus switches from advancing technology to maintaining the steady flow of cash to corporations and well-connected individuals (maintaining corporate status quo). The Czars of Russia or aristocrats of Rome are two of many examples where common people were driven to revolt against a system dominated by the well-positioned elite.
Germany’s synthetic oil production from coal is one strategic technology that did not become commercial in the United States following World War II. This technology is currently commercial in South Africa because they have no crude oil and there was a different attitude toward investing in this infrastructure. Today, in South Africa the industry is self-sustaining and the technology is being sold for use in other countries. These production facilities were designed and constructed by US energy engineering firms.
Canada started developing its oil sand resources in the 1960s even though the technology produced crude oil that cost more than the global price of crude oil. Because of continued, dedicated development, the oil sand now costs $10–$12 per barrel to produce as compared to crude oil at over $50 per barrel (year 2015) on the world market.
The Oil Economy Through 2009
The twenty-first-century civilization as we know it in the United States would be impossible without crude oil. We get over 90% of all automotive, truck, train, and air transport fuels from crude oil, as well as the majority of our plastics. The plastics are used to make everything from trash bags and paints to children’s toys. If it is a solid device that is not paper/wood, ceramic/glass or metal, it is probably plastic.
Crude oil is a good fuel. Figure 1.2 illustrates how this natural product can be separated by boiling point range to provide gasoline, a middle fraction (kerosene, jet fuel, heating oil, and diesel fuel), and fuel oil (heavy oil used for boilers or large diesel engines for ships and electrical power). The natural distribution of crude oil into these three product classifications varies depending on the source of the crude oil.
Modern refining processes convert the crude oil into these three product categories and also provide chemical feedstocks. The modern refining process breaks apart and rearranges molecules to produce just the right ratio of gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil. In the United States, this typically means chemically converting most of the “natural” fuel oil fraction and part of the middle fraction to increase the amount of gasoline.
Figure 1.3 is a detailed description of crude oil processing in the United States It includes imported and domestic production with other commercial applications. The diagram also illustrates how complex crude oil processing has become to provide the commercial product demands.
Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show the extent of US oil imports and how prices fluctuate. Since the year 2000, the United States was spending over $100 billion per year to import crude oil (estimated at over $200 billon per year in 2005). Cheap oil in 1997 and 1998 brought a prosperous US economy, more expensive oil in 2001 and 2002 added to the economic slump. During the next decade, prices continued to increase both due to limited supply and by increasing demand in countries like China. Since mid-2014, the market price of crude oil has dropped from about $105 to less than $60 per barrel. The economic impact of this slump will depend on how long it lasts and where the price “settles” during the next decade.
As illustrated in Figure 1.3, the United States imports well over half of the crude oil we process. One can argue whether the world will have enough oil for the next 100 years or maybe only the next 25 years. One thing is certain; the useful and significant domestic oil production in the United States has improved with the production of the “new” shale oil. It is certain that oil reserves are finite, that more oil will be available if the price of crude oil can sustain higher cost of production. Over half the world’s known oil reserves are in the Middle East. Figure 1.6 shows this breakdown with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq each with greater reserves than any other country.
Energy Sources
Petroleum provides more than 90% of vehicular fuels in the United States; but in addition, petroleum represents 53% of all energy consumed in the United States as summarized by Figure 1.7. The energy stocks used in the United States are in sharp contrast to US reserves (see Figure 1.8), and this will ultimately lead to energy crises.
To put things into perspective, with world energy consumption at the present rate, the world has approximately 3.61 years of petroleum (to supply all energy needs), 17 years of coal, 46 years of natural gas, and thousands years of uranium (assuming full use of uranium and ocean recovery) [14]. If the United States were the sole consumer of world energy reserves, world petroleum would last 75 years toward meeting all the US energy needs, coal 500 years, natural gas 1000 years, and uranium tens of thousands of years.
Presently, there is a mismatch between reserves and what is being consumed.
It is where consumption exceeds availability that technology makes the difference. There is little doubt—the world’s demand for petroleum is rapidly exceeding the availability of petroleum. From the position of available energy reserves (see Figure 2.7), coal and nuclear are the obvious choices to replace petroleum. The right combination of technologies can make the difference between security and vulnerability; between cheap energy or economic recession due to restricted oil supply.
Oil Fracking and Horizontal Drilling
Technology on drilling for crude oil has advanced to the point where less than one of four oil wells drilled produced oil in the United States in the mid-1970s where essentially 100% of the wells now show producible oil. The improved technology starts with improved seismic mapping that identifies reserves and a process of horizontal drilling that bores into the geological formation for over a mile. At oil prices above about $70 per barrel this industry is prosperous.
