The New York Times When It’s Wrong

Having grown up in a NY Times home (at least on most Sundays), it pains me how poor the thinking often is on the editorial page.  The premise in last Sunday’s editorial Energy Impasse, which first cites Iran’s nuclear backsliding and the difficulty of getting the world to confront bad behavior from a major oil producer, is impeccable:

“America cannot win President Bush's much-vaunted war on terrorism as long as it is sending billions of dollars abroad for oil purchases every day. It cannot establish democracy in the Middle East because governments rich in oil revenue do not want democracy. And it will never have the geopolitical leverage it needs as long as it is dependent on unstable foreign sources for fuel.”

Amen.

But the prescription doesn’t fit the diagnosis.  After disavowing any further drilling in Alaska, the Times suggests: “A much better answer would be a national commitment to more efficient vehicles and to the rapid deployment of new energy sources like biofuels.”

Yeah.  Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

If the editorial writers would read the news pages more carefully or even pay more attention to columnist Thomas Friedman, they would realize that the world’s appetite for energy is going to continue to accelerate even if we all start going to work on roller skates.  Biomass, at best, will meet only a tiny fraction of that need – there just aren’t enough acres available to plant with the right crops.  In fact, the Times also ran a story on how food prices are increasing because of the use of corn to produce ethanol which the editorial writers might have missed.

The hard truth is that the United States cannot afford continued unilateral nuclear (power) disarmament. France gets the majority of its power from nukes (give praise where it’s due); North Korea has some claim that it needs nuclear power even if they can’t be trusted with it; the Germans are reconsidering their plans to decommission existing nukes and forswear new ones; the Chinese are not hesitating to build nukes as well as dam rivers.  The Iranians don’t need nukes with all their oil but want them (or the by-products) so badly that they’re building them anyway no matter what anyone thinks.  And, in the United States, nuclear power is so politically incorrect that it isn’t even MENTIONED in a NY Times article about energy independence.

Not that the Times is alone in sticking its head in non-nuclear sand.  Michael Moe blogging on AlwayOn tells of super-VC John Doerr saying that the real issue is “How do we create a sensible long-term energy plan?”

OK. And the answer?

“Alternative energy such as wind, solar, and hydro are key to this as are fuel cells and biomass.” In just 15 short years, the post says, wind farms can go from providing energy for 1.6 million homes today to 16 million homes.  Gee.

I’m not against wind, solar, or even biomass – although a farm devoted to energy would be more efficient if it just had solar collectors and/or wind mills on it rather than having to be planted, fertilized, irrigated, harvested, and distilled. These and fuel efficiency are all part of the answer.  I really think wind mills off the Jersey shore or on the Vermont mountains would be attractive and ought to be built despite NIMBY opposition.

Fuel cells are not a device for creating energy; they’re used for storing it.  Like batteries, they have to be charged.  But fuel cells will be a very important way for storing and transporting energy generated by nuclear power plants – and hydro and wind and other sources – in a form that can be used in cars.  This is important because we can’t carry little nuclear power plants in our cars and really would like not to be using fossil fuels for transport as we do today.

In order to have safe nuclear plants, we need to store nuclear fuel.  We’ve already decided on a safe place to do that in Nevada but don’t have the political will to overcome understandable local opposition to both the storage and the transport.  The storage of nuclear waste – there really is only a tiny volume of it – is not a technical problem.  It’s a political problem we haven’t solved.

There is plenty of room for debate on nuclear power and how it can safely be generated.  But I can’t take a discussion of alternative energy seriously which doesn’t mention nuclear as an alternative – even if that discussion is in the New York Times.

I posted about the NY Times being right here.

And more about fuel cells and nuclear power here and here and about how China may beat us to the use of that technology here.

To maintain my green credentials, I also wrote favorably about home solar here and here. But I haven’t finished my project of solar panels on our NJ beach house.

Comments

[Bíró Zoltán]

PREDICTION: A VIEW OF NEW YORK AT 11th SEPTEMBER 2015 http://www.alah.hu/ biro.zoltan@freemail.hu

PREDICTION

This image shows the future. A minaret-form skyscraper rises from the mass of the buildings in New York, the most densely populated city of the United States. The building is the “Tower of American-Islamic Friendship”. It symbolizes two things: on one hand there are a growing number of Moslem people in the U.S.; and on the other hand it shows that the U.S. is in alliance with the Islamic countries. Due to the new friendship America does not provide any more financial or military aid to Israel, which leads to the weakening of Israel and consequently, the freedom of Palestine.

Israel has occupied Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank of the River Jordan, which are parts of Palestine; and the Golan Heights, which belongs to Syria, for decades. Despite the strict decisions of the Security Council of the U.N. Israel has not withdrawn its forces from the occupied territories yet. The U.S. keeps averting more serious international sanctions against Israel; additionally give a remarkable financial support to the occupying country. The amount of the financial support exceeded several hundred million U.S. dollars in the past few years.

