Opening – Why We Should Know Energy.
Power Hungry by Robert Bryce, explains that we are ‘addicted to affluence’ rather than, as the chattering class is quick to tell us, ‘addicted to oil’. He writes that affluence is directly related to energy use and the citizens of the free world are unnecessarily made to feel guilty about using energy, regrettably becoming ever more apologetic for using energy. Today there are many people who, while living an affluent lifestyle, desire massive cuts in the nation’s energy budget.
That begs the question, are these people aware of the effect cutting their use of energy will have? For that matter, are you aware of the effect cutting available energy will have on your life? And are you aware, we are all share the guilt of allowing the price to escalate? I’m going to try to answer those questions.
Paramount to any discussion is a sharing of common meaning for concepts. Common meaning is fundamental in understanding the ideas that another person holds. This essay is not the definitive word on energy transformations but I’ll try to show you why an affluent society is driven by access to affordable energy and the machines that do so. I’ll avoid numbers for there is more than enough data in “Power Hungry” and many other fine books on energy. I’m aiming to hold the attention of people who consider themselves scientifically limited by sticking to what I think are somewhat self-evident, understandable ideas as much as possible.
Like a discussion on economics, those thing we understand poorly make our eyes glaze over and, when ineptly presented, freeze the brain. Yet just as our economic well-being means the difference between life and death, our energy supply governs our economy and hence, means even more to human well-being. There is little that has as drastic an effect on life.
I believe an affluent society is threatened when the majority of people fail to understand what makes us affluent. Each of us needs to appreciate where our power comes from in order to dispute the misguided zealots who would have us return to using meager amounts energy. Millions of people will die, possibly we ourselves, but if not, surely some of those whom we love if we reduce our energy use. I’m hoping I can help you see what I see, that retaining a stable, inexpensive energy supply is one of the most important challenge facing our society, yet is doesn’t need to be so.
Much of what I write is from memory, remembered from reading Richard Feynman, Petr Beckmann, Howard Hayden and others. Broadly speaking, this essay is about power, the story of heat engines, society’s energy-harvesting, primary machines and how work is performed.
And while I won’t ask you to change the oil when we’re done, I hope you gain an understanding of the role carbon based fuels play in enriching your world. However I do hope you’ll fully realize how much of a personal role we all having the price we pay for energy. Through our votes, we drain our wallets.
Exploring Energy First
Firstly, energy is everywhere, in everything. Scientists see energy as electron activity at the atomic level and as Dr Feynman states, we know something about what it does but little of why it does what it does. Still, just knowing what energy does has allowed us to harness energy.
Nature holds energy in many stable forms. Fuels are a stable form of chemical energy. Lightning is visible electrical energy. Different electrical charges build between the earth and clouds – lightening being the spark that neutralizes those built up forces. The earth’s gravitational force put the energy into waterfalls. The sun’s inferno drives photosynthesis, the process all green plants use to build cells. These are examples of naturally occurring energy systems, but it’s man’s part in the energy story we need to understand and that story is largely one of transforming energy from one form to another.
Our early ancestors learned to burn things, transforming chemical energy into heat for both cooking and surviving cold winters. But understanding the fundamental laws of thermodynamics is the bit of insight that finally moved our society beyond the muscle power of man and animal.
The fundamental laws of thermodynamics tell us that energy cannot be destroyed, only modified, a process science calls ‘the conservation of energy’. We now know that heat always flows from hot to cold, higher to a lower state of molecular activity, until equilibrium is reached, with the difference in temperature limiting the amount of energy we can capture. In contrast to science, at public discussions, energy conservation is taken to mean turning off the lights, riding a bicycle, keeping the fridge door closed, essentially, not using energy at all. The mixed meanings are proof – our communication problems remain a weak link in our energy supply. That is why it’s necessary to define our terms when discussing energy.
Heat is the characteristic of energy. If you feel heat it’s because energy has been released. If heat is what we desire then oil, coal, wood and the sun, all will serve our needs. It’s when we move to the industrial scale that the different properties of our various energy sources take on new meaning. And we need names for things. The concept, work is fundamental to industry and is one energy unit we need to know. Work is measured in watts or horsepower and tells us how far a load can be moved in a given amount of time.
