High Tide or Low Tide
In high seas or in low seas
I’m gonna be your friend
High Tide Low Tide
I’m gonna be your friend
In high seas or in low seas
I’ll be by your side
High Tide Low Tide
I’ll be by your side
High Tide Low Tide
— Bob Marley and the Wailers, 1973

We have used the movement of the seas for centuries to gather energy. Early navigators knew there were predictable movements in the ocean currents, and they used them to determine when they would leave or arrive back to port. The collection of waves, tides and currents is collectively known in the alternate energy realm as “ocean energy.”

All this energy is produced by the changes in temperature in and on the oceans and seas, thermal upheavals in the ocean’s bottom, such as earthquakes, and gravitational pull of the sun and the moon. Ocean energy, according to Real Engineering, could theoretically provide for 50% of America’s energy supply. Today there are companies that manufacture various types of underwater and surface water devices to produce electricity based on the predictability of ocean currents, but they face many challenges.

Tidal energy
I more imagine Mr. Marley enjoying a carbonizing tobacco product while composing this song for a friend, as opposed to considering the causation of the high and low tides. None the less, the ebb and flow of tides, is truly a friend to tidal energy. When my father and I went to Alaska and took a cruise off the coast, I recall the massive swells that occurred not very far off shore. The boat would rise about 45 feet at any given instant. That would make a roller-coaster ride seem like a drive around Keuka Lake. No doubt Alaska has the greatest potential in ocean energy.
​
In this column, I want to discuss one of the upcoming technologies in alternate energy. What is interesting about this form of alternate energy compared to other forms is its 100% predictability hence uniform consistency of delivering power. It is dependent on the highly predictable rotation and orbits of the earth and the moon around the sun. This gravitational relationship causes tides to occur four times a day right on schedule.

Let’s slosh!
There are two main tides: the “spring tide” and the “neap tide.” The spring tide is when the moon and the sun are aligned and combine their gravitational forces to produce a greater rise and fall of the tides, hence more energy can be extracted during this time. The neap tide is when the moon is 90 degrees to the projection of the sun. When this occurs tides are minimal. These forces causes a rise in tide and “picture if you will ...” (this is as good as my Rod Serling imitation gets), a volume of water in a shallow plastic bucket. Next the bucket is being tilted to the left then back again. The swell of the earth pulling toward the sun acts like the bucket being tilted one way then being pulled in a different direction by the moon, as the earth and moon rotate while the oceans act like the water in your bucket. Not to be a tidal bore but this my best way of explaining this energy. It performs this action four times a day. Unlike a train schedule, you can count on it.

One of the caveats of this technology, as you are about to see, is that they are location specific. It requires a natural reservoir that funnels, a naturally obtained high volume of flow, through a narrow channel. These sites are not that common and need a great deal of geological research to ensure these energy collecting systems are effective and not an environmental hazard.

Tidal barrages
Currently there are only two major tidal wave energy plants in the world: Rance in Northern France and Sihwa in South Korea. These tidal plants are known as Tidal barrages. From a distance they look like any typical hydroelectric plant except they rely on the real time flow of water caused by the tides trapped and channeled to produce a higher flow of water. They produce about 250 megawatts each. The caveat is two fold: 1) they are very expensive to build; 2) they have an ecologically negative effect on the regional aquatic life.

SeaGen, Meygen projects
Just inside the coast of Ireland at Stangford Lough was the Seagen Project by Semic Atlantis Company. This was an undersea tidal project designed to correct the problems with the Rance and Sihwa projects by designing an underwater turbine that would not be as costly and be eco-friendly to the local sea life.

These turbines resemble wind turbines. As you may recall from my first column on wind turbines, the mass flowing through a turbine is a major factor in the energy extracted from the force of the medium, now in this case not air but water. Because of this factor, the propeller size is much reduced. This prototype reached full capacity in 2008 and ran until 2016. It had a very high “capacity factor” CF. The CF reached 59% at its peak, over twice that of wind turbines in Ireland.

With this success, a second project called Meygen began in 2014 in the planning stages and was put into operation in April 2018. In its first 18 months, it put 22gw back into the grid. This project proved the economic and ecological value of this technology.

Conclusion
These projects have merit, but I believe they are limited because they rely on a specific type of geological location that naturally funnels water to create the velocity that other such hydroelectric projects create by structure. These projects will be far less effective in open tidal waters. I think that these turbines are cheaper to build and easier to install and maintain than the larger wind turbines. *In my very humble opinion these machines have a future, but they must prove their viability in the less effective tidal waters. Permits for a second project outside of Normandy, France has been initially approved. The waters there are much deeper. Let’s hope they can!

Power production by wind is accelerating across the globe. Annual growth is above 25%. The U.S. National Renewable Energy Labs predicts that offshore wind will have the cumulative capacity of 500 gigawatts — the equivalent net output of about 200 nuclear power plants or about 500 coal-powered plants — by 2050.
The next step in wind turbine technology is to create longer turbine blades and taller towers. Capturing the wind is the name of the game. The bigger the better. With wind, size matters. Getting up where the wind is the strongest makes wind power energy more viable. Creating the larger wind turbine is easier said than done, however, especially when we are talking offshore.

