Rediscovering the Will to Change: A New Energy Economy

Summary.  The growth of the U.S. from an agricultural society to an industrial power was driven in important ways by ambition, a positive attitude, and an ability to see opportunities and develop them.  Examples of changes that contributed to this growth include new means of transportation and communication.

As our economy grew and matured, however, unforeseen harmful effects of some activities became apparent.  Acid rain from electric generation was identified as the cause of dying forests.  Synthetic refrigerants were flagged as the cause of the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere.  Increased carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for energy was marked as the cause of global warming and its harms. The industries in question ignored the science behind these findings, and fought the need to change their business activities.

Global warming remains an unresolved problem.  Because of the vast size of the fossil fuel industry and the major changes already brought about by global warming it needs to abandon its resistance to change.  Its business model of providing energy for a growing and developing world remains, but needs to switch to carbon-free sources and to develop new technologies.  This new model will still yield profits for the industry, and continue to provide jobs for the economy.

 

American growth.  Throughout much of our history America has been a country marked by people bent on succeeding.  An entrepreneurial spirit drove the development and widespread adoption of new devices and new technologies that dramatically advanced our economic growth and improved living conditions for our population.

Railroads.  For millenia news and articles of commerce could travel no faster than men, or their animals, could carry htem.  The advent of the industrial revolution in the early nineteenth century, however, brought coal-powered transportation; railroads crossed the landscape faster and further than had been possible earlier.  This dramatically accelerated commerce and the exchange of technologies among populations separated by large distances, improving the lives of the participants.   Coal was also the fuel used in the growing iron and steel industry that permitted forging the rails, building the bridges, and providing the skeletons for new skyscrapers rising in cities.  The force behind all this growth was the vision of the industrialists and architects who created these enterprises and buildings.

Automobiles.  Human ambitions also led to the development of the gasoline engine and its use to power individual transportation, the automobile.  This depended on newly discovered sources of liquid fuels, the petroleum deposits in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and elsewhere.  Liquid fuels provided vastly improved convenience and independence to the consuming public, as well as to the military.  The foresight and ambition driving this change is another example of the positive attitudes of the entrepreneurs behind this growth. 

This spirit gave rise to America's exceptional industrial expansion, helped it survive the Great Depression of the 1930's, and was the spirit invoked by President Roosevelt and our military leaders to fight the war that ultimately defeated the Axis powers. 

Electronics.  A final example is drawn from the electronics industry.  Over the course of the 20th century electronics moved completely from analog to digital circuitry based on solid state transistors.  This transformation likewise was driven by forward-looking scientists and entrepreneurs.  Its growth was highly dependent on creativity and resilience, since the pace of technological advance, and therefore the competition in the industry, was very intensive.

Optimism.  These examples are cited to emphasize the "can-do" enthusiasm that has marked the growth of America over its history.   Much of our expansion was further promoted by favorable state and congressional action.  The Homestead Act drew Americans with a vision to move west and spread roots in a new setting.  Railroad expansion likewise was fostered by supportive laws.  Recovery from the Great Depression and fighting the Second World War depended crucially on the cooperation between the president and Congress.

Resisting change: Acid rain.  In more recent decades, however, interest groups have opposed the need, based on scientific findings, for changes in their operations.  In the 1970s forests in the American northeast and southern Canada began dying mysteriously.  Lakes and rivers had massive fish die-offs.  Scientists eventually traced the cause to the presence of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, strong acids when they combine with moisture, in the exhaust gas from coal-burning power plants.  The plumes from these plants became windborne and carried the acids many hundreds of miles from their sources.  The acidic moisture fell to the ground whenever it rained.  The acidity became so severe that forests could no longer tolerate it and died in vast swaths.  The same phenomenon occurred in Europe.

The solution to this malady lay in desulfurizing the exhaust gases of the offending power plants or fuel switching to low sulfur fuels.  The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed limits on how much sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides could be emitted by the power plants.  The power companies objected vigorously to what they protested would be the great expense required to implement this remedy. 

