Moving 8 miles a minute for months at a time
... still running against the wind
— Bob Seger

​If there is one mode of transportation that has limitations that others don’t have, it’s airplanes — one mistake and gravity takes over completely. The greatest measure of any air transport device is that it must be fuel efficient. All the designs of future aircraft are pivoted around fuel efficiency coupled with effectiveness. Weight and aerodynamics play key roles in fuel efficiency and vice versa. A proper analysis of these two issues will always yield a benefit of efficiency.
One of the most significant contributions of the Wright brothers was not manned flight but the wind tunnel. Bob Seger’s wind was metaphorical but Orville’s and Wilber’s was real. They knew that handling wind was the make or break point for flight. That is why they chose Kitty Hawk, North Carolina to be their test location because they understood the effect of wind for flight. Wind is still very much a factor in the mechanism of flight. I say wind, and of course, I am including air. However, air is seldom stationary. Air and its movement are deep in the study of flight. Currently, flight efficiency is based on just two principle factors: wing design and weight distribution. Design and weight are key to other forms of transportation as well, but with air transportation they are necessary to survival.
The current innovation (actually it’s over 80 years old in concept) is the BWB. No, not Buffalo Wings Buffet! Granted it can produce its own blend of natural gas, however, this is not the alternate energy subject of this column. I am referring to the Blended Wing Body, the wing that will shape flights in the future. It has all the right features: lift, lighter weight, fuel efficiency and lower cost. So what’s the hold up?
Here’s what NASA has to say:

NASA BWB Research
NASA is studying the flying characteristics of the BWB. Because it is a configuration that has only been used in military missions, there are a number of critical questions that researchers must address before a BWB can be commercially certified. The primary goals of the research are to study the flight and handling characteristics of the BWB design, match the vehicle’s performance with engineering predictions based on computer programming and wind tunnel studies, develop and evaluate digital flight controls, and assess the integration of the propulsion system to the airframe. Future research also must address the wide, flat pressurized payload bay of the BWB.
Over the past several years, wind tunnel and free flight model tests have been conducted to study particular aerodynamic characteristics of the BWB design. At the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, researchers tested five wind tunnel models on three versions of the BWB to evaluate the concept’s aerodynamic, noise, stability and control, and spin and tumble characteristics. Data obtained during these tests was used to develop computer performance models and flight control laws. The researchers will incorporate all wind tunnel (and later flight) data into simulations of a full-scale BWB to evaluate the flying characteristics.
Did you note “wind tunnel?” Over 115 years old, how’s that for a legacy in a world where technology is old-hat in six months? This concept was created by two bicycle mechanics. The aircraft world is still observing the flight of birds to improve the design of new aircraft, something the Wright brothers also did.

Big data
One of the alternate energy facets today is data. In today’s jets, “big data” directs pilots to change flight patterns to accommodate weather conditions which, in turn, can save hundreds of gallons of fuel per flight and make passengers’ flight safer and more comfortable. This data is sent via sensors strategically mounted on the aircraft to a central point where this data is processed in real time to assist the aircraft in flight. Then it is stored and accumulated for future use in flight planning and airplane design.

Jetman
One nuance of flight is the feature of the Jetman. This is a single man/woman device that could be the wave of future transportation. You must, however, be skilled and in good condition to fly one of these, and you have to be dropped from a plane to start your journey. So is this form of flight a possibility for everyone? Would it save fuel in the long run or be just too much fun? What about turn signals?
Check out Jetman Dubai on the web. It has been around for a while, but serious consideration is being given for its future. After all, transportation, in any form, is as much about freedom as it is going from one place to another. Is this freedom eco-responsible?

Sugar Volt
So what about electric flight? Enter Sugar Volt, a concept created by Boeing that may revolutionize flight. You might call this a hybrid jet aircraft. The concept is to use the jet fuel during the peak fuel needs such as takeoff and landing. Then use electric or electric assist during the non-peak fuel needs. I wonder if it will be possible to use gliding techniques at the right altitudes too. With the right draft, gliders have gone over 600 miles without a drop of fuel. Boeing is looking to 2030 for its commercial feasibility. Boeing is hoping to cut fuel usage by 70 percent with this concept.

Pizza anyone?
Talk about next-day delivery, how about next hour? NASA is working on drone delivery systems that could be the dream of every couch potato and that is: drone pizza delivery. Just leave your window open! After all, you don’t want to get up and answer the door. Seriously, could this conceivably be the end of rush hour traffic jams in big cities? UAS (Unmanned Airtraffic Systems) and UTM (Unmanned Traffic Management) are the future of energy efficient flights. The problem is the need for a regulation system, but I will save that topic for a separate article on drones.

Conclusion
The future of flight will be challenging to say the least. What we take for granted on the ground cannot be in the space above us. It will be that very space that will determine the future of flight. Regulation, increased usage, along with innovation, will be key players in the air space above us. Safety and security will and must ride side by side with innovation.