It is the ‘work’ we get out of an energy source that we define as usable power. As none of our conversion processes are 100% efficient we will always lose some of the potential energy. The actual percentage of the total heat generated that does work, gives us the efficiency of our conversion process, the rest of the heat being classified as wasted heat. Each of our different kinds of engines have a place where they work better, giving us the greatest payback, the greatest amount of work for heat generated. And human life is all about getting a better return, of doing more work with less energy, efficiency.
Here we need a so called, ‘look in the mirror’ moment, and think a little about humanness. We are goal directed individuals. We take actions in order to achieve a defined result. We cultivate land, seed it and harvest the crops in order to eat. We cut trees and saw lumber for shelter. We release trapped energy because we want warmth for that shelter. That warming is but a step, albeit a monumental step, away from loading a rocket with liquid oxygen and hydrogen because we want to walk on the moon.
When the purpose or goal is kept clearly in mind we’re able to judge the wisdom of using a particular form of energy and which means of conversion will best allow us to reach that goal. Just as that Atlas rocket isn’t appropriate for heating our homes, burning wood won’t get us to the moon.
Machines that make Machines
A tool is defined as a machine that more easily allows us to preform a task. A shovel works well for digging a small ditch but if we desire a long, deep ditch, we need to get many willing people with shovels or one person with an excavator. When we feed the excavator’s engine a few gallons of fuel it does the work of many people. We are releasing the fuel’s energy to help us dig the ditch. It’s the controlled release of energy that powers our factories, the source of all the goods that make this world easier to live on. It’s because of industrial production we need large amounts of power.
Just as a shovel is a machine for digging a hole, a factory is a machine for producing goods. A factory is really just a complex machine, built by assembling a multitude of smaller machines in order to produce everything from Bic lighters, computer chips, steel plates, automobiles, medicines and the very food we eat – every device we need or enjoy in this affluent society comes to us through a factory.
Consider each factory as a highly specific-purpose machine. Just as that shovel makes a poor tool for painting your house, it is not cost effective to use an automobile factory to make lumber or computer chips. A bolt can’t do the task done by a bearing.
Can you remember some early schooling and the lessons on simple machines, levers, inclined planes, pulleys and axles, those building blocks for all machines? The threads on a bolt are simply an inclined plane going around a circle. The first screw thread was made by an ancient Greek with an Archimedes screw being first used to pump water. But it took the industrial revolution to bring about universal screw threads, with any one bolt of a particular size fitting all corresponding nuts of that size. We usually take for granted, the fact that the monumental achievements that support human affluence, only began some 3 hundred years ago.
A small aside, roller bearings allow us to do so very many things but without the lubricating oil that makes friction virtually disappear, we’d be left with useless scrape metal. While we aren’t taking energy directly out of that lubricating fluid, oil and grease makes our machines run further on less power, saving us energy. Yet even with almost no friction an immense amount of power is needed to turn the wheels of industry and commerce.
The single thing that can destroy our affluence is the loss of the energy for powering our factories. Few industrial processes are forgiving enough to run on intermittent or variable power. Nor can our factories survive drastic fluctuation in their power costs. There would be no cars, ipods, televisions or more importantly, no scalpels or medicine without our factory system.
Most of us will shift into park if our electrical power is cut by a storm. We’ll bundle up with a book if we can manage to find a bright enough candle. Some cold cuts and a bun will be our substitute for dinner. Sure, we’ll laugh and joke a bit, go to bed early without a shower, hoping tomorrow things will be back to normal. But what if that power is gone for a week? A month? Forever? But we’d still not be living the life of someone in sub-Sahara Africa.
Losing the power for our factories would do that. No groceries on shelves or cars on roads. No heat for our homes. And no more anxiety pangs trying to decide what clothes to buy. There would be none.
Someone not familiar with the power requirements of a factory, true of many people living today, will have difficulty visualizing a 36,000 horsepower electric motor. Yet two of those monsters are needed just to grind the wood chips into pulp, the raw material for making newspaper. And while it takes 100’s of thousands of horsepower to run a paper mill, they look energy frugal when compared to the energy needs of steel mills and car factories.