As of 2014 EPA projected that acid emissions would fall between 54 and more than 70% from 2005 levels, with estimated health savings of $120 to $280 billion per year . The measures have been effective, as the acid rain problem has diminished significantly in recent years.

 

Depletion in the ozone content of the upper atmosphere.  Ozone, a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms, forms by the action of sunlight on the more common oxygen molecule, consisting of two oxygen atoms.  Depletion of ozone over Antarctica was first detected in the 1980's, and grew worse each year during that region's summer.  Ozone is important because it screens out the sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays, whereas the oxygen molecule does not.  Penetration of UV increases the occurrence of skin cancer and promotes cataracts in the eye lens.

Atmospheric scientists Mario Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland and Paul Crutzen showed that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in aerosol spray cans, air conditioners and refrigerators, can cause the loss of ozone when combined with the action of sunlight.  (They were awarded the Nobel Prize for this work in 1995.)  The scientists strongly recommended phasing out use of CFCs for refrigeration. 

Companies in the U. S. that made CFC's, such as DuPont and Pennwalt; chemical manufacturers in Europe; and makers of aerosol spray cans mounted intense public relations campaigns questioning the science connecting CFCs with ozone loss.  They warned of massive economic loss if they were required to halt production.  Major constraints on CFC use came with the Montreal Protocol, an agreement under the United Nations (U. N.) in 1987, which U. S. President Ronald Reagan agreed to.  It called for phasing out the use of CFCs.  By 2016, Susan Solomon (who had helped identify the problem at the time of Montreal Protocol) and coworkers reported the ozone extent over Antarctica is starting to increase, decades after the Protocol was agreed to.  They were able to link the increase to lower levels of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere.

Global warming. Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, economic progress and enhanced living standards have relied on the ready availability of energy sources, primarily fossil fuels.  Worldwide consumption of energy continues to increase, driven especially by policies promoting economic growth in the developing world.  As of 2010, providing energy to the world’s population accounted for about 8% of global economic activity, of which about US$4.4 trillion was for the fossil fuel share.  Yet scientists as long ago as the nineteenth century recognized that carbon dioxide (CO₂), the combustion product obtained when fossil fuels are burned, is a greenhouse gas leading to global warming. 

In recent decades scientists from around the world have warned that the growing accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere from human fuel use would have serious harmful effects on the earth’s living systems.  They have pointed out in a succession of reports, beginning in 1990, that the sooner we agree to limit fossil fuel use, the easier and more effective the abatement measures would be. 

In the United States, the economic power of the fossil fuel industry and the political power of naysayers have been directed against the predictions of harm from the scientific community.  Dr. James Hansen, a renowned climate scientist, had been warning of the effects of global warming for many years.  His concerns were suppressed by the administration of President George W. Bush, made possible since Hansen, employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was a government employee (James Hansen, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009).  Fossil fuel interests have mounted an ongoing campaign to plant seeds of doubt among the public concerning man-made global warming (Naomi Oreskes and Erik. M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt”, Bloomsbury Press, 2010).  U. S. Senator James Inhofe has published the book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Controversy Threatens Your Future” (WND Books, 2012).  Scientists at Exxon Mobil in the 1970’s and 1980’s published research addressing the global warming issue.  At the time they recognized “Exxon's … ethical credo on honesty and integrity."  Yet by the late 1990’s, when the U. N.-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to limit further warming was being negotiated, the company reversed its policy and sought to raise doubts about the scientific basis of man-made global warming.

Discussion
 
The growth of the United States, and its westward expansion, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is a reflection of the optimistic, “can-do” spirit that pervaded the country in those periods.  Much of this growth depended on exploitation of new scientific, engineering and technological advances by enterprises in both the private and public realms.   