When I hear that Santa Fe start blowin’
I wonder where it’s been and where it’s goin’.
I tell you, boy, every time
The feelin’ sure is fine.
Just move me on down the line,
Just move me on down the line.
— ZZ Top, 197

​Rail transportation began sometime in the 1500s. It was used primarily for mining. Long ropes were used to pull these carts from one position to another, while others were pulled by horse. Rails were made of wood then.
When the steam engine came along around in the early 1800s everything changed. George Stephenson is given credit for the first railroad steam-driven engine. For its day a steam engine was pretty amazing. It hauled eight cars of 30 tons of coal uphill at 4 miles per hour. Amazing too when you consider that every one of those engines had to be fabricated on the spot. The metal, was not the steel of today, had to be forged to specs and bolted together. There were no welders then, no place to buy bolts, every single item had to be hand crafted. This was the real start of the industrial revolution.
Rail was always used to move heavy loads. Today we can move large loads fairly quickly, however; most of that movement is done with tractor-trailers. This is because tractor-trailers have greater point-to-point delivery access while rail does not. Delivery by rail is depot to depot.
So what does this have to do with alternate energy? It is all about the energy used to do work. Trains are the most efficient for moving objects from point A to Point B. They get the most mile/per gallon/per pound.
To take the efficiency of train transportation to a whole new level, what if solar panels are placed parallel to the tracks the trains run on? Can you image the possibility of transportation costing almost nothing to operate, at least fuel-wise? The solution is to install solar panels and wind turbines where possible, parallel to the rails. Then connect this to a grid system in-line overhead to accommodate the train traffic and to supply power to the resident grid system.
This is the concept promoted by Backbone Consortium and its founder Bill Moyer, author of “Solutionary Rail.” America’s rail system compared to the rest of the world is lagging far behind. This is because our massive highway infrastructure has taken precedence. Hopefully there will be a resurgence with this new system.

TEB Bus on rails
Next is intercity transportation. How can trains fit into an already crowded environment?
One solution still in the making is the TEB Bus. TEB stands for Transit Elevated Bus. It’s a bus that will ride on rails in an accommodating intercity overhead infrastructure. Waiting passengers stand on an overhead deck. The proposed bus stops at these points, does not stop or hinder surrounding traffic and the waiting passengers board the TEB in comfort and safety. In some respects, the TEB resembles the lower body of a hyrofoil. It has alternate names such as straddle bus or tunnel bus.
The savings in energy use would be enormous. Anyone who has driven in a big city knows what it is like to wait in traffic. Studies have shown that the average speed through a major city is about 12 mph. At this speed the average gas efficiency drops by 30%. Optimal speed for optimal gas mileage in a gas-only vehicle is at about 35 mph.
TEB can service hundreds of passengers at a time. It would also unclog the traffic of buses. However there has been quite a bit of controversy between feasibility and investor fraud and the TEB project appears to be in limbo. Some say this project is 20 years off.

The Hyperloop
Elon Musk is an ubiquitous character on the transportation and energy stage. He has his hands, thank goodness, in all things that move. Trains included!
You may have all heard of the hyperloop. So how does it achieve speeds near that of sound? Well, Mr. Musk is not saying. I thought it would be the gravity or vacuum system; however, Mr. Musk would only say it is a cross between the Concord and an air hockey table.
To achieve this end, tunnels are drilled. His new company, the “Boring Company,” is drilling tunnels for this purpose. I think the underground has a big future as far as energy is concerned. Currently, a hyperloop is proposed for between New York and Baltimore, which, when built, is proposed to take 29 minutes to travel. This translates to about one mile in six seconds.

MagLev
Magnetic levitation trains — or MagLev — is the last train I will cover. While this technology has been around for a while the supporting infrastructure and maintenance is extremely expensive. The Shanghai Maglev cost $60 million per mile to build. Some projects have achieved speeds of over 300 mph.
However, the very essence of what makes this an amazing technology is the same property that makes it vulnerable. The train rides on a rail that is cushioned by an “air” of magnetic repulsion between that rail and the body of that rail. Electricity in the coils in the rails is continually pulsed the whole way. However, only maglev trains can use this rail; in other words it needs its own infrastructure. This is difficult to consider as an overall benefit when its use is limited.
The future of trains is yet to be fulfilled. The concepts are in place but the reality is a few years away. It will be an enormous task to have these concepts fit the required infrastructure. So let’s hope that we are up for the challenge,or will the future have other plan

Keep on rollin’
Keep on rollin’
Oh, now roll with the changes
— REO Speedwagon, 1978