A modern electrical generating station will produce a 1000 megawatts of power and that steel mill easily gobbling up one third of its output. And here I urge you to think of the fridges, the sinks, the cars, the bridges and of course the scalpels needed for lifesaving operations that all begin their existence at that steel mill. Though I’m fearful of losing your attention, we can’t leave the topic until I mention the second thing only factories can do – continuous, high-speed, accurate repetition.
It is a point so seldom considered but each of those electronic devices, that we and our friends carry duplicates of, would cost fortunes if they were built by hand and not mass produced in some factory. In truth, many would not be available even to the very wealthy. It is not even possible to make computer chips and a multitude of other things by hand. Only the mechanization of work, and mechanical repeatability grant us today’s goods, something made possible by a multitude of historical inventive steps. And of course, there is no comparing today’s factories with the early sweat-mill models that started it all a couple of hundred years ago, except that they wouldn’t run without energy either.
And here I try to explain where our problems with energy supply is of our own making. While the factory system grants us a phenomenal bounty, it also extracts a great price. The division of labour that simplifies and enriches our lives robs us of the knowledge our forefathers used for survival. It has become too easy to be intellectually wrong yet still have a means to support our our lives. There are many people planning how others should live without personally living to the standard they advocate, the only true way to prove their plan would work. Mainly I’m talking about the people who demand that the world be run on ‘green’ power systems. But more on that later.
That brings us back to the argument, we need to know what is the best way, the most effective way, the way that takes the least amount of time and energy to do the things we want to do. Only by applying greater power to ‘moving our loads’ do we make our live easier. What is the root of our affluence? What kind of machines can reliably deliver those megawatts of power needed to turn the wheels of our world?
Here you can skip to the ‘Engines summarized’ section if you know all you desire about energy transforming machines. The following brief history lesson, while I consider fascinating, is but context to support my argument as to what have proven to be the best machines for the work we expect to do.
Discovering Prime Movers
I recall my eighth grade science teacher boiling water in an open gallon tin, turning off the heat source, screwing the cap on that tin and saying, “Now pay attention class.” I did pay attention and to this day, can see that tin can crumple. The steam inside it condensed back to water. Steam occupies more space than water and, when cooling, atmospheric pressure crumpled that can.
Thomas Newcomen also knew that steam takes up a lot more volume than water. He had the idea to fill a cylinder with steam, spray in a little water, condensing the steam, and being wise enough to put a piston in one end of that cylinder allowing the volume to change with the condensing steam, gave life to a reciprocating engine. Three hundred years ago, through a system of levers and chains he connected his simple piston steam engine to a pump, making the first practical power device for removing water from England’s early coal mines. For fifty years, an unimaginable long time considering the speed of change in today’s inventive age, those inefficient engines dominated and laboured on.
Mr Newcomen’s biographer, L T C Rolt states, “ in the whole history of technology it would be difficult to find a greater single advance than this and certainly not one more pregnant with significance for all of humanity.” Every engine we use today owes something to his atmospheric engine. Truly, I can’t think of a greater life-altering invention.
His first engines produced about 5 ½ horsepower, comparable to a typical lawnmower, yet requiring an entire building to house its massive 20 tons. It turned less than 0.1% of the fuel’s heat into usable work. Thomas Newcomen’s engine had a boiler and a cylinder with a piston and he inefficiently sprayed cold water into the cylinder to condense the steam. By creating a vacuum in the cylinder the piston was forced back by atmospheric pressure. The inefficiency comes from cooling and reheating everything for every cycle.
James Watt, having a better understanding of latent heat, put the condenser outside the cylinder thereby dramatically improving engine efficiency. Watt’s first engines did the same work with an astounding 80 fold improvement of efficiency to Thomas Newcomen’s engines. James Watt and his partner Matthew Boulton went on to add connecting rods, a reliable governor, and eventually a crankshaft with flywheel, truly setting the industrial world into rotary motion, bringing working efficiency up to about 4% of the fuel’s heat content.
Water, when converted to steam, increases in volume to occupy some 1700 times more volume, and that process still rules industrial power generation. Containing water’s expanding property in a boiler and releasing the pressure in an engine allows work to be accomplished. Watt’s engine did this so well that he invented the concept ‘horsepower’ to compare his engine’s work output to the work done with a horse. He famously measured the horse’s work output, multiplied it by 1.5 and said for each horsepower rating of his engines they would raise a 330 pound load 100 feet in height in one minute. His monumental contribution in the energy conversion field is commemorated by the fact that today the watt is our official measure of power, converting directly into 746 watts in each horsepower.