In more recent times as technology has expanded, however, unforeseen harmful effects of byproducts from the use of these technologies have become apparent.  The cases described above are examples of how commercial and political interests coalesced to refuse to accept scientific realities and to reject the remedies required.  Acid rain arose from the trace levels of sulfur present in coal and oil, while the heat of combustion converted the nitrogen of the air into acidic nitrogen oxides.  Depletion of stratospheric ozone is due to the diffusion to the stratosphere of trace amounts of man-made refrigerants.  The industries in question, electric power generation and chemical manufacturers, opposed implementing the changes needed to address the problems even in the face of compelling scientific evidence.  In the end the technological fixes for these two effects were not excessive, and remedies were put in place.

Refusal to accept the scientific validity of man-made global warming is the most profound example of the “won’t change” mentality that replaced the “can-do” attitude of American growth.  Because of the fundamental importance of the global energy industry in the world’s economy, the actions of this sector have major effects on our planet’s environmental wellbeing.  Exxon Mobil’s internal research, for example, set out the compelling need for energy companies to modify their activities and limit production of fossil fuels.  Yet by the time that the Kyoto Protocol was issued in 1997, Exxon Mobil changed its policy to one of creating doubt.  In general the world’s fossil fuel companies opposed changing their operations.  Political forces also resisted change.  Whereas Europe and most of the developed countries ratified the Protocol, the U. S. never did.  Canada and Australia, which initially agreed on policies to limit CO₂ emissions, later changed course and withdrew from the Protocol. 

 

Conclusion

In the U. S. the “can-do” mindset that inspired its early expansion and economic growth has, in the cases examined here, been replaced by a “won’t change” operating principle.  This is especially important for our planet’s wellbeing, in the global warming case.  Producing carbon-based fuels comprises an important part of the world’s gross economic product, resulting in emission of massive amounts of CO₂, a greenhouse gas. 

The world’s energy demand will continue to grow as economies develop and populations increase.  The U. N.-sponsored Paris Agreement of December 2015 recognizes the absolute necessity for worldwide change in energy production.

The present situation calls for the world’s fossil fuel companies to develop new business models. Fulfilling the growing worldwide demand for energy means that there is profit to be made in this industry.  That demand must be provided, however, by technologies that do not emit CO₂.  We have to change to an energy economy that emits near-zero carbon in order to minimize further warming.  New technologies will have to be developed.  The energy industry has to abandon its fossil fuel-driven business model, and create the vast infrastructure for provision of energy from renewable sources. It has to give up its present “won’t change” mindset and adopt again a “can-do” attitude.

 
© 2016 Henry Auer

President Obama Considers Increasing the Fuel Economy Standard for Cars

Summary:  The New York Times reports that President Obama is considering an increase in the average fuel economy standard for passenger cars and light trucks, for the period to 2025.  The standard could be raised to 56.2 miles per gallon, which represents a considerable increase from the standard of 35.5 miles per gallon to be reached by 2016.  Currently only about 13% of the total energy content in gasoline fuel reaches the drive wheels to propel the car forward.  This post summarizes various improvements, some already operational, others at various stages of development, that could be implemented in future auto products to help reach a standard such as that being considered.  Auto makers argue that putting such changes in place would not be economical and/or would not be accepted by consumers.  In balance, we conclude that both economically and from a policy perspective, increased fuel economy in the cars of the future would be beneficial.

Introduction.  Warming of the average temperature of the world, as measured over much of the earth’s surface over the time frame of years, is currently occurring, due to the release of ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  This conclusion is broadly accepted among the scientific community based on collective scientific studies by almost 2,000 climate scientists around the world (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) , and understood by much of the American public at large (see the previous post on this blog).  Most emissions of greenhouse gases arise from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels for energy.  The increase in greenhouse gas emissions began with the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century.

According to Wikipedia, the U. S. was responsible for almost 20% of the world’s CO₂ emissions in 2007, (using data collected by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center for the United Nations).  Yet, the U. S. has only 4.5% of the world’s population, showing that its energy consumption per capita is very high.  It had the seventh highest energy consumption per capita in the world as of 2005, after Canada and other nations with small population numbers.

The total amount of energy used in the U. S. in 2008 is given by major economic sector in the table below, in units of quadrillion (10¹⁵) Btu (British thermal units; the amount of energy needed to heat 1 pound of water by 1ºF, about 1,055 joules).