​Transportation is by far the greatest single consumer of energy and will undergo some amazing transformations in the coming decades. My next series of columns will focus on it.
Transportation is the backbone of our economy. Vehicular transportation in the United States consumes 60 percent of the oil we use, and its ravenous energy appetite must constantly be fed or it will result in a train wreck that would put Amtrak to shame.
The questions that need to be answered are these:
Can we put transportation on a diet without affecting its health? If so, what changes in technology will be made to conserve and wisely use the energy? How is mankind going to handle the goods of the future? Just how are we going to efficiently and effectively transport goods to a world that will reach 9 billion in population in 30 years? How indeed will this happen in a world of continually diminishing resources with ever-increasing expectation of products? The alternate energy here will be achieved more as a matter of perspective than innovative vehicles.
So what is the future going to be like?
“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” according to Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel.
Elon Musk recently announced that the first trip to Mars by his company will begin in 2019. Cars that drive themselves are already here. Solar-powered cars, boats and planes for commercial use are on the horizon. Ocean-going vessels will take on new shapes to accommodate a greater aerodynamic effect while employing sails. Trains can easily be run on solar power given an improved network of solar panels along the tracks. High-speed rail will be in demand. Highways and byways will forever change when built with sensors and lighting. Tunnels will bypass highways. Conveyor systems will move goods in big cities. You can walk to your local 3D Printer Depot to make your new replacement taillight on the same day you broke it while backing up in a parking lot.
Modality is the key to the future of energy efficient transportation.
Modality: The “alternate energy” in transportation may be more realized in transportation’s planning and choices of how to get what we need from point A to point B than the actual physical means of conveyance.
The use of data will contribute immensely to that end. Data interpretation will lead to creating efficient scheduling by incorporating weather reports and availability of shipping terminals. There are vast arrays of modalities. What about pipelines? I am a believer in pipelines even the big ones when you consider the alternatives. Natural gas and oil are much more economically transported by pipeline than by any other means. I know they leak and that inspections aren’t always performed unless an economic reason motivates repairs. The alternative is to ship by rail, boat or truck, which is more expensive, has greater security risks and much greater environmental risks. Pipelines are easily monitored against all these hazards in addition to being environmentally efficient.
What about a bicycles-only city? If you have been in New York City recently you could see where this is highly effective. Studies have shown that the average speed of a vehicle in the center of a major city is about 10-12 mph; picture midtown Manhattan. That is the average speed of a leisure bike ride. This has the added health benefit of exercise. Yes, there are new bikes of all kinds to handle weather and cargo. Amsterdam is an example of a bike-only city.
What about communications? No need to leave the office to go overseas. Conferencing is the way to go.
People will continue to travel by air. Jet transportation can’t keep up with the demand. I will present some things that are going on in this arena in future columns. Our skies are crowded now, just wait 10 years from now!
The Infrastructure:
I had the fortune of visiting MIT Urban Transportation of Tomorrow. One of the deepest threads woven into the fabric of transportation is infrastructure. Here a considerable amount of effort was put into working hand-in-glove with the driven mechanism themselves to the infrastructure that supports them. The research is still on going today. I was impressed with the detailed consideration that was given to this subject. Planning is the first step in the future of energy efficient transportation. If you look back, the automobile was invented before paved roads were even considered.
The United States, in its infancy, had lots of unobstructed land. We could lay rails and open roads anywhere we wanted, however, very often without permission. Europe, on the other hand, was hindered by its own infrastructure; cities had already been built and roads already crafted to handle the vehicles of the time. Canals were built to accommodate the boats of the time. After all, infrastructure had its start some 2,000 years ago with the roads built by the Romans. This begs the question, What will the roads of the future be like? I hope that there are solar panels on every meridian of our highways for starters.
I want to close with these statistics:
• The canoe was invented over 10,000 years ago;
• The first sail about 6,000 years ago;
• The wheel (for transportation) 4,000 years ago;
• Composite roads over 2,000 years ago;
• The compass around the year 1100;
• 1769, the first motor driven vehicle;
• 1783, the first hot air balloon;
• 1827, the first commercial railroad;
• 1830s, the first electric car;
• 1850s, the first glider flight;
• 1859, the first internal combustion engine;
• 1886, the first diesel driven car;
• 1903, the first engine driven flight;
• 1936, the first jet engine;
• 1957, the first in space.
These are some of our roots in transportation. Through all the advancements, the wheel will continue to be in fashion and the piston engine is still king of the internal combustion engines. This gives us a snapshot of how far we have come ... and a pause for the future.

Going underground
Going underground!
I’m going underground!
I’m going underground!
— The Jam, 1979