The fracking (hydraulic fracturing the shale/rock formation) part of this technology occurs when high-pressure water is used to crack (fracture) the rocks in the formations to release oil. Contrary to much perception, the fracking occurs in geological formations typically a mile deeper than those formations yielding drinking water or otherwise impacting lifestyle on the surface. Problems do occur from other aspects of the drilling and contaminated water waste disposal; all of which must be controlled with high reliability.
International Energy Agency (IEA)’s 2014 World Energy Outlook indicates that the US domestic supplies will start to decline by 2020 “As tight oil output in the United States levels off, and non-OPEC supply falls back in the 2020s.” The report states, “the Middle East becomes the major source of supply growth.” This is consistent with reports from the US Energy Information Agency that forecast a plateau in US oil production after 2020.
The production numbers, reserve numbers, and oil prices have a consistency that indicates the United States has a window of opportunity of about 10 years (2015–2025) where it has the economy and time to make investments to secure the future generations. This statement is in agreement with the IEA article United States must grasp opportunity to build sustainable energy system, “The United States is in a strong position to deliver a reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable energy system, the IEA said today as it released a review of US energy policy. To do so, however, the country must establish a more stable and coordinated strategic approach for the energy sector than has been the case in the past.”
This strategy includes sustainable electrical power production and new transportation technologies that can lead to major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These investments and other factors would improve the care with which we use reserves and ultimately extend the availability of affordable petroleum fuels unto the twenty-second century. The plan is to have lower cost and better performance alternatives—this is on the table and an agenda must be developed for it to happen.
Coordinated Strategic Approaches
A coordinated and strategic approach includes the following for the United States:
• Allow the US oil and natural gas industries to take their course and to nurture alliances with Canada since their oil sand and oil shale reserves can have a major impact.
• Allow the wind and solar energy industries to take their courses.
• Allow the biofuel industries to continue to grow.
• Keep the battery industries for transit and grid storage on course.
• Extend the nuclear power industry with new reactor technology.
Characterized as allowing to take their course are the three industry categories of (i) oil and gas, (ii) wind and solar, and (iii) biofuel industries. Great political favor has been shown to these industries with either favorable regulations or subsidies. Allowing these industries to “take their course” means to put a cap on the extent each is favored. Each has major flaws that limit their potentials as part of sustainable strategic solutions, but each also has advantages and niches to contribute sustainable industries. These industries each need to develop on paths that do not interfere with alternative technologies that might provide sustainable energy solutions.
Keeping the battery and nuclear industries on course is critical, because they will not only provide sustainable energy, but also provide major greenhouse gas emission reductions. The time may be at hand for a “fifth mode of transportation” that can be more efficient from both energy and transit time perspectives. Each of these deserves further discussion here and extended discussion in later chapters.
“Beware of the alarmists” falls into the same category as putting a cap on the amount of subsidies provided to the oil, gas, wind, solar, and biofuel industries. The common feature of these is they need the general public to ignore the rules of economic supply and demand, give each of these industries special competitive advantage with direct subsidies, or selectively provide an advantage over other industries by introducing new regulations. The best measure of whether a technology is worth the cost relative to its benefit is an open supply versus demand market.
If a technology costs more than alternatives, select the alternatives and save the dollars. There is any number of worthy projects that might be funded with public approval. The cost of a technology is the single most comprehensive metric for evaluating a technology that implicitly takes into account how worthy a technology is versus alternatives.
An exception to the use of cost as a primary factor for selecting technologies is for the fostering of new technologies that require a period of time for markets to develop and economies of scale to be realized. Taxpayers accept this approach as effective, but taxpayers are less accepting of recurrent subsidies to the point where “inferior” technologies interfere with the ability of more worthy technologies to obtain sustainability. The solution is the capping the total of subsidies applied toward any single industry; capping both in total dollars per year and the number of years.
Taxpayers are also accepting of “sin” taxes that are most prevalent on alcohol and tobacco. These taxes can be equally applied to industries that cause detriment to the environment. Carbon dioxide emissions may fall in this category. The use of the sin tax to account for hidden costs is far superior to subsidies since the tax can be defined to treat all industries the same.
The worst of all worlds is one of compounding and competing subsidies where any technology that is not backed by a strong lobbying group is left to flounder; this being the most accurate representation of current practices by many governments including the United States. From the engineering perspective, this approach of competing subsidies is characterized as being a system out of control that is bound to fail, possibly fail catastrophically.