Some Moslems have launched attacks in order to divert the U.S. from supporting Israel. They think that their attacks will weaken the American economy, or they can terrify the American people. This way of thinking is false. The American economy is huge enough that if terrorist attacks could retard it to the half, quarter, or even tenth of its present size it would be still stronger than the economy of the Arabic neighbors of Israel together. Additionally an economical crisis in the U.S. would have an adverse impact on the economy of the whole World, even the Islamic states. The secondary aim of the terrorist attacks is to terrify American people. It is a fact, that attacks could not reach that aim either, since terrorists couldn’t terrify Americans. U. S. launched counter attacks against terrorists and its army has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Attacks on the U.S. ended in failure for the Moslems. The liberation of Palestine could not be reached; additionally, two other Moslem countries have lost their liberty as well.

How can America be persuaded to stop supporting Israel, anyway? It can be reached by peaceful Islamic mission work in the U.S.!

There are two important principles of democracy:

The first: it is true of two contrasting standpoints that has more supporters, in other words, the majority of the people is always right.

The second: People can change their mind.

There are several examples in the history of the United States that American policy changed in harmony with the changes of the interests of the voters. For instance in the 18th century (according to Christian chronology) in Massachusetts more people earned his living from commerce than industry. This way, interests of the majority of the voters laid in free trade, therefore low customs. Representatives of Massachusetts for this reason, fought for low customs. Later industry strengthened in that state and craftsmen voted down merchants. Since cheap import was against the interests of craftsmen, representatives who had defended low customs previously, passed over to those, who supported high customs; and claimed the raise of the customs with convenience.

American politicians support Israel against Palestine at present because there are more politically active Israelite voters (by religion or by origin) than Moslems in the United States. Till the situation does not change U.S. will support Israel. As soon as Moslems vote down Israelites in the U.S., American policy will turn to Palestine immediately, as it has happened in France.

Much more Israelites than Moslems lived In France after the Second World War. France was an important allied of Israel. Israeli scientists played an important role in the development of the French atomic bomb. They launched an attack against Egypt together in 1956 (according to Christian chronology). The alliance between France and Israel seemed to be solid and indissoluble in those years. Later due to immigration and high birth-rate, the number of Moslem voters became higher than the number of Israelite voters. Via democratic elections Moslem voters voted down Israelite voters. The most important supporter of the Islamic countries is France among the Western democracies nowadays. France takes a stand for the freedom of Palestine and condemns American intervention in Iraq. French politicians have no choice; if they want to keep their political power for a long time – according to the rules of democracy – they have to represent a policy, which have more supporters than opponents among their voters.

3% of the voters are Israelites and 2% of the voters are Moslems in the United States today. The difference is therefore very small. Quite a little successful Moslem missionary work in the U.S. could lead to the freedom of Palestine, including Jerusalem.

A way of peaceful mission work was the conversion of the non Islamic conquerors of the Moslem countries to the Islam in the course of the history. The powerful army of Genghis Khan and his descendants conquered Islamic countries in the 13th century (according the Christian chronology). Moslem missionaries worked a miracle; they converted a remarkable part of the Mongol army, which was the strongest army of those times to the Islam. Thanks to that conversion descendants of Mongols spread Islam to new territories, where it could not reach otherwise.

Several hundred-thousands of American soldiers and civilians stay in Iraq and Afghanistan today. They are the same for local people like the Mongolians were for their ancestors seven hundred years ago. At present the strongest army all over the World is the American Army. Many Mongolian soldiers were converted to the Islam seven hundred years ago. The same should be done to American soldiers now. If it is true that the only God is Allah and Mahomet is his prophet then, those people are more likeable for him, who convert American soldiers to the Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. For this reason, Moslem countries should support English speaking Mohammedan missionaries in those countries. The aim is that Americans should meet Islam missionaries day by day there.

Another way of peaceful conversion to the Islam was that in the course of the history, when in non Islamic countries, a Moslem minority, which is familiar to the local culture and conventions, and respects the traditions; converted many people to the Islam. Islam spread over vast areas in the South-East Asian archipelago and South of the Sahara that way. Such kind of peaceful conversion to the Islam should be carried out in the U.S. as well.

An important feature of the American culture is the significant role of media. For this reason, Moslem countries need several English speaking TV and radio channels other media, newspapers and Websites in the U.S. It is important to support the existing English speaking Moslem-friendly media; and to establish new ones. Islamic-friendly media can help not just mission work, but the activation of those Moslem voters living in the United States, who are not convinced for the freedom of Palestine.

Other important feature of the American culture is solidarity for oppressed people. The World outside the U.S. does not always think about American people that way but Americans do. An important task of the Islamic friendly media is to show Americans that today in the Middle East Israeli people, who had seen many catastrophes and suffering in the course of the history is not pursued or oppressed but Palestinians are. Islamic media must show the massacre in Beirut in 1982 (according to Christian chronology) without embarrassment, or the water restrictions on the Palestinians living in the occupied areas and other Israeli measures, which hinder rights and prosperity of Palestinians.

There are many Americans for whom traditional family values are important. Islamic media must show, for this reason that in Islamic countries marriages are faithful, divorces are rare, venereal diseases, for instance AIDS, are almost unknown; drugs and alcoholism are insignificant problems.