But the infantile material science of Mr Watt’s day could only give him low quality containers to work with and his steam engine operated at only a couple of pounds over atmospheric pressure. Still, he is the genius who started using an expanding gas, steam, and contained the expansion inside the engine, a pressure vessel with a movable end, a piston, burning fuel to make that steam. It allowed us to focus the energy to do usable work, doing more with less physical effort on our part.
But he argued strongly against increasing the pressures used. Like my science teacher who knew better than to show the class the dangerous power of expanding steam, I wonder if Mr Watt had tried to tame expanding steam and seen his containers blow up. Of course, despite his warnings one adventurous man defiantly did just that, tapping into the tremendous energy potential of high pressure steam.
Richard Trevithick strengthened his boilers and built engines that used high pressure steam, condensing steam directly to atmosphere. All previous engines had needed the vacuum created by condensing steam to draw in a fresh charge of steam used for the ‘push’ inside those early engines. The use of higher pressure steam reduced weight or total mass of power-producing engines by a huge factor, finally opening up the path to mobile power. His first mobile ‘tractors’, showed the way to railroading, finally made possible when material science taught Henry Bessemer to make steel and his quality rails were able to support the great loads of locomotives. The rail transportation industry was born with the steam process now converting some 20% of a fuel’s heat content into useful work.
While steam provides the power, the energy must first be released externally, a system classified as external combustion. Some type of fuel is burned to heat water in a boiler, the water flashes to steam, is piped into the engine and gives up its power inside the engine. The engines provide us with motion and it is that motion that we redirect to do useful work. Paying for fuel makes us think of how to get the most work out of the energy source that we use.
It’s at this time the laws of thermodynamics were discovered and documented by the young, brilliant Sadi Carnot. He showed mankind that science can explain how heat engines work. As thermodynamics prove, there is a heat loss at every stage in the conversion of energy, and with each step we use to go from a heat source to the final action needed for useful work, the efficiency of the process suffers. It is thus that other geniuses considered how to built engines that expanded the fuel gases directly inside themselves.
Oil Enters the Picture
While any number of individuals kept improving the steam cycle, Nikolaus Otto had a fascination with gasoline and successfully build a working engine that burned gasoline inside it’s cylinder, displaying it in the 1867 Paris exhibition. By getting rid of the boiler and the condensing cycle entirely, he dramatically lowered the total weight of the power plant, leading to the invention of engines light enough to power the automobile. It is in tribute to his genius that the operating method of the four stroke gas engine, the backbone of automobile transportation, is named the Otto cycle.
And while Nikolaus Otto sparked a mixture of gasoline and air inside a cylinder, Rudolf Diesel was dreaming up ways to throw away the spark plug. He used a high compression ratio to heat the air temperature high enough to burn fuel injected into that highly compressed air. It is his diesel engine process that today supplies the power for the heavy transportation industry.
That allows us to meet the genius who invented the machine that powers our modern society, Charles Parsons, inventor of the steam turbine. He brilliantly conceived of throwing out the pistons, attaching fins directly to a shaft and letting expanding gasses produce rotary power directly. This is the machine that puts the ‘shock’ in our electrical outlets in our homes and powers our factories. Our revolution (sic) is now complete, that is our history of prime movers with the internal combustion piston engine ruling ground and water transportation and turbines dominating the industrial scale power scene.
While somewhat outside of my main theme, a few words on jets and rockets is informative and I think, fascinating. Jets originate from the idea of burning fuel directly to push the turbine blades and letting the expanding gasses discharge behind the ‘engine’ to provide additional ‘thrust’. Rockets in turn, tap into the gigantic mind of Sir Isaac Newton, proving that for every force, there is a corresponding equal opposite force, thrust, finally doing away with even the rotor of the turbine, modifying and keeping only the energy container.
The main point, the simple, common factor behind all engines that generate usable power, is containing the forces of an expanding gas. That ‘container’, either a piston engine or a turbine, controls the energy being released from the fuel, now harnessed to provide power for our work. The principle that allow our engines to operate is really very simple – the complexity is in the method of getting there. To make all the components the right strength, shape and size is a lifelong study, a study enjoyed by the people who bring us these fabulous machines, something they’ll continue to do if we but continue to appreciate it and leave them free to think and act.