In the Netherlands, there are plans to build the largest array of offshore’s most powerful wind turbines in the world. These turbines, I believe, will be certified cancer free too. As wind turbines become more powerful, size and height are everything. However, as they get taller and the propellers longer, the turbine hub called the nacelle gets heavier.

Building these new turbines is a challenge. The size and weight of these turbines are mind boggling. Compound that with the components that have to be assembled offshore. Each unit has to be brought in by ship. Now add a 600-ton nacelle, 200-ton rotor that is 680 feet in diameter, the lift equipment that can go vertical 560 feet, then tack on the omnipresent winds. It’s all an engineering marvel.

When the weather turns rough you can’t just run to the nearest shelter, making planning critical. For example, if someone is injured it’s at least a 3-mile ride back to shore, on one of the roughest shorelines in Europe or a ride in a helicopter if the winds aren’t too rough. The seas can kick up at any time, and they don’t care if you’re in the middle of a rotor lift.

With the enormous increase in weight, blade length, and the nacelle capturing energy from the wind comes the reality of physics. Greater wind speed means greater energy captured. This is the reason for higher heights and longer turbine blades.

Enter the new drive train HDT super solution.
The company Hydrautrans BV in Utrecht, the Netherlands, is trying to meet the demand for higher output wind machines. It is developing a 12 megawatt mechanical-hydraulic drive train to meet the needs of the next generation wind farm. Most wind turbines operate around 5-7 megawatts, but over 10 megawatts is where the challenge really starts.

Now we have to get a little techie! Technologically speaking, wind turbine components are fairly straightforward. You have the large blades that convert the motion of the air currents into horizontal mechanical energy, which turns a generator. This is no different, in effect, than the alternator in your car which converts the rotary motion of your engine into electrical power. Your car, however, produces AC which is turned in to DC while the opposite is true for large-scale wind turbines.

The tricky part is the dynamics of the wind turbine at these higher outputs. When the preferred output rises so does the stress on the mechanics of the nacelle. At the higher outputs, the mechanical gear boxes are prone to breakdown. Direct drive systems, no gearboxes, which use the slow rotational speed direct to the generator add weight exponentially as they must handle high currents at lower voltages which are then converted to AC. The efficiency of the direct drive is compromised by the increased weight and losses in electronic conversion to the required electrical characteristics required by the end user.

Hydrautrans CEO Ernst van Zuijilen believes his company has the answer: the HDT transmission. This is the hybrid Hydrautrans Drive Train. In my humble opinion, this is a very clever power transmission. It uses what is called Floating Cup Technology (FCT) developed by INNAS BV Breda, also in the Netherlands. The FCT eliminates metal-to-metal contact thus reducing friction and wear. This unique system operates four hydraulic motors that in turn drive the generator. What is key here too, is the high scalability of this drive train. It promises to handle 15-20 megawatt units for the future.

Wind turbine installation, especially at sea, is a marvel of engineering. Along with Hydrautrans, the Mammoet Company has developed a self-mounting crane system that can lift loads of 250 tons without the need for a large and extremely expensive jack-up installation vehicle. This alone is a major benefit in the construction of wind turbines.

In conclusion, the future of wind power generation lies in the ability to design systems with the intrinsic limitation of the physics of the materials, location of prevailing winds as well as the diminishing return of energy vs. cost of construction. Capturing larger and larger wind area is the only significant remaining thing that can improve wind turbines. Building and installing these new turbines are the two remaining challenges. Hydrautrans is on the right track, though, the complete large scale unit has yet to be built. There is the marketing issue of convincing current wind turbine investors that this new and yet untested technology is worth the trade off against conventional modes of wind power generation. Hydrautrans is optimistic that its design will be the investor’s choice when the prototype is completed in 2023.

I invite readers to take a gander at a YouTube video of how these present day turbines are installed at sea. It’s an eye opener!

… Breaking the chains around you
Nobody else can bind you
Take a good look around you
Now you’re breaking the chains
— Dokken, 1985

A good friend and engineer buddy, a part-time optimist, always said when things were going well: “For every silver lining there’s a dark cloud.”

With hydrogen, this is so true.
​
All the naturally occurring elements were derived from hydrogen, so says Prout’s hypothesis. It is the most abundant element in the universe and on earth. When I say on earth, I mean on the surface of the earth, because most of the earth is made of iron, aluminum, and silicon by weight. The sun and all other celestial nuclear reactors all run on hydrogen.
​
Its properties make it the cleanest fuel as the result of its combustion, which is almost 100% water. It is highly efficient, 45% as compared to gasoline which is only 35% efficient. Hydrogen can be derived from water. Virtually no pollution is produced in its combustion.
Who could ask for anything more?

Hydrogen can be produced from many sources such as biomass and natural gas, both of which are abundant. Fuel cells do wonders in converting hydrogen into electricity. Two percent of all CO2 emissions occur from flight; with hydrogen this could be eliminated entirely.