​Geothermal is smart, easy to use and in most cases relies on a few simple components. It has been around for milleniums, but what is it exactly?
Well, it has two fronts. One is for heating and the other for electricity. The means of heating vary depending on the type of heat trying to be obtained.
If you live near a hot spring, the choice is easy. Depending on zoning requirements, you could tap into the spring and heat your home or business directly. Just some line and a pump. In most cases, however, you are using a more available but lower medium of heat transfer. To do this a set of underground pipes with a fluid medium — usually water with antifreeze protection that takes advantage of the heat difference of the outside temperature and the underground temperature vis-a-vis a heat pump. The heat pump then transfers its energy to heating and cooling your home. The heat pump, which embraces some complicated physics, is a study in itself.
Here’s a little mind twister: evaporation is a cooling process.
On the practical side, you need to run pipe far enough underground that will ensure a temperature differential useful for the volume of the house and its location on the map. Some pipelines go vertical some 300 feet and others go horizontal, as shallow as four feet, with about 400 to 600 feet of pipe.
The other energy produced by geothermal is electricity. Trivia answer-question for you game players: Answer: The first geothermally powered electricity produced was produced in this country and in this year — cue the theme music — Question: What was 1904 in Italy? A power station was built there in 1911.
Geothermally produced electricity has a much different approach than the geothermal discussed above. Power production requires access to steam. The stronger the better. I don’t want to bore my readers with the physics of steam, but picture if you will that one form of steam is not the same as another. You can observe this when you are heating your coffee water the old-fashioned way on an open stove. When the whistle on the kettle initially engages, you can sense the intensity of the steam by the volume and frequency of the whistle. It begins as a lower frequency and lower volume of sound. As you let the kettle sit, the frequency increases and the volume goes up. This gives a sense of what I am trying to convey.
To turn an efficient power generating turbine you need a powerful jet of steam. To create steam this powerful you need to drill deep into the ground to reach those higher temperatures. Way down, like up to five miles. However, this is where the downside exists, earthquakes. Earthquakes have been blamed on several geothermal projects in California, Switzerland and Italy. Drilling for effective geothermal steam generation has the equivalent impact that hydrofracking has. Sites must be carefully selected.
The study of what causes earthquakes is for another time.
There are different mediums used to produce geothermal electricity by choosing a medium with a lower boiling point. These however tend not to be cost effective.
And now a word about Iceland and Olafur Grimsson:
Iceland produces nearly all its own energy, most notably by geothermal. Iceland like most islands, sits with a volcano. It utilizes this abundant resource to heat its homes and commercial buildings. Even the road to the Reykjavik airport is heated. Most of Iceland’s vehicles run on hydrogen therefore the country imports very little oil. Iceland is, in my humble opinion, the most technologically advanced energy infrastructure. It is a role model for other countries.
On Sept. 26, 2007 Olafur Grimsson visited the Energy and Natural Resource Committee of the USA to give a speech on alternative energy. He provided the committee with a 31-page document called “A Clean Energy Future For the United States: The case for Geothermal Power.” In gratitude for his service and genuine altruism, only two of 43 committee members attended. Oh, by the way Olafur, as he known by his countrymen, was “just” the president of Iceland.
So where is geothermal today?
Geothermal heating is expanding in the home use field, especially for new homes with heat pumps as part of their heating. It has proven to be a very cost-effective move for the new home owner. The only extra costs to the new home are the excavation, for a horizontal system, and the drilling for a vertical one, along with the piping. By the way, vertical wells for this system do not cause any seismic activity whatsoever. Geothermal heating is safe all the way around.
However, many projects are on hold for producing geothermal electricity. Turbines must be improved to run effectively at lower pressures. Lower boiling point mediums, such as some alcohol-based fluids, have been considered. Thereby reducing the need for drilling deeper and reducing the risk of earthquakes. Many of these projects are simply not cost-effective. Wouldn’t it be great if the ever increasing number of hydrofracking sites would take the same cue?
I ask the reader to review the aforementioned document by former Iceland President Grimsson. It says it’s available at the above Senate Committee’s website — www.energy.senate.gov — however, I have tried and was unable to retrieve it from the website just as I was unable to contact this committee by phone. For a reprint please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

But I’m going to whip a cat on you right now
who’s had more trouble, trials and tribulations
Your cash ain’t nothing but trash
— Steve Miller Band 1973