Summing up, gasoline is king in the small engine field, ranging from fractional horsepower engines for model aeroplanes, small engines for weed-eater, lawnmowers and motorcycles, with large gasoline engines powering small boats, cars and light trucks. While maturity of technology is a significant factor, easy starting and stopping, high power to weight ratio and acceptable danger level in refueling gives this high energy density fuel its advantage. In the power range from fractional to approximately 500 horsepower we have yet to find a better power plant than the gasoline engine.
Diesel fuel does the work in our heavy transportation industry. Transport trucking, mobile equipment, long haul rail locomotives and on water, large pleasure craft, tow boats, ferries and freighters all rely on diesel fuel to push their pistons up and down. Horsepower output in the ranges from 100 to 100,000 are common.
Turbines fueled by kerosene power air travel and large turbines, both steam and natural gas driven, supplies our grid electricity, truly our industrial power source with horsepowers often exceeding 500,000 drawn from each unit. They are typically encased in rigid insulation and run for three or more years before they are even opened for inspections.
Probably more than 95% of our electricity is generated by turbines with both expanding steam, indirectly heated in a power boiler or fuel gas burned directly inside, giving up its latent heat inside the turbine. A significant fraction of the electricity produced worldwide comes from water driving water wheels, also turbines, in hydro dams. In that sense, we all need to be aware that the reason something happen when we flip a light switch is that a turbine is spinning a generator at the far end of a wire connected to our homes.
Again, the common theme with all heat engines is the expansion of a gas, in a container, forced to deliver that energy in a way that we humans can put to use. By controlling the flow of energy to give us the power for work, our ancestors created a new world for mankind, only fully appreciable if we firmly lodge in our minds the conditions of life when Thomas Newcomen was yet a boy. I urge you to look back at that time, when average life expectancy was less than forty years of age.
Now, instead of an early death from starvation, we’ve turned energy into a very willing slave. Each of us on North America are masters to more than thirty willing horsepower. Only when we violate the rules of nature does energy rebel and lash back at us. When we try to put too much energy into a container and the energy breaks free we have destruction. Energy says, “once you set me free there is no turning back, you’ve got all of me.” Scientifically controlling energy is the most important thing we do.
The Green Heaven or… Hell?
It is not by accident that the primary source of our energy is hydrocarbons derived from crude oil, natural gas and coal. Oil derivatives power our transportation industry because of high energy densities. The stationary power plants, unlike transportation machines, are able to use less expensive and lower energy density natural gas and coal because they are able to store those more bulky products.
We are being warned those methods of powering our society are both dirty and unsustainable, that the only solution is to change to ‘green’ technology for delivering our power.The ‘green’ activists wants society to go back to lower energy density fuels, robbing our societies of efficiency and spelling a disaster for our transportation industry. Will that be a benefit to humans? Are they promising more than can be delivered?
We are told that wind energy is free without any mention that 50 times the concrete, steel and wiring is required to tap that unreliable source. That a modern coal or nuclear power plant is built with less material is a fact worth memorizing. As well, the remoteness and the fact that a wind turbine’s working components are more than 200 metres above ground means that a greater number of people and equipment are needed for maintenance and the work is far more dangerous when compared to a large, central power plant.
To date, the amount of power generated by solar and wind stations remains insignificant despite massive government subsidies. They generating less than 1% of our energy mix, primarily because of their low energy density and the limited reliability of supply factors. It gets dark at night, the wind blows sporadically, etc. and vast networks of cables are needed to feed the little bits of power from those dispersed generators into the electrical grid. Green energy will not power an industrial society.
The myth supporting the green movement is that human development harms the earth. Well, I’ll concede that humans have altered the world but it is mostly been for our betterment. If you’ve followed the theme of this essay at all, it should be obvious that I’m no fan of leaving things as they are found in nature.
We are told the earth’s fate hangs on a thread and we are destroying the earth’s ability to support life . We are told that we must change our energy squandering ways and the only road ahead is green. We are told even human life will improve if we just stop using carbon based fuels. And we’re told, in any event we are running out of accessible fuel so the sooner we change, the gentler the inevitable energy crash will be.