Well, here is a the dark lining.
Hydrogen’s Faustian energy bargainIt takes energy to make energy. To reap the benefits of hydrogen it is necessary to break the chains of hydrogen from its adherents such as carbon and oxygen. Here’s the bargain: How much energy are we willing to give up to make hydrogen available? Then,once we make that bargain, how are we going to distribute this highly volatile fuel?

Hydrogen has no odor which means it must be scented even though it is not toxic, but it requires only a 4% mixture with air to be explosive. Another problem is how do you store hydrogen? It requires special tanks that can hold great pressures, because it is it so atomically thin it can easy seek its way through structures that are impervious to natural gas.

Right now approximately 95% of all hydrogen fuels are derived from biogas, in particular natural gas or methane. This is because hydrogen extraction requires less energy from these substances. However, the CO2 emissions from the manufacture of hydrogen are higher than the CO2 outputs of Indonesia and England combined. Hydrogen also has many uses, especially in the manufacture of other chemicals not just for energy.

Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. This method is counterproductive. It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from electrolysis than the energy value of the hydrogen produced. However, if renewable sources are available and are not feasible for other energy use then these renewable sources — i.e. solar or wind — could be used.

Currently the U.S. Department of Energy is looking into the thermal separation from the heat generated by nuclear power under the influences of various precious metal catalysts. This technology is concerning. Nuclear power process involved in processing one of the most explosive and volatile substances doesn’t sound like a good mix. Couple this with the fact that there is the omnipresent threat of terrorism.

Airplanes would greatly benefit from hydrogen but what kind of “gas” tanks would have to be made to hold it during flight? This would be a monumental engineering feat, considering the stresses of heat and cold, moving at 600 mph, atmospheric pressure changes and lightning.
Fuel cells that convert hydrogen into electricity are very expensive, use rare earth metals, and are difficult to manufacture. Pumps are needed to fill the storage tanks which also requires energy. Then there will need to be filling stations.

Hope is on the way
We simply can’t dismiss hydrogen as it surely can be the fuel of the future. Research is being conducted on a global scale to remedy the above problems.

Currently the need to totally revamp the infrastructure for this energy distribution is just not cost effective. This will have to occur when it is time to replace or restore the existing natural gas lines. However, improvements to products such as the Bloom Box may stem the need for this as it can take methane and convert it to hydrogen which is then converted to electricity.


​Fuel cells hopefully will bring about cheaper membranes to reduce operating pressures and the use of rare earth elements like platinum, which is the catalyst of most fuel cells. As solar cells improve in efficiency it may make sense to use electrolysis as there is no need to convert the DC energy to AC which can bring losses to over 10%. Maybe there will be a system that can deliver hydrogen in real time making storage unnecessary.

In conclusion
Hydrogen seems to be a great fuel. It is clean, it’s abundant, and renewable, but ... it has a ways to go.

In order to produce hydrogen, a lot of energy is required. That energy, for the most part, is not clean, not renewable, and is limited. I believe that energy will take on many new forms as our knowledge of physics advances. Our deeper study into the essence of energy will reveal whether hydrogen or any substance will be our future source of energy.

After all if E=MC² is true, then our electric motor apprentice turned Swiss patent clerk, turned professor at Princeton, from Ulm, Germany, never limited what “M” had to be, just how fast it had to go.

Post scriptThe IEA is the International Energy Agency. In my humble opinion, it has the best data on the future of energy as a whole. Noe Van Hulst is the former chair of the IEA, and is chair of its hydrogen study. This study is thorough and was presented at the G20 meeting in Japan last year. It makes good reading for the future of hydrogen, a subject of which I could barely scratch the surface.