Sector	Quads	Pct (%)
Transportation	28.0	28
Residential	21.6	22
Commercial   Buildings	18.5	19
Industry	31.3	31
TOTAL	99.4	100

Source: Summary, Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States,

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12621.html; citing U.S. Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook 2008.

The table shows that of the total energy demand in the U. S. in 2008, 28% was devoted to transportation.  This category includes light cars and trucks, which serve individuals and families in their work and leisure lives, as well as heavy duty trucks and air travel.  As of 2003, excluding air travel, about 75% of vehicular transportation energy was consumed by cars and light trucks.

The U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) reports that CO₂ emissions from the transportation sector in 2008 broke down as shown below:

Fuel	2008 Million Metric Tons	2008 Percent
Gasoline	1,135	60%
Jet Fuel	226	12%
Diesel and related fuels	446	24%
Other	83	4%
TOTAL	1,889	100%

Source: EIA (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#transportation; Table 10).

Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards for Cars.  The New York Times has reported that the administration of President Obama is likely to propose a large increase in average fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks to be effective by 2025.  The proposal is being contested by the auto industry. 

Currently the U. S. has a regulation in place requiring that the average gas mileage for the cars that a manufacturer produces must reach 35.5 miles per gallon (6.62 L per 100 km) by 2016. 

The new standard for the period leading up to 2025 is likely to be 56.2 miles per gallon (4.18 L per 100km).   According to the newspaper report, the fuel consumption standard in effect in Europe will reach about 60 miles per gallon by 2020, almost 7% higher and 5 years earlier than the new, more stringent standard being discussed in the U. S. American automakers are concerned that reaching this goal will make cars very expensive, so that sales will suffer, and that extensive research will be necessary to devise new technologies that will permit meeting the objective.  They further claim that, in order to meet the new criterion, cars will have to be significantly smaller, a feature they fear will turn American car buyers away.

Sources of energy losses in gasoline-powered cars.  The graphic below shows the losses that occur in operating a gasoline-powered car, using an internal combustion engine.  Of 100% of the energy potentially available in the fuel, only about 13% reaches the drive wheels to propel the car, and another 2% is used to operate accessories in the engine, and air conditioning, for example.  At the fueleconomy.gov web site, clicking on any of the blue arrows explains the losses shown here. 

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Attaining the new, higher goal for fuel economy being considered by the U. S. government relies on minimizing these sources of energy loss, converting the lost energy into useful energy propelling the car along its way.

In this post, we restrict consideration of fuel economy to cars with internal combustion engines.

Capturing waste heat.  Clearly, the largest energy loss occurs in the engine, where the heat of burning the fuel is deliberately disposed of in the radiator or other engine cooling mechanism.  Additional heat from burning the fuel, not shown in the diagram above, occurs in the catalytic converter, where the product of incomplete engine combustion, carbon monoxide, is burned with more oxygen to make the final combustion product, carbon dioxide.  Because of the large amounts of lost energy involved, capturing even a portion of the waste heat of combustion could make a significant contribution to improving fuel economy.

One way of using the excess heat might be by developing heat-driven turbines, for example, that could either contribute directly to the drive train, or generate electricity for electric hybrid vehicle operation.  A second way of seeking to capture the heat is developing solid state thermoelectric converters that directly produce electricity using temperature differences between two points.  Research on new materials and processes for thermoelectric conversion potentially usable in cars is discussed here.    U. S. Patent 4,753,682 issued June 28, 1988 describes a thermoelectric apparatus for use in generating electric current from the excess engine heat of an internal combustion engine. This modality also could be used in electric hybrid operation.

Rolling resistance.  As they roll along the road, tires deform and then regenerate their cross section; this continuous process dissipates energy within the material of the tire which is lost as heat.  The heat of deformation reduces the efficiency of moving the vehicle.  This is shown as Rolling Resistance in the diagram above.  New synthetic rubber materials known as solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber (S-SBR) have been developed which have improved rolling characteristics with less deformation loss, while retaining traction.  Several Japanese companies and a German company are setting up new plants to make S-SBR tire material in Asia as reported in the May 30, 2011 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society (unfortunately the link requires a subscriber login).