​How do recycling and trash factor into Alternate Energy? Here is my, as always, very humble opinion on recycling.
Recycling helps protect the environment. It reduces the need for extracting (mining, quarrying and logging), refining and processing raw materials. All of those create substantial land, air and water pollution. Because recycling saves energy, it also reduces greenhouse gas emissions, in many cases.
A long time ago one of our founding fathers who was well known for his pithy sayings made this profound statement: “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Fast forward 250 years and Ben Franklin is still right. If we take this metaphorically to alternate energy, we would say a kilowatt saved is 3,412 BTUs not burned. Enter recycling!
Due to the brevity of space, I must limit my article to the two most prevalent recycling products or elements that sit on opposite ends of the recycling spectrum: aluminum and plastics. Plus I’ll include a few words on the value of getting heat energy from trash.
Aluminum
What factors do we need to consider the value of recycling? We have the basic cost. Let’s start with one of the easiest recycling materials from use to reuse, and that is aluminum.
Aluminum is a very natural-occurring element. It’s literally everywhere except maybe in the deserts. On my farm, for example, one acre of soil one foot deep would yield 12 pounds of aluminum. Of course, processing this would be cost prohibitive. According to Aluminum.org, 75% of aluminum is still in use from its original form. The cost of recycling aluminum is only 8% of the cost of aluminum mined and processed. This does not factor in the other benefit: Less environmental disruption caused by the mining of bauxite which uses more water and energy for shipping. Aluminum is another product that is a no-brainer for energy saving and environmental impact. However, it has a limited application when compared to plastics.
Plastics
Plastics are on the other end of the recycling spectrum. Plastic is made from petroleum. The cost of recycling is, unfortunately, rather expensive. You may have read that China has now stopped buying recycled plastic. They stopped because of the environmental impact and health-related issues. China’s expansive labor force made the recycling of plastic cost effective. In general, however, recycled plastic is not cost effective, though the environmental costs of not recycling are staggering.
Plastic does not readily break down. When exposed to the sun, it will degenerate to a brittle substance which then cracks. When it cracks, a very fine particle is produced that can affect all aquatic life. For example, the particles can get into the gill slits of fish causing them to “choke” to death. This is a very recent discovery. We are just now seeing the effects of plastic that is only about 50 commercial years old.
Comparing the cost of recycled plastic to “fresh” plastic, recycled plastic is about 15% cheaper. However, the purity of this plastic is often not as desirable as the “fresh” plastic. It can often lead to product failure as well.
The environmental damage from plastic is almost incalculable. For this reason alone, in my very humble opinion, recycling now should be mandatory. The demand for plastic products increases every year, and so does the waste. Whole islands of plastic have been spotted from space.
Trash, a burning question
A lot of energy can be produced by burning trash. It also greatly reduces dependency on landfills. However, because my home is in the beautiful Finger Lakes, I have become a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). You don’t have to go far in our beautiful backyard to see one mound after another of a reminiscent landfill. Most of our landfills are receiving trash from hundreds of miles away. Why on earth (no pun intended) would a landfill be placed near one of the richest beds of fresh water, into which in the long-term, these landfills will eventually leach out?
So instead of recycling, there is the other option: trash burning. It makes sense, right? After all, plastics are made from oil, and oil is used for heat and producing electricity. It sounds so homogeneous. Well, if you want to know what remains after burning plastics, go to the state DEC website and find out. In a nutshell, the remains are numerous and just plain nasty.
Now a developer wants to put a trash burner at the old Army depot in Seneca County. These are some of the issues: the smell, the noise, the trash traffic, the amount of money it will this cost us vs. what New York City pays us, and the combustion fallout. My humble opinion is to let New York City build one in its backyard. Because NYC, I love your city but here, to quote Steve Miller, “Your cash ain’t nothing but trash.”
So what is the plastic answer?
The big problem is that China, the major import of recycled plastic, has shut its doors.
What are we going to do?
I wish I had a quick answer. There is research underfoot to develop bacteria that can dine on plastic. This may be the best answer. But what do we do now? Can we reform this plastic as the Chinese intended? Of course! Who is going to pay for this transformation?
Who is going to buy the “reconditioned plastic”? I think this is the way to go right now. There is a market for recycled plastic. However, I don’t believe this market can handle the volume of waste that we produce currently. It will be interesting, indeed, to see the fallout from this very issue.
So in closing ...
Dear reader, please recycle this article. During your dinner table conversation, let this be a topic of discussion. The bottom line, eventually we will need to recycle everything. We cannot put this off any longer or put the problem off on someone else.

Here comes the sun (doo doo doo doo)
Here comes the sun and I say
It’s all right
— George Harrison, “Here Comes the Sun”

​Solar power has the best advantages of all our energy technology today. It is cheap; it’s durable; it can make you money; it has a net capital advantage, is virtually terrorist proof, is kind to the environment and needs virtually no maintenance. It does not rely nor does it deplete limited resources. Solar is not dependent upon unfriendly nations for these resources. In fact the materials associated with most solar panels are silicon and aluminum, the two most abundant resources on earth.
Allow me to contain my exuberance while promoting yours, and explain.
Solar cells are an amazing technology. The semiconductor technology of the solar cell is over 60 years old and it is improving all the time. The price of solar cells is steadily dropping. The installation of solar cells is improving all the time. If you own a home that is properly oriented, you’d be foolish not to take advantage of installing solar cells. A properly oriented house with a properly installed system will pay for itself in four years and you keep the solar cells. After that you make money. Couple that with the advent of long-range electric cars, just around the corner, and you could avoid the gas pump for all your local driving.