Torn thru the distance of man
As they regard the summit.
Even Siberia goes through the motions.
​— Jon Anderson of Yes, “Siberian Khatru”
​
In my research on the nuances of alternate energy, one of the most disturbing situations I have come across is the Siberian permafrost and the huge methane reserves that lie underneath. Yes! Global warming is real! This past week for us upstaters, the weather may have changed your opinion. However, the jet stream is to blame for the more recent acute weather changes.
But yes, global warming, dare I say again, is real and regardless of what we believe the cause is, we must adjust for the resulting changes, which will result in higher water levels and the ebbing of the permafrost yielding more highly concentrated greenhouse gases in the form of methane. Under the permafrost is a large quantity of natural gas and not all of it has practical economic value. If this volume of methane is freely released into the atmosphere all at nearly the same time ... well, please, read on.
Let’s go over some basics. Siberia is a region of the Russian Federation situated east of the Ural Mountains. Its borders have changed with the advent of the new Russian Federation. It spans several time zones and is larger than Canada. It has the richest deposits in rare earth minerals, aluminum, oil and natural gas in the world. I said 50 years ago that if Russia had ever had the desire to create a free enterprise system, it would have outdone the United States economically and thus been the world leader with the U.S. in a distant second place. Thank goodness for Soviet-style communism ... uh, maybe!
Siberia also has the dubious honor of having the largest continuous region of permafrost.
Understanding the climate history of Siberia is critical to understanding its unique hibernation network, which is currently awakening. The geological history of Siberia is still an enigma. There are regions where numerous adult woolly mammoths were completely frozen for 20,000 years with food still in their stomachs. The woolly Steppe mammoths were up to 15 feet tall and weighed up to 11 tons. Imagine what it took to feed them.
They were in Siberia because of the rich and seemingly limitless grassland. This rich grassland had 10-20 thousand years to incubate and turn into methane underneath the ice sheath. Now, that sheath is disappearing. The thaws are lasting longer, and the resistance of the ground holding the methane is diminishing. The methane is either escaping or pooling underneath. It was the perfect combination of events to create these vast reserves of methane.
Couple this with global warming and you have a perfect storm brewing. Geologists know the earth burned to the ground at least three times before. They suspect that methane along with volcanic action caused these immense fires. While a fire of biblical proportions may not be in the offing, the release of huge quantities of methane gas is. This could be a major problem by 2050 unless there is a reversal in the direction of the climate or man does something about it.
Currently, there is chronic release of methane to the atmosphere. Methane has 32 times the carbon of carbon dioxide. It is almost incalculable what effect this could have. The positive feedback greenhouse effect would be accelerated to such an extent that it would reach a point of no return. Picture the feedback on a sound system where you cannot move the microphone out of the feedback range and you are trapped in that auditorium.
The consequences of a methane proliferation in the Siberian landscape has not yet been evaluated. However, you don’t have to be Lewis and Clark to map out the area where the proliferation of methane from centuries of decay resides to see what could happen with the only trap door holding it in was suddenly opened.
Is there a solution?
Siberia has 5.1 million square miles, nearly 1 1/2 million square miles more than Canada, the U.S. or China, with a population less than Poland. The only thing currently stopping that methane is the ice layer over the top of it, which is disappearing at an unprecedented rate. The period of thaw is much longer now. This is so prevalent that tusk hunters are appearing in droves to pick at the thawing ice fields on the shores of the Russian arctic where the remnants of herds of wooly mammoths reap a rich harvest of the mammoth’s long abandoned tusks.
Gazprom, the second largest producer of natural gas, already has over 1 million miles of pipeline. Imagine how many more miles of pipeline it would take to manage all of Siberia. The economic cost will be staggering. Not all the natural gas is economically viable, which will lead to burning off some of the natural gas.
Now add a nation that supports an oligarchical society whose prior history has little regard for human life let alone the environment. The release of methane will affect not only the Russian Federation but the entire world. What will it take to convince that nation of its responsibility to deal with this inevitable environmental problem? It will take a worldwide effort to legislate and enforce. At this juncture, there is no plan to even measure the gas nor its rate of ascension, by them that is. Fortunately, others are.
The Siberian Russo-China Pipeline is a bone of future contention. It is something of critical political importance. This $55 billion pipeline will provide natural gas to China on an unprecedented scale. It will be a huge boon to the burgeoning economy and life of the Chinese. With Russia supplying natural gas to China, the question that must be asked is Will the tail wag the dog?
I think this is a very serious problem and it needs to be addressed. Most people are not even aware of the aforementioned discussion. Making people aware of the situation may be job one. I think Russia should perform a survey and make an assessment of the capture of methane or the burning of extraneous methane on its own. America should value its relationship with China and examine its relationship with Russia. This may be difficult with a president who believes global warming is a hoax, marginalizes science and scientists, places tariffs on our biggest trading partner and rents to Russia’s most notorious organized crime figures.

Science and politics have always had a strange relationship. This administration is no different. Way in the beginning, politics was motivated by territorial narcissism, i.e., it’s good to be king, and war was the main thrust that drove science. King David actually practiced an interpersonal alternate energy experiment to keep warm, which apparently was successful. (see Kings 1.1)
The development of new weapons throughout history advanced the technology of the time. The Egyptians had the wheel cutting chariots. Archimedes proposed using solar power to set the marauding fleets on fire — a great idea but it needed ideal conditions to work, i.e., no clouds, stationery boats, etc. DaVinci designed the first tank, machine gun and parachute; all great ideas but too far ahead of his time, material wise. Benjamin Franklin worked on redesigning the aerodynamics of the arrow to make it faster and more directional. The famous letter of Albert Einstein, from the world’s foremost pacifist, in 1939 pleaded for the nuclear bomb to President Roosevelt because the Germans were very close to splitting the atom.
From the nuclear bomb to space exploration, in some way these technologies led directly to the technologies today and all were a result of political decisions made years ago. We would not have had advanced materials that led to semiconductors, which led to sensors, solar panels, integrated circuits, jet air transportation, and advances in bio-medicine to name but a few.
Could we have accomplished all this without politics either through war or a national agenda? Maybe, but when push comes to shove, we may never have had the motivation without it.