For most people the term ‘green’ is virtually synonymous with ‘good’ because green promises to reduce our environmental impact. Almost universally, development is regarded to be harmful. Looking again at Sub-Sahara Africa, we can easily see that industrial development adds years to the lives of those who have access to an industrialized society. Development is not harmful to mankind, so who or what is the green lobby fighting for?
That is the subject for a book and Steve Milloy has written a very interesting book on this subject titled “Green Hell”. He does a fine job of documenting the anti-human life base of the green movement. But back to the subject under discussion, power.
As implied earlier, the progression of the heat engine, from the early atmospheric to today’s multi-stage turbo-generators, was made possible by astounding advances in material science. Such is the nature of invention, a look at a new machine often suggests other possibilities to the bright individual looking for a solution to a totally different problem. Now, the heat engine, originally built to solve the problem of flooding coal mines, dominates our lives and is found in all sorts of wonderful machines. Every reduction of weight for our power generating engines have made new applications possible, the rocket being the only engine we’ve yet invented that converts energy fast enough, in a light enough container, to break the gravitational forces of our earth.
Further, weight, while not a significant factor in stationary power, is the limiting factor in all mobile power. Railways could not happen until steam engine efficiency surpassed James Watt’s pressure limitations. Automobiles here made possible by the Otto cycle but until more energy could be pulled from a lighter engine, the Wright brothers were grounded. It is power to weight ratios that drive mobile power, with motorcycle gasoline engines now producing more than a horsepower for every pound of engine, jet engines approaching 6 horsepower for each pound of engine weight and rockets, the engines capable of leaving the earth, generating a massive 90 odd horsepower for each pound of engine. That our society has achieved this in a short 300 years is truly a testimonial to human genius in action.
Finally, we can do a personal exercise, firstly differentiating between engines and motors. An engine converts primary energy into work but a motor more narrowly is a power device, relying on previous upstream energy conversion, electric, hydraulic or air. The exercise; I count 10 gas engines when I look at what I own, and since I’m a tool ‘junkie’ more electric motors than a simple mental effort can accurately list but well in excess of 50 motors ease my life. All of these electric motors become useless if their umbilical cord, the electrical grid, or it’s power source, the central turbine, no longer delivers electricity.
This entire essay is my attempt to urge you to never trivialize the benefits we so often take for granted – our modern, power-driven society. As well, all of us must keep in mind that the road to riches is accurate knowledge, scientific thinking applied to the real world. It is here where I see the greatest danger facing us – we have lost our commitment to science. Yet today the claims that seek to rob us of our power creating ability, falsely claim to be adhering to scientific thinking.
Fear of Plant Food and Fighting Brain Worms
Richard Mitchell, in the Underground Grammarian, talks about the ‘worm in the brain’- when rational thinking has been erased from nominally bright individuals – when an utterly non-sensible idea becomes accepted as true. I’m talking about the Anthropogenic (human cause) Global Warming, AGW controversy, the fear that our use of carbon based fuels is harming the earth by adding a temperature-destabilising carbon dioxide load to our atmosphere. If this fraud is not overturned, the unscientific demonization of carbon dioxide will bring an end to our affluence.
To refresh, CO2 is about 380 parts per million (ppm) or 0.4% of our atmosphere. This is the total volume of ‘food’ available for all the plant life on this earth. It’s no wonder plants are firmly rooted, as there’s far too little fuel available for them to be mobile. And what of the fuel we burn?
All the fuel humans burn only produces 0.4% of the total atmospheric load of CO2, some 4 ppm. 4 cents worth out of 10,000 dollars. This, according to the green activists, is catastrophic and will cause the earth’s climate to destabilize. A few years ago, they said the world was going to overheat but since it’s now cooling, we’re sold ‘instability’ instead. They say it could be hot, maybe cold, wet, maybe dry, stormy or becalmed – who knows, but it will definitely be bad.
“Climate Change” has turned the AGW theory into a religion as science is lost when a theory can’t be falsified, when no evidence can prove it wrong.