Not a terrorist target nor accidental catastrophe
There is no reason an intelligent terrorist would want to target a solar plant. There is no collateral damage like that which would happen at a nuclear plant. Even if some knuckle-headed terrorist did attack a solar power plant, the nearby waters would not be contaminated nor would the land be put off limits. If damaged, the replacement is simple and quick. Solar panels could be replaced in a day.
Let’s compare the aforementioned to what has already happened with totally human caused accidents limited just to nuclear power production. The accident at Three Mile Island alone precipitated additional costs at every nuclear plant under construction by at least $6 billion apiece. This does not include lost revenue of about $1 billion each year of delay. This also does not count the costs of modification of the existing plants to meet the new safety specifications. A figure I would suspect to be nearly $1 billion per plant. After 9/11 new security measures had to be implemented. These measures would easily cost over $100 million per plant. Not to mention additional yearly maintenance costs for decades to come.
Now let’s go global on this issue. Chernobyl is being fitted with a concrete sarcophagus that will cost the Ukraine over $100 billion. According to the article “Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe 25 years later,” San Francisco Bay View, April 27, 2011, the overall economic impact to Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine is already over $500 billion. This one incident has severely affected the whole national economy of the Ukraine. One only has to visit the Ukraine to see the long-term economic impact of this one incident — an incident, by the way, that was entirely avoidable. The damages will have lingering effects for at least the next 50,000 years.
Next is Fukushima, whose recovery costs already have exceeded $180 billion. This one catastrophe also has severely affected the Japanese national economy. These two cases do not even take into account the long-term environmental impact.
Three Mile Island had only marginal effect on the environment. These nearly $1 trillion disasters did not produce one single watt of electricity.
Do you see a pattern here?

Questions and answers
Q: What would $1 trillion of solar cell power plants do?
A: Provide 1 trillion watts of power every hour the sun’s rays hits their panels
Q: What is the carbon footprint of installed solar panels?
A: Zero
Q: How much water is being used to maintain this amount of energy?
A: Excluding the occasional cleaning of the panels, zero.
Q: How many unfriendly nations are involved in the process of maintaining these panels?
A: Zero (and yes, I am considering China an ally for this issue).
Q: What are the security costs for maintaining solar panels?
A: Zero
Q: What is the risk to the environment once installed?
A: None
Q: If for any reason a solar field was damaged either by man or nature what would be the long-term fall out?
A: None.
​
No sun?
The down side is, what happens when the sun doesn’t shine?
The solar energy chain is broken at night and on cloudy days. You can’t rely on it. The missing link is the backup system. The most used backup system is neighboring power plants. These strictly regulated power providers are obligated to buy back power from those so positioned to provide it. This is, you, the average consumer. These power providers have to maintain not only their power plants but the infrastructure too. There is much reasonable debate on the equity of such an arrangement. The next question is what if everyone got on board, factories, whole apartment complexes, all homes, etc, to where it was no longer profitable for these power companies to stay in business? The near future response here is fuel cells and a grid system. Wet and dry storage batteries also are a consideration. Who will maintain the grid system though?
Wind power tied to power grid could conceivably handle the off-hour needs fairly reliably. Strangely enough wind is fairly predicable. Properly placed wind turbines on our abundant national coastlines could easily handle the off hours of solar production.
We need support to get solar on board. Maybe if Beyoncé or Adele came out in support of solar power, it might get some attention. This is, as long as they got approval from Lady Gaga.

It’s everywhere. It’s produced all the time, virtually anywhere there is water, some heat and some decaying organic matter. There are huge pockets of it all around the earth. Occasionally, we humans produce our own little supply. Not to mention cows. Natural gas or methane is the subject of this month’s column.
Natural gas is the best choice among fossil fuels. Is natural gas itself a fossil fuel? In some cases yes but in others no. On a hot summer day at a murky pond in the woods you may see bubbles rising out of the pond. Most likely that is methane.
However, if you are in a desert and have an oil well with methane coming out then that is fossil derived. ExxonMobil is doing a lot of research on algae and methane gas and other biofuels. Biofuels are distinct from natural gas in that they encompass a large array of sources, from algae to animal fat, but it also includes natural gas. I am leaving out biomass in this article due to its diverse nature and space constraints.
Natural gas has many benefits. It burns clean, has a very low carbon footprint, is cheap and is available domestically. It can run virtually all combustion engines save for diesel. Yes, there are conversion kits for diesel but it has very limited applications.
Natural gas is far more efficient as a fuel for generating electricity because it does not need an intermediary medium to transfer its heat energy. Coal, oil and nuclear require large amounts of water that must be heated and converted to steam, which expands to drive the turbines which drive the generators to produce electricity. In a gas turbine the natural gas is burned and its exhaust expands rapidly to drive the turbine. This makes it highly efficient. Gas turbine generating plants produce power within a matter of seconds on a large scale. When local systems are facing “brownouts” producers rely on “peaker” plants. These are predominately gas turbine plants that can fill in the gap for power demand say on hot days when everyone is using air conditioners simultaneously. These plants, which are predominately run on natural gas, are essentially jet engines sitting on reinforced pedestals.
The carbon footprint of natural gas as a fuel is approximately one-fifth the output of gasoline and diesel fuel. Yes, we could have had natural gas vehicles a long time ago when Jimmy Carter proposed the multi-fuel agenda, which was to mandate that all vehicles were to be multi-fuel accessible. The Reagan administration defunded this and most of Mr. Carter’s energy proposals.
Mr. Reagan was an actor and Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.
One of the most amazing mainstream energy conversion devices today is the “Bloom Box.” This is a fuel cell that runs on natural gas. The natural gas, a hydrogen rich substance, is converted to hydrogen. Fuel cells run on hydrogen. The Bloom Box is now rated at a whopping 60 percent efficiency. It has a near neutral carbon footprint as it has a carbon to hydrogen ratio of 1-to-4, which is much higher than oil or coal. I would like to give a Reader’s Digest version of fuel cells but not today. However, fuel cells are definitely the future for energy, especially transportation. Presently, it is not quite cost effective, but give it time. I contritely ask the reader to look up www.bloomenergy.com
In the United States we use hydrofracking, which has been around for 60 years. For 50 of those years it was vertical drilling. This required much less water and less chemical lubricants as well as less potent ones, but as time wore on, so did the vertical pockets of natural gas.
There was still plenty of natural gas except you had to make a left or right turn 3,000 feet (give or take a few thousand) down. So the drilling now took a different turn, which got natural gas out by drilling horizontally. This process required much more water and chemicals. The voids left by the removal of the methane were filled in with water, which in turn would cause the soil to weaken that would exacerbate any fluctuation in the earth, often causing or enlarging an earthquake. So once again a cost benefit analysis needs to be implemented and we need to find better ways to obtain natural gas, which is in worldwide abundance.
If I had space I would opine about the issue of global warming on the permafrost areas, especially those methane rich areas of Alaska, the northwest territories of Canada and eastern Siberia. It is a very serious issue indeed and is seldom talked about though it has truly catastrophic consequences if these large fields were thawed at the same time, which could happen. What it means is that we would have to burn or store all this gas at once or risk an unprecedented global warming as methane is 32 times more heat retentive than carbon dioxide.