Politics, science don’t mix
I want to curb my criticism of politics as this is a very sensitive issue where defenses go up immediately. Americans are so polarized that we don’t let anything else in. I am fortunate that I have managed to keep my friends in spite of our political differences. So here I go with my (ever so humble) opinion.
We have only one scientist in Congress. His name is Bill Foster, a democrat from Illinois. This is his take on science and politics:
Politics is very different from science. In science if you stand up and say something that you know is not true, it is a career-ending move. It used to be that way in politics. It has taken me a while to adjust to politics where, for many who practice it, the question is not, “Is it true? But “What can I convince the voting public is true?” That psychology has bled into politics more than it should.
He laments that partisan politics is harmful to science:
Science is fact based but partisan politics is not.
Here is his take on the most important science based related issue facing congress today: “Aside from evidence-based political debate, I think it is understanding that technology is changing our society, our country and our world at an unprecedented rate. It has already upended labor markets. We should have a dedicated tech committee. I think there are six or seven House committees that claim they are doing information technology. We should consolidate tech and get a core competence in that.”
In his statement on the environment
“Thanks to decades of federally funded research, we have made great progress towards energy independence. The growth and development of our modern economy during the last century raised our standard of living, but has also led to new challenges and environmental threats. It is our responsibility to develop a comprehensive response to address our dependence on fossil fuels, promote sustainable energy use, and invest in new energy technologies.”

My humble opinion
• Marginalizing science
Most federal funding of science-based programs whether it be the USDA to fix a viral plant problem before it gets out of control, or the FDA to make a quick vaccine so children won’t succumb to pneumonia, or the DOE to keep tabs on our vast nuclear arsenal, or funding research centers like Argonne Laboratories that have the best possibility of designing our next generation of batteries, have been non-partisan.
However, with this administration that is not the case. With Rick Perry, the head of DOE, a person who doesn’t know an atom from a can of peaches, there is a trend to marginalize science. This is done by placing people in charge who know MIT only as a glove used in baseball, or who think that Cal Poly is some new breed of parrot. Yes! Climate change is real, and we must prepare for it. We must minimize man’s effect on it as well. We need to keep funding these research centers. These research agendas are not just some backroom science-project. There is a history behind all these “science projects,” such as new materials, new drugs, the vigilance of public safety, and the subsequent economic effect.

• The media
I was brought up in the era of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Mike Wallace. The Wall Street Journal did not have a lifestyle section. Today’s media has widespread views running the gamut of events and opinions. We are in the time of media doubt. Opinions are like belly buttons and everyone has one. Back in the day, we had only a few sources and they were very reliable and objective. I don’t blame all the media as it is satisfying its audience.
We live in a world that is changing at breakneck speed. China is rapidly becoming the world economic power; Africa will be the bread basket; India will be the communications center; Russia has a virtually unlimited supply of natural gas (aka Siberia). Saudi Arabia is doing more in solar energy than the United States.
​
In conclusion
We need to keep funding our government science agencies for our safety, security and innovations that will boost our economy. We need a media filter: One that can separate fact from fiction, the relevant from the irrelevant. We need technology-based businesspeople candidates not celebrities or lawyers. Government regulation does have a purpose and should not be ignored or dismissed. Not all government research is wasteful or irrelevant.

Energy is contagious
Enthusiasm spreads
Tides respond to lunar gravitation
Everything turns in synchronous relation
— Rush “Chain Lightning”

What if it were possible to connect to all the energy sources such as wind and solar through a global network? A network that could convert the instantaneous energy produced in one spot on the earth and distribute it somewhere else. We know the sun shines somewhere on the earth 24/7. We know that the oceans ebb and flow like clockwork. We know that winds are prevalent at certain times of the day and year and we know windy locations such as the Sahara or Antarctica. We know that one day of sunshine can power the United States for a whole year and then some.
The difficulty with solar and wind is the ability to coordinate their energy when you need it from when and where it is produced. A worldwide grid system could solve that problem. The Global Energy Network could also be a harbinger of world peace and minimizing world poverty.

Early steps
GENI — or Global Energy Network Institute — was one of the first to organize and promote the concept of global energy transmission in 1986 (see www.GENI.org). This group is not involved in the creation or development of an energy grid but rather exists to educate and promote the value of such.
Shell Foundation, a charity of the Shell Oil Company, is laying the groundwork for such a program. It’s called “Accelerating Access to Energy” and has been going on for 14 years. I believe that sometimes the press can be unfair to the oil companies, at least, in not telling the whole story. Shell, BP and Exxon are doing a great deal of research into alternate energy, in particular solar cells, new battery materials and biofuels. Shell is looking now to off-grid systems that can aid in underdeveloped countries.
Capital to fund an infrastructure like we have here in the United States is out of the question both for cost and time. I say time because the electricity is needed right now. Many people don’t have the convenience of water piped to their homes, something we take for granted here. Electricity to pump water would be luxury to these people even today. To get there, the likelihood is that families and communities will each be producing power locally — ie solar or wind — and then connecting together. Smaller community systems could be joined together on a per-use basis via this grid. Then when such a structure yields a base for a larger system, a networked grid would be viable. It is, in a way, like the story of the “Stone Soup,” a collective single bit interest eventually creates a larger communal benefit.
Wave power is producing electricity in the North Sea; wind farms are huge in Germany, the Netherlands and coastal Ireland. What if this power could be sent to the west at night? What if Arizona and New Mexico used their vast solar networks to power the Far East which is 12 hours ahead and is in the dark? Filling this gap makes these more common forms of alternate energy value added. Why? Because the energy can be sent with minimum conversion and storage by simply coordinating need with production.