When subsidies persist past the point of fostering a new industry and toward favoring specific industries; the impact is synonymous with the stifling of competing industries. Assuming this practice can be brought under control, it would be possible to sustainably achieve what was previously unattainable.
The energy and transportation infrastructures in 2015 are incrementally improved versions of the technologies developed in the 1940s—this history is a reflection of the impact of politics and lobbying on technology evolution. The topic of what is attainable warrants an introduction here and extended discussion in later chapters.
Nuclear Power
The processes that occur in nuclear fission reactors were not invented. Nuclear decay has been occurring on earth since its formation. What is new (within the past century) is scientific understanding of nuclear processes and the controlled use of nuclear fission to produce electrical power. There is much to be gained by the responsible use of nuclear fission to produce electricity.
Compared to the thousands who have died in the smog produced from burning coal or the thousands who have died in military conflicts to control the flow of petroleum, commercial nuclear power in the United States has demonstrated to be the safest and most environmentally friendly energy source. Table 1.1 statistics reported by Hinrichs [1] shows that the environmental impact of nuclear power is a small fraction of the impact of coal power. These lessons of history are clear. The extended statistics show that nuclear power in the United States is superior to all alternatives relative to total fatalities.
Table 1.1
Impacts as summarized in 1986 of coal versus nuclear for a 1 GW power plant operating for 1 year
| Coal | Nuclear | |
| Occupation health deaths | 0.5–5 | 0.1–1 |
| Occupational health injuries | 50 | 9 |
| Total public and worker fatalities | 2–100 | 0.1–1 |
| Air emissions (tons) | 380,000 | 6200 |
| Radioactive emissions (curie) | 1 | 28,000 |
George Santana is credited with writing, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them.” Many great people have cited various forms of his statement. In energy technology, history’s lessons are that more people will die due to coal and petroleum—from occupational accidents, military confrontations, and pollution generation—than with US nuclear energy. The environment will suffer more damage with coal and petroleum—from oil spills to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Responsible nuclear power generation should continue to be safe and more friendly to the environment provided engineers and scientists continue to apply the lessons they have learned to safely design and operate nuclear power facilities.
On the topic of nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel, depleted uranium from nuclear fuel enrichment, excess weapons grade uranium, etc.), history shows that this “waste” should not be buried. Rather, processes should be developed to recover nuclear fuel values from it. Isolate the radioactive fission products for safe disposal. This topic will be treated in more detail in Chapter 8.
Tesla
Tesla Motors achieved what many considered unachievable in 2013. Tesla achieved profitability in a market of electric cars that were very expensive, had limited range, and did not have a network of refueling stations. Today, the company is expanding to include lower cost and extended range vehicles. They have added large-scale manufacturing of batteries to the plan to achieve economies of scale for lithium ion batteries. Several other automobile manufacturers are now offering electric vehicles in what appears to be a sustainable, competitive market that will expand.
The CEO of Tesla, Elon Reeve Musk, pursued the electric automobile market in an approach previously thought to be unattainable. He has clearly demonstrated the value of marketing and perseverance. He identified untapped markets to sustain a new industry.
Elen Musk was instrumental in a number of endeavors that made his fortune and that include in addition to Tesla Motors: SpaceX, SolarCity, Paypal, Zip2, and Hyperloop. The Hyperloop high-speed transportation system is an alternative to jet travel with the following advantages:
• The Hyperloop is faster than jet travel with proposed velocities up to 900 mph.
• It is based on railroad-type vehicles powered by batteries and operated in low-pressure tunnels to reduce friction.
The fastest trains today operate up to 200 mph by the Japanese Shinkansen line but with the record demonstration speeds of near 360 mph set by French TGV (French: Train à Grande Vitesse, “high-speed train”) for rail travel and the Japanese Yamanashi test vehicle for maglev travel.
High speed land-based systems were proposed as early as the 1970s by Rand Corporation. Typical maximum travel speed for passenger jets is around 575 mph above land with air traffic control restrictions over cities and approaching airports. The Concord offered sustained supersonic transit service over the Atlantic Ocean for 27 years ending in October of 2003.
A system that would offer travel speeds in excess of 600 mph on land routes using electrical energy would be a significant advance in both quality of transportation and sustainability of transportation. The historic problem with such a system has been the high cost of the tunnel infrastructure. However, there is reason to believe that this cost barrier has been significantly reduced and that such system may become reality in the next couple of decades. Details are provided in Chapter 7 on the electric grid power.
Major simultaneous advances in sustained low-cost electricity, faster and lower cost travel, and substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions are possible. The path there is through good, informed choices on technology and a lack of favoritism to any particular industry that would interfere the free market.