In today’s world, oil is truly ubiquitous. It’s everywhere. It’s in our clothes, our shoes, our homes, almost all of our common household products, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides and medicine. It makes our machinery spin, not to mention it heats our homes and fuels transportation. It is, in fact, an infrastructure. Our country was built on oil.
So it is not going away any time soon!
Oil was discovered in the United States in 1627 in New York at Seneca Oil Springs, just outside of Cuba. The natives of the area had known about it for hundreds of years earlier. In 1825, Fredonia was the first city to have street lighting using natural gas. In the 1850s, gasoline distillation from oil was discovered, and it was used for lighting. Later oil became the standard fuel of the day. Oil was initially processed in Pennsylvania and New York with abandon. Oil became a geopolitical force. It was oil, or the lack of it, that brought the World War II German war machine to a halt. Oil is what made America invincible.
The voyage of discovery today is to determine the future of oil. Will electric cars, a return to mass transit and next-day shipping bring to an end the use of oil? Definitely not, at least not any time soon!
Keep in mind that less than half a barrel of oil can be made into gasoline. The remainder is used for diesel fuel and derivative products. Plastics may, in the future, be the dominant material in the construction industry. Before long, plastics will be as strong as titanium.
But oil as an energy product in the future may not be so bright. Electric cars are on the rise. China is moving to make two-thirds of the cars produced in China electric. They are easier to build and maintain.
However, it will be a long time before another fuel replaces oil distillates for air transportation and freight hauling. However, a revamping of our rail system could change much of that, at least over land. Our long-distance rail freight could run on electricity. Compared to Europe, China and Japan, our rail system is horse and buggy. Our infrastructure and mind set simply doesn’t support mass transit. Since we are a crisis-oriented nation, it will stay that way. I recall an article written in National Lampoon in the early ‘70s that showed an HO-scale train set with this observation: “AmTrack! The train of yesterday meeting the needs of the people of the day before, speeding America into the ‘50s.”
Here are some statistics that should be held in the collective energy conscience: afdc.energy.gov/data/10311. Rail wins as the best passenger per mile based on Gasoline-Gallon-Equivalent, GGE. If there were improvements in our rail system to encourage more people to use it, the GGE rate would skyrocket. For your “ Livre du Jour,” may I humbly suggest a fine delight of energy erudition “Solutionary Railroad” by Moyer and Mazza.
The justification for oil, at least for now:
The energy derived from oil is significant in that there is nothing yet that can rival its BTU bang per buck. Seventy percent of oil is used for fuel and lubricants. Oil is an infrastructure in and of itself with some very entrenched roots. Oil is used and needed as a universal commodity and as a political cudgel. Due to these entrenched roots, oil is here to stay for some time.
There is also the ROI (return on investment) factor. In order to make a profit from oil, it requires a large capital investment. Contrary to the oil scare of the early to late ‘70s, oil is plentiful but harder to extract. Oil companies know this too because scheduling of production is done decades in advance. This is where the political cudgel comes in. If our nation is dependent on a single commodity, then we are vulnerable. Remember that popular phrase: “If you got’em by the short hairs, their hearts and minds will follow.” This, by itself, should be a reason to find alternative energy. After all America was founded on the notion of rugged individualism. Of course, try explaining this to a 17-year-old tethered to his or her iPhone.
We also have to consider the impact of climate change, which is playing an ever-increasing role in access to oil and natural gas. Frozen areas are now loosening up due to global warming. The recent passageway across the North Pole, which is an island of ice, has led Vladimir Putin, the oligarch of the Novi Ruskie, to make “underwater claims” of this region. Underwater in the ocean are huge reserves of oil and natural gas. Parts of Greenland are opening up for exploration, and who knows what will become of Antarctica. Oil prices since then have dropped considerably.
The US is now energy independent for the first time since World War II. I am not saying that greed didn’t shape the rapid growth of our country, nor should our shame of slavery and the genocide of the American Natives should be set aside. However, here is a sobering fact: It was oil that gave us the edge over Nazi Germany. Without it, wir würden alle deutsch sprechen.