How could this be done?
It will take a Herculean effort to tie all these points together. Transmission lines would have to be laid in the ocean. The power lines must be able to withstand over a million volts and the razor teeth of sharks. That underwater cable must withstand enormous pressures of the ocean bottom. Earthquakes and volcanoes occur all the time on the ocean bottom, which means it must also be repairable. Fortunately, terrorism is more difficult to commit and if committed it would be quickly traceable and the terrorists doing it are not likely to survive. Of course, this assumes that the transmission/reception points would be impenetrable. Maybe Elon Musk Boring Company can develop a machine that will tunnel underground and carry a cable behind it.
Raising the voltage this high is necessary to handle the current over the distance, because this is the most effective way known. There is talk of beaming the energy via microwave. This, which by the way is possible, has an efficiency of 1%. Given the present efficiency of transmission, this method has a way to go.
It is interesting to point out that the energy transmitted by the sun that coincidentally warms the earth, is less than .000000001% of the energy that is originally transmitted from the surface of the sun. One may want to ponder this from a philosophical perspective: The energy provided by the sun to the earth is merely a byproduct of it nuclear fusion. The earth is not the purpose of its energy transmission. Further if the earth disappeared tomorrow, it would have virtually no effect on the sun’s transmission of energy. Satre and Camus might agree with this from one perspective and Hawking and DeGrasse Tyson from another. When it comes to physics in space, Dr. Degrasse Tyson is everyone’s personal astrophysicist.

China’s vision
About 2 1/2 years ago, China announced that it wanted to create the worldwide grid, translating into a $50 trillion investment. This system that would provide energy to every part of the world is a truly awesome endeavor. Just a month ago, China completed a 5.5 KM line under the Yangtze River. It contains the UHV (Ultra High Voltage) cable that is accompanied by several natural gas lines. It is clearly the way to go. The price tag was just under $700 million. That translates to about $230 million per mile. Multiply that by 24,000 miles (one round trip around the earth) and you can grasp the idea of just how enormous and expensive an undertaking this is. This cost doesn’t include maintenance. I think it’s more than a noble adventure; it will provide peace and prosperity to a world increasing its population 1 billion people every 12 years.

Conclusions
Is the Global Energy Network worth the effort? Here are the factors in considering making the global energy grid:
1) Population: We currently are not meeting the needs of the world. Two billion people are currently without steady reliable electricity, couple this with a growth rate approaching 100 million people a year, and you have a problem.
2) Bridging the political gap: This is another problem. What will it take to convince non-democratic countries of the viability of working together for the benefit of the future of every one?
3) Financial: It seems that this is an overwhelming expensive task. However, the return on investment would be considerable.
My conclusion: Focusing on the big picture, the overall economic and socio-political benefits may make this project not only profitable but a necessity. A global energy network may be just one huge factor in the survival of all the species, especially our own.

A penny saved is a penny earned.
​— Ben Franklin
​
This month’s column will focus on wasted energy, energy that is produced with an end product that is never used or is poorly utilized. It’s about waste that can be controlled by smart and conservative usage or that can be minimized by personal discipline. In turn that will save energy, help our environment and even make us healthier.

Is waste a human foible or a natural response?
I remember a nature program that focused on bears in Alaska (this was way before Stephen Colbert). The bears were feasting on salmon, swatting these abundant fish down and taking a bite, then grabbing another fish. The narrator commented on this noting that when the salmon are abundant the bears waste their dinner. When it comes to abundance, we humans follow the same pattern. I wonder if this is something that is built into nature, as a control mechanism for when one species gets out of control, which got lost in the evolutionary process with humankind.
This column addresses human foibles vs. advents in technology. An abundance in food has been made possible with technology.

40% of American food is wasted
It is fact that 40% of all food produced in America is wasted. This can be through a number of factors, such as poor transportation methods, refrigeration failure or simply food that is never eaten and discarded. There is also the transporting of energy.
If I have a pet peeve, it is wasting food, which requires a lot of energy to grow, store, ship and prepare. Do you ever remember your mother (for baby boomers only) saying, “Finish your food there are people starving in China!” That is no longer true, at least for the most part, but there was a reason to appreciate the abundance we had in this country compared to others that made some of us “too abundant.”

How much energy is used to process food?
Let’s start with the basics. Oil is used not only as fuel for the tractor and other farm equipment, it is also from where fertilizer is synthesized. Then you have some kind of storage that will require at least lighting and most likely some kind of temperature and humidity control. There is the processing step, depending on the food product, such as cutting, canning, wrapping, boxing, etc. Next is the energy in transporting the food, this includes refrigerated trucks. Then there is the processing, which includes putting it in containers, processing as part of another product, labeling and date stamping. Then once the food has reached your local supermarket, it too has the responsibility to stock, store and maintain safety for the food.
So how much energy are we talking about? According to Popular Science, 5% of the total energy usage in America is simply wasted vis-a-vis food. This is enough to power Washington state for nearly a year. I purposely used this analogy with Washington State instead of Washington D.C. as the latter is powered by lobbyists and hot air.