The suggested solution, to have a benevolent, powerful government rule the evil, ignorant, energy-consuming citizens with a strangling, carbon controlling hand, thrills many politicians. They can see great opportunities for extending control over a far greater portion of the lives of common citizens. Unless we develop awareness and resentment at the continual loss of freedom of choice, we will lack the intellectual tools necessary to save our lives.
Consider this: When spreading a concern for the future is it appropriate to do so by scaring eight year old children? Would refusing to present the message to informed adults in an open forum not be a violation of scientific thought? Would the refusal to show any evidence for environmental concern not immediately discredit the argument? Would the knowledge that someone only presented some facts and ignored others not brand that person a charlatan? All of these things have taken place, yet the popular press still grants credibility to the activist that seek to bring a halt to the use of carbon based fuels. The media has not been a friend of reason.
There are many rational scientists who don’t agree with the emotionally laced doomsday scenarios and with them I agree. Names can be provided for any interested parties. Meanwhile I challenge the greens over a point – if one considers CO2 increases to be the problem, why is there such a fight against the one power source that emits no CO2, nuclear power? An individual sincerely concerned about atmospheric CO2, would welcome power from a CO2 free source.
Today shrill opinions expressing alarm at our use of energy, both the amount and the methods. Yet where industrialization has changed our lives, our lives are longer, healthier, and far richer. Sub-Sahara Africa is a constant reminder of how bleak a world without industry is. They don’t have our access to energy, the energy that permeates and enriches our lives.
That brain worm that eats common sense is continually being jammed into our ears. We need to stop it from reaching our brains for then it will be too late. We all need knowledge and that brings up the real danger in a democratic system. All to often we are asked to make decisions on things we know nothing about. Sometimes things we don’t even know that we know nothing about.
Are you comfortable polling everyone in order to determine the best way to do brain surgery? If you value your life I’m guessing you’ll find that idea terrifying. Death will come as surly if we make foolish decisions about our power generation. In the end, it will be the realization that we don’t have the knowledge needed to contribute wisdom in all decision making that provides us with the most safety. We need to see what rejecting a free market has brought us.
Ideas from the couch are often half-baked, missing large pieces of reality. Second guessing from the sidelines is easy and, I could well be doing some of that too but I consider it wrong to tell others how to spend their money. In turn, activists ask the government to enforce their ideas without paying any personal price.
To have one’s ideas implemented requires that one leave the couch, produce some effort or pay someone else to put out the effort. Taxing your fellow citizen to carry out your untried ideas is simply robbery not appropriate in a rational society. As well it leads only to incorrect investments. The process of converting energy is well known and those with ‘no skin in the game’ need to stop telling the people who do know, that they know better. The inherent beauty of the free market is that when individuals are forced to invest their own money those who hold foolish ideas are easily separated from those with wise ideas. Foolish investments need to leave the investors broke, not the taxpayer. If you think you know better – prove it with your own money, not mine.
There is no shortage of affordable energy and the earth is not about to become uninhabitable because we use that energy. There is no need to impoverish ourselves to keep the world livable. That guilty feeling about energy availability can rob us of the power our affluence needs. If we do become poor, we should know that it’s because we’ve allowed misinformation to chain us – to stop our productive actions with a fraudulent belief. The worm will have eaten our common sense and we’ll have no one to blame but our own naive selves. We do control our own future.
And what about the future? Chemical energy release is about breaking and making new molecular bonds. We are currently far from fully exploiting all chemical energy forms available to us. The ocean floor contains double the energy reserves man has yet used, locked up in methane hydrates, another source of hydrocarbon fuel. It is however, on the atomic scale that staggering amounts of energy comes into play. A ton of uranium yields more heat than an entire unit train of coal. Dr Einstein’s brilliant E=mc2 gives us an inkling into how much energy is available and what awaits a rational society. The forces holding our atoms together are millions of times stronger that the chemical forces we liberate for energy today.
If we relied on a free market system, we’d base our support for any particular form of energy on only price and reliability. If we did so, there would be no need for this essay and your need to see the impending disaster brought about by funding wonky energy policies; there wouldn’t be one.
Give freedom to the rational creative minds and truly, the universe will open for us. The supply of energy is limitless. The green’s phrase ‘power smart’ urges us to ‘turn out the lights’. Instead we need to build efficient power sources. Become energy wise and join the fight. So, save a life – your own.