The thrill is gone, is gone away for good
Oh the thrill is gone, baby it’s gone away for good
— BB King The Thrill is Gone

​The focus of this month’s column is that nuclear is just too expensive and the alternatives are not.
We have to realize the allure is no longer there. First we were lured to nuclear power on the well heeded advice of a letter written by Albert Einstein just weeks before the invasion of Poland. It put us ahead in the race for the nuclear bomb. It did ultimately end the war with Japan. The second lure was cheap clean energy. After WWII the conscience of the world awoke to the power of the atom. There was a quick struggle to put the destructive power of the atom behind us.
The AEC — Atomic Energy Commission — then a leisure service of governmental nuclear marketing, now the NRC, was diligent in promoting nuclear power as the advent of a new and safe energy. It worked! Nuclear power plants were being commissioned with regularity in the early 1960s. Nuclear power plants are now seeking state and federal money to stay the course. The cost of cheap nuclear energy is gone. The cost of maintaining nuclear power has gone through the roof. When things get expensive, it leads to maintenance cost cutting, which in turn leads to making mistakes, very expensive mistakes.
For example in 1995 Millstone Nuclear power plant attempted to quick cool its reactor water during a scheduled maintenance shutdown. It was done against procedure. If not for the two engineers who blew the whistle the plant would have caused the highly radioactive fuel pool water to boil. The plant was trying to cut corners to reduce their shutdown costs. The potential for these risks is simply no longer worth it.

What is nuclear power?
In a nut shell nuclear power is all about the rapid release of a lot of energy with little fuel. What happens after that is “all about control,” with pardons to Janet Jackson, and that is where the problem lies.

It’s all about control
The control I am referring to is thermal nuclear control mixed with political control topped off with the runaway costs involved in their construction, maintenance, decommissioning and security. Add to that the cost of catastrophic repairs for these major hiccups, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. A cost that will exceed the construction costs of all the U.S. nuclear plants put together. All these accidents were caused by human error. Now the U.S. is faced with the future of 100 aging plants which begs the same question of those in a bad relationship” Why are we putting up with this?

What do we do now?
Sustaining nuclear power has many questions. Do we need to keep one step ahead of our adversaries? Do we want our enemies to produce dangerous isotopes for bombs and isotopes such as tritium to ignite them, using them as an omnipresent threat to the U.S. of nuclear blackmail? Then what about the waste? What do we do with it? Decommissioned plants take 60 years to return the property for public use. The associated radioactive byproducts are placed in high security landfills which will require vigilance for literally thousands of years. How can this vigilance be guaranteed? Currently there is only $53 billion in the decommissioning trust fund. The current costs of decommissioning the remaining plants will be $71 billion. Think of it like this: Let’s say you paid $30,000 for your car; you get 10 years out of it now you get to pay $5,000 extra to put it in the junk yard. This is the cost comparison for most nuclear plants, and it will only cost more in the future. This does not include the cost of security. The cost of decommissioning alone is enough to build 23 gigawatts of clean solar power at today’s prices. Solar will only get cheaper while nuclear will only get more expensive.

Other issues
One of the reasons nuclear is still viable is, outside of the standard use of producing electrical energy, it is also used to make tritium. Tritium is necessary for rapid ignition of a nuclear weapon. This may be the motivation perhaps for some countries in the building of an electrical generating nuclear plant when more economical fuel is readily available. It was Iran’s Ahmadinejad who said that Iran was only looking to “supplement” its electrical capabilities with nuclear power. This is a curious statement made by an engineer such Ahmadinejad and once president of one of the world’s largest oil producing nations. One may speculate with a high degree of certainty he was not a dues paying member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Iran, however, has toned down a bit after Suxnet.
Then there’s North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, nuclear rocket jockey and once rated as Onion Magazine’s sexiest man alive. Not only does he have a bad choice of hair dressers, he also is like an American teenager with dad’s credit card and a new sports car. He’s dangerous to himself and others.
​
The future
For commerical energy purposes we need to consider mothballing the old plants like Europe plans to do. We need to look elsewhere for energy. The new technologies will provide jobs and a cleaner environment. It will usher in a new era of independence for everyone. As for our adversaries we need to convince them there are better ways to resolve issues than the constant threat of some radioactive derivative. Instill in them that the consequences of their acts are ultimately self destructive.
Nuclear research should continue as it is the secret of the origin of the universe but only for that reason.