Too bright?
A second source of wasted energy is light. Light pollution is a subject of recent controversy. Science is making note that manmade light is having a universal effect on plants and animals as well as us. Studies show a disruption in sleep patterns in humans and other creatures and the consequences. It is curious that Edison said that sleep was a waste of time. It is the most obvious sight from outer space as the presence of “intelligent life” as it were. The waste of light energy has a twofold effect.
It seems that we have abundant energy that we can light without regard. I cite my original statement on the nature of abundance. The tendency is to just flick the switch and let there be light ... no matter how much. The efficient use of light can be achieved with timers and simple conservative use as well as reflectors. Astronauts were confounded by the light seen from outer space. Save for aircraft warning and similar safety devices, the bright light that is seen from space is simply wasted.
Another controllable waste of energy is simply leaving things on at home, when they should be turned off. This means heating, cooling and the lights. My significant other made this note based on her plethora of personal reminders to this writer.

In conclusion
So what can we do? I think it all comes down to simple discipline and responsibility. Technology can only do so much. We have almost become dependent on technology to solve our problems.
As for food, I can only come up with some partial solutions. I think that regional markets are one partial solution. However, this may not be the case in many instances. For example, it can take less energy and resources to grow food in one location that has a natural propensity for growing say cherries or beef than it does for offsetting the energy of shipping and temporary storage of a local farmer who is less productive in his locale.
On the other hand, a shift to eating plant-based foods may be a solution. For example grain-fed cattle require 11 pounds of grain for one pound of beef while turkeys are far more efficient in feeding at less than two pounds of feed for one pound of meat. Grass-fed beef also is more efficient; no need to import grain and the beef is much better tasting and healthier.
For a more complete analysis of the food and energy nexus please check out Michael Webber, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin who has written quite a bit on this subject. Visit his website at www.webberenergygroup.com.
And don’t forget to turn off the lights.

Here in my car
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It’s the only way to live in cars.
​— Gary Numan
​
The automobile — or should I say our personal transportation? What does it mean to alternate energy? The automobile is, by far, the single largest user of oil in the United States. This column will explore the here and now modes of personal transportation that will rapidly evolve over the coming years. It may surprise you where this column will take you. How we get from here to there is changing and hopefully for the better.

Initial thoughts
What is the car to us? Is it a status symbol? Is it a family taxi? Does it just get us to and from work? Or it is our freedom machine? How many of us weigh the costs of owning one? As more and more of us urbanize, we may shed the need for an automobile altogether. It may not be the freedom machine we once believed it to be.
Urbanization puts most of our needs at our fingertips either via delivery to our door or a quick walk to the store or with readily available public transportation. We can visit Grandma every day on Skype. Our job, too, may be done totally online.
I also see a paradigm shift in our economy. We may have a robust economy without the need for so many people; I think that human redundancy is the chilling effect of man’s progress.
In my conversations, one of the common denominators of owning a car is personal freedom. It has the mystic power that you are in control of a machine that responds to you, on your terms, when you want and allows you to go where you want to go. Like the Gary Numan song suggests, you are in your own world and you control it.

The future AI — or Artificial Intelligence
Driverless cars are currently being experimented with. They will be our future though not just yet. AI could lead to a major reduction in pollution and fuel consumption. Computer control acceleration and deceleration can improve the gas mileage of a car about 15%.
Vehicle wear and tear also is a factor toward energy usage, considering how much energy it takes to make a car and the fact that cars get less miles per gallon as the engine gets more miles on it. In particular tires and brakes wear out more quickly with human control. But are they safe? Currently they are beating the statistical odds of traffic deaths — currently one per 100.3 million miles.
My personal and, of course, very humble opinion is that most people want to control their own driving. I believe that AI will only work in the upcoming generation, which won’t be biased by the previous experience of personal control of the car.

Multifuels
When we say multifueled, the general consensus is gasoline and natural gas. Multifueled vehicles are slowly being introduced, perhaps because of the lack of an infrastructure. They are a good idea. If one fuel is not available or too expensive, you can go to the other.
Natural gas is a good choice for several reasons. It will be an obtainable resource for longer than oil. It can fuel a car directly or be converted to hydrogen for fuel cell use. It is relatively efficient and less invasive of the environment because it burns cleaner.
So what will be the around-the-corner personal transportation vehicles?

Flying cars
Several firms are actually planning to market flying cars by 2020. There is no such thing as truly flying car, however. All the encumbrances that a car needs must also go with the flight. This means extra weight. Weight is a burden of all motion, especially flight. You may notice this with seagulls when they leave your lakeside picnic table with a sample of the operation of their natural weight reduction mechanism as you chase them off.
There are an amazing number of startups out there. My favorite is Terrafugia TF-X. Although a prototype, I see this as an example of what is just around the corner with this technology. I can’t do any justice in a written description so check out their video online.
Now how does this fit in with alternate energy? Well, in mpg it may not be so great but in relieving traffic it may offset its use in energy. It was just too cool to pass. Like drones, however, I see them as a regulatory nightmare.

Regular cars
Hybrids will be the rule in the near future, probably less than five years out. Most, if not all, passenger cars will have an electrically driven drive-train. Lighter weight materials and new battery technology will enhance efficiency.