Another important feature of American culture is the admiration of big things; Americans have a passion for big cars, TV sets, buildings, etc. The September 11, 2001 (according to Christian chronology) attack on the World Trade Center was very painful for American people because it destroyed the biggest buildings in their biggest city. Therefore Islamic countries and American Moslems must build an enormous skyscraper in New York. The skyscraper will unify Moslem and American symbols like the half-moon, which is the symbol of the Islam, and the Stars and Stripes, which is a cultic object for most Americans. When it will be finished Americans will admire it and say that Moslem people can not just destroy, but build beautiful and enormous buildings.

There have already been many Moslem citizens in the United States, who know American culture and speak English well. With their help and by English speaking Islamic friendly media, and by the building of the “The Tower of American-Islamic Friendship”, it can be reached that American Moslems vote down American Israelites. After that the U.S. will not support Israel any more. Israel will weaken and will be forced to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories; Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights will be liberated.

The peaceful Moslem missionary work in the United States will be fruitful for almost everybody. It will lead to the freedom of Palestine and stabilize the whole Middle East. Economic relations between the United States and Moslem countries will prosper, which can produce several million new jobs on both sides. It will help to overcome the public feeling against America or the Islam in many countries in the World; and will bring favorable results for the World’s economy and World trade system as well.

Zoltán Bíró

[Larry]

Tom,
I agree with your take on nuclear energy, but I think you underestimate the importance of bio-fuel.

The transportation secton consumes 70% of the oil we consume, so we need to solve the problem here.

There are plenty of sources of gasoline and diesel besides oil. Enormous supplies of these fuels can be removed from oil sands in Canada, or converted from coal or natural gas.

The reason we don't get fuel from these sources is simple economics. As energy companies plan their capital investments, they forecast future prices of oil to determine whether or not their large, long-term projects will pay-off. Like most of us, they are conversative with these projections, currently using something like $25/bbl of oil. Very few projects make sense at $25/bbl. A lot do at $60/bbl. So if your main objective is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, find a way to put a $60/bbl floor on the price of oil without putting the U.S. economy at competitive risk.

But getting fuel from oil sand, natural gas, or coal presents another problem - all emit carbon dioxide, contributing to global warming. This is a whole post in itself, but the short version is that global warming is a real threat; emissions of green house gases (GHG) almost surely contribute; and it will cost trillions of dollars over the next 100 years to address (which does not mean the Kyoto Protocol is necessarily a good thing).

So what is the transportation energy source that both reduces emissions of GHG and dependence on foreign sources of oil?

Fuel cells have a beautiful technical allure, but have at least three major problems to overcome:

1) The cost of the fuel cells need to come down roughly two orders of magnitude to be competitive vs. internal combustion engines.

1a) Even if that happens, the most likely fuel cell design for transportation - the proton exchange membrane - requires (currently) 100 grams of platinum or palladium. Just two countries - Russia & South Africa - control over 90% of the world's platinum group metals. Want to talk about cartel-based pricing?

2) As Tom states, hydrogen is a energy store. To reduce emissions of GHG, we need a source of carbon-free hydrogen. This almost surely requires nuclear energy in the next several decades (by mid-century, solar energy should be cost-effective for more massive, subsidy-free deployment). But that still leaves us decades away from carbon-free hydrogen.

3) There is a massive investment required to build the infrastructure to deliver carbon-free hydrogen to consumers.

Bio-fuels are a low-carbon energy source. The carbon dioxide that is emitted upon combustion is recycled as it is consumed by the crops that are converted into the biofuel. A report "Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End America's Energy Dependence," sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Department of Energy, and others concludes:

* there are far better crops for biofuels than corn. Switchgrass, for example, is a native (to the U.S.) prairie grass that requires less irrigation and fewer pesticides, offers low nitrogen runoff, and very low erosion all while increasing soil carbon (as it has a living root mass even after harvest).

* bio-derived gasoline and diesel can be cost competitive with oil-based alternatives within a decade even at historically low oil prices.

* there is enough available land in the U.S. to supply more than half of the oil we currently use in the transportation sector even while supplying current agricultural needs (food, cotton, tobacco...).

Instead of subsidizing farmers to not grow crops, we can pay them for fuel. Far better than paying the mullahs!

There is still the problem of how to get form here to there, but this post is long enough.

Larry

[charlie crystle]

Tom,

We need an Apollo-level public commitment to energy research. Invest a few billion now in University-led research, save billions later when we pass reasonable peak production.

http://www.apolloalliance.org/ is an example of the commitment, but I think it's not focused enough on discovery--r & d, uninhibited by market pressures.

BTW-- I considered building a biodiesel refinery near my hometown of Lancaster. At the time, the cheapest viable vegetable oil was too expensive to make a go of it. At most, though, bio-diesel could only supply about 7% of the current consumption.

Nano-solar seems to be the best hope. I really look forward to the day when the primary use of oil is for plastics.

[Fazal Majid]

I'm all for nuclear (fission) reactors, but keep in mind uranium supplies are not unlimited, probably a century's worth at current consumption levels, much less if nuclear power were to be expanded dramatically. Research in breeder reactors would have to be reactivated, and a serious boost applied to fusion research.