Energy Efficiency Opportunities in Gasoline-Powered Cars.  The U. S. National Academy of Engineering, a component of the National Academies, issued the report “Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States” in 2010.  A free summary may be obtained here.  Chapter 3 of the report deals with transportation.  It summarizes various technologies available or under development that would enhance the efficiency of operation of internal combustion engines.  In the near term these include variable valve timing, variable valve lift, cylinder deactivation, direct injection turbocharging with engine downsizing, reduction of friction and smart cooling systems.  In the time frame for the new fuel economy standards that are being considered, additional improvements include camless valve actuation, continuously variable valve lift, and homogeneous-charge compression ignition.  The report estimates that implementing such improvements would result in 10-15% improvement in fuel economy in the period to 2020, and an additional 15-20% by 2030.

Diesel engines, which rely on compression for ignition of the fuel, are already 20-25% more fuel-efficient than spark-ignited engines.  Additional improvements are also envisioned for these engines.

In the drive train, improvements in automatic transmission may increase efficiency by perhaps 6-9%.  Further improvements can be obtained by reducing vehicle weight.  The report states that reducing the weight by 10% can lead to a 5-7% increase in fuel economy when the weight reduction is accompanied by reducing the power of the engine accordingly.

Costs of Improving Fuel Economy.  The Energy Efficiency report estimates the additional costs that may be expected from incorporating fuel-economizing improvements such as discussed here.  In considering separately a gasoline-driven car, a diesel-driven car and a hybrid electric car, the additional cost in each category (in 2007 currency) varies between being cheaper by US$400 and being more expensive by US$2,000 in 2035.  This writer estimates that with the fuel economy of 56.2 miles per gallon that might be imposed, compared to the standard of 35.5 miles per gallon to be in effect by 2016, if one drives 15,000 miles per year, such an additional cost would be recovered in the savings from using less fuel in only a few years.

Conclusion.  The Obama administration is likely to propose increasing an average measure of fuel economy for passenger cars and light trucks, possibly to 56.2 miles per gallon, to be attained by 2025.  There are many benefits that would result from such a standard.  The U. S. imports much of the petroleum used to make the gasoline for our cars.  Much of this imported oil originates in parts of the world that are politically unstable and whose agreement with American interests may be questionable.  This makes us vulnerable to fuel disruptions, affecting costs and availability.  The disruption in supply from Libya earlier this year is an example.  It would be useful to be less reliant on foreign sources for oil, which is foreseen as a result of increasing our fuel economy standards.

The research, development and manufacture of cars incorporating new technologies such as mentioned here would be beneficial for America’s continued economic development.  The auto industry is a major component in this country’s manufacturing sector.  It is important to maintain and promote the employment of its workers.

Using less fuel for motor transport is effective to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, thus lowering the rate of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  Even if production of all new items and equipment that emit greenhouse gases were to cease, emission of greenhouse gases from equipment already in use would continue for another 20-40 years until that equipment was taken out of service.   The atmosphere is like a bathtub containing greenhouse gases, whose faucet keeps pouring in more but whose drain is essentially plugged so that practically none can escape.  Under these circumstances, our atmospheric CO₂ bathtub fills up higher and higher.  The additional greenhouse gases result in an even higher average global temperature, with all its detrimental effects.  Therefore it is to our advantage to minimize the emission of greenhouse gases as much as possible.

The Energy Efficiency report shows that the cost of producing cars with the improvements giving greater fuel economy is absent or moderate.  The concern expressed by auto manufacturers that producing these cars would price them out of the market appears to be countered by this writer’s “back of the envelope” estimate that any increased cost would be recovered in at most a few years as a result of the use of less fuel.

The considerations discussed here show that President Obama’s intended increase in the average fuel economy of gas-powered cars for 2025 is largely attainable and overall would benefit American interests.

© 2011 Henry Auer