The Segway Concept
I use this term to describe hoverboards, battery-operated bicycles, and other personal assist mechanisms that will be available in the future. The Segway, which I think was a great invention, should have had the supporting infrastructure as the other devices also would require, i.e. more sidewalks or enlarged sidewalks. I also see more use of people movers for long distances under the cities. I like the PodRide, a photo of which accompanies this column. This seems the most practical electric bike concept.
In closing, I see a need for a cooperative effort of accommodating infrastructure to make multifuels and the Segway Concept effective. Hybrids will become the norm in personal transportation. What I’d like to see is some advancement in turbo engines for cars. The basic rotary crank engine fundamentally has not changed since its inception. The Wankle engine is one exception. It proved, inter alia, to be a manufacturing nightmare. Keep your eyes open for artificial intelligence dominance. Otherwise happy motoring!

I am the eye in the sky looking at you
— Alan Parsons Project

​Drones are a great energy saver in the right hands, a menace in the wrong hands, and so, they are wrapped in a big layer of regulations. The question is: Are they a solution or a problem?
Probably one of the greatest pathways to saving energy is exploring the diversity of applications, that is to accomplish the same task by different means. Such as trains vs. trucks, buses vs. passenger vehicles. Now there are drones. Drones can hop across a city in minutes; they can deliver medicine when it would be untimely to use a common courier; they can deliver car parts, sign documents and deliver pizza. If used en masse they could alleviate traffic congestion. Drones also can go places that are otherwise prohibitive in cost and safety, such as in some military operations or exploring underwater. Using drones saves a lot of energy as well.
Just how reliable are they and what if they are in the wrong hands? The FAA is working on an extensive plan to cover this technology but I believe it will require a great deal of very complicated regulation. There are now over 1 million registered drone users. The sky has been filling up already with commercial uses and they are increasing rapidly. A recent Time story cited that over 100 too-close-for-comfort drone incidents are reported by commercial flight pilots a month. Anyone who flies regularly notices that just about every airport is in a major state of flux. Now these airports have drones to contend with as well, something that can take off from anywhere at any time and be controlled by virtually anybody. Drone technology is limited only by the size and battery weight.
In order to use this energy saving device as a commercial autonomous device, it will require three additional technologies that are controversial today: AI (or artificial intelligence), autonomous motion and big data. This drone not only can watch you but will need information about you to do so. In order to navigate safely it will have to make decisions based upon its destination. It has to factor distance, routing, weather, battery run-time and air traffic. It will have to navigate unforeseen problems as well. There may be an advertising banner that was just installed or construction equipment that was repositioned like perhaps a crane. It will have to communicate with its host and perhaps its recipient. This means that it has to rely on big data that is up to the minute.
There also is the issue of security. I believe that in the future, drones will all have to be registered, simply because they will have to broadcast an identification signal every time they are in the air just to avoid a collision. Also there is the issue of public safety. For example, what if one were to malfunction and crash, how do you minimize the collateral damage?
On the good side, there are companies such as Zipline, an American startup currently operating out of Rwanda. Its primary goal is to provide blood to surrounding medical facilities. It is the fastest service currently available. What takes hours by courier under the most favorable conditions there, takes the Zipline craft a few minutes. Zipline uses a catapult to launch drones to their destinations. This ancient method is effective because it saves energy — takeoffs use the most energy — but also because the short time to get going assists in the services this drone provides. Liftoff also is the most time consuming phase for any airborne device. I have to believe that FedEx and Amazon are watching this one, as they have been very active in drone use. Visit Zipline’s website.
One drone style that doesn’t get as much coverage is the underwater variety. I have always wanted to go on an underwater excavation. I like to think of it as history frozen in time. Underwater drones have many of the features of airborne drones, however they are watertight — and pricey. Underwater communication and long-term operation requires tethering, which greatly adds to the costs. They already retrieve ancient artifacts and document ocean critical activity such as underwater volcanic activity and environmental changes in aquatic life, an automated Jacques Cousteau, if you will!

The Autonomous Future
When I hear the term Autonomous Future, I think of the duo Zager and Evans and their song “In the year 2525” and Sting’s “If I Ever lose My Faith in You,” which compete for space in my head. Zager and Evans’ prediction will happen much sooner I’m afraid, and Sting’s prognosis that he didn’t see any miracle of science go from a blessing to a curse may be applicable here.
I think that with drones there is a need to pause and to consider our general rapid assumption of technologies without first considering the consequences. Drones are a force to be reckoned with. I say that because it is an affordable technology that can be used by anyone of virtually any age over say 5 or 6, difficult to regulate and could cause a great deal of damage from a simple innocent mistake. In addition to the obvious dangers of terrorism, there is corporate spying, intelligence gathering of individuals, giving escape tools to incarcerated criminals, obstruction of personal privacy, illicit drug delivery, etc.
All this going on right now at the infancy of its debut. It is worrisome what the idle minds of the future sociopath will come up with. Right now there are many companies that are making anti-drone catching and disabling devices. Let’s hope we give this device some serious consideration.