Political Environmentalism: Bad for the Environment

From the Economist, in regards to the upcoming energy bill:

The Democrats hold at least two suspect truths to be self-evident. Most obviously, they think that politicians should micro-manage energy policy, encouraging some technologies and neglecting others. That ignores most of the lessons of economics, but it is decidedly well grounded compared with the Democrats’ other verity: that slowing global warming and reducing dependence on imported fuels go hand-in-hand. What sense does it make to give preference to American ethanol over the cheaper and more climate-friendly Brazilian sort? (Indeed, if you embrace the goal of “energy security”, bigger imports of Brazilian ethanol might help, by reducing America’s demand for oil from more hostile lands.)

Subsidies for U.S.-made ethanol are inefficient pork-barrel handouts to the Midwest. Tariffs on imported ethanol are even more bizarre: our goal is to reduce dependence on petroleum from unstable regions, but we’re pricing out inexpensive alternatives. Riiiiight. Several reports tied the increase in ethanol use in the U.S. to Mexico’s tortilla crisis. Others argued the U.S. had little to no impact; we use yellow corn for ethanol, Mexico uses white corn.

Who knows? All forms of alternative energy have their pros and cons, and the proponents of each do a great job of hiding the true costs. E85 (70-83% ethanol/17-30% gasoline) garners votes for politicians, makes people feel environmentally conscious, and saves them a chunk of change thanks to our collective tax dollars. Sticking corn in your engine has to be environmentally friendly, right?

One of the most important concepts in energy economics is EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) especially when oil or natural gas are being invested. Ethanol doesn’t magically get from farm to fuel. Farm machinery and distilleries need to be built and operated, which requires oil. Nitrogen in fertilizer is synthesized using the Haber-Bosch process which requires natural gas: “The production of ammonia currently consumes about 5% of global natural gas consumption, which is somewhat under 2% of world energy production. Natural gas is overwhelmingly used for the production of ammonia, but other energy sources, together with a hydrogen source, can be used for the production of nitrogen compounds suitable for fertilizers.” See, it’s not all bad… we could just use hydrogen instead of natural gas. Problem solved.

The most “hidden” cost is water. In many areas, water is being pumped (uses energy) from aquifers faster than it is being replaced. Don’t forget all the pesticides (require energy) that seep into the groundwater. We can always make clean water from dirty water. Guess what is required to make that happen? Agribusiness tends to treat the land poorly, losing topsoil year after year until farmland becomes barren. Brazil can use their water, their topsoil, and sell us their resulting ethanol for far cheaper than we can produce it domestically. Brazil creates ethanol from sugar (more efficient than corn) and has ideal growing climates for it. They have a competitive advantage in this area and, if we just allowed them to exercise it, we could save some of our own natural resources. Yes, this is my pragmatic outlook: let other countries destroy themselves to feed our habit. Clean water and arable land will only rise in value in the future, why not keep as much of it as we can now as a hedge? It makes a lot more sense than punishing ourselves for the sake of creating even greater market inefficiencies in our agricultural sector.

There’s plenty of R&D to be done to make ethanol more efficient, such as in the field of cellulosic ethanol. Full force ahead, and I’d even support government funding. Unlike The Economist, I don’t mind if politicians micro-manage energy policy – as long as they pick the right technologies to support. How do you know if a given technology is “right”? Research and education, mostly, although there exists a simple test: if Bush supports it, it’s not the right technology. I assure you I don’t BushBash without a reason. Bush loves ethanol subsidies. The potential downside of supporting ethanol is nothing compared to the danger of the “hydrogen economy“.

—

Say it with me, even if you don’t know exactly what you’re saying: hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy CARRIER, not an energy SOURCE. Be right back.

—

Zoolander has a strong cult following in my demographic. I will only admit to enjoying it if the person I am confessing to admits it is a bad movie. Once I got in a Zoolander conversation and decided to deconstruct it, claiming it was a fractured take on the absurdity of the fashion and modeling industries. Much in the way an art critic can look at a burning pile of tires and proclaim it a fractured look at the impacts of globalization on the poor in third-world nations. The rubber tire represents the rubber gathered by near-slave labor on rubber plantations. The fire symbolizes the pain and death that haunted the workers on these plantations. The fire makes the tire unusable, showing how we exploit the world’s poor and then throw them out. But no, it’s a message of hope. The Simpsons taught me that a tire fire burns eternal; we can never break the spirits of those we have exploited.

My understanding of art criticism is that as long as you use the word “fractured” and have some artistic clout or street cred, you can call anything art.

There’s one line that makes Zoolander for me. The evil fashion designer Mugatu points out that Derek Zoolander only has one “look”, but he’s the only one that notices this blatant fact. I feel the same way whenever I read about energy policy. I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS.

—

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. You don’t just grab hydrogen out of the ground, or sky – you have to produce it from another form of energy. Energy loss #1: you can’t convert one energy to another without some loss. Hydrogen is a HORRIBLE energy carrier because it’s an extremely light gas. You have to compress it (energy loss #2) to make it dense enough to be worthwhile transporting. The medium for storing hydrogen is unnecessarily expensive to produce (i.e. requires extra energy; energy loss #2.5) because compressed hydrogen is very cold and explosive, and it loves to escape. Hydrogen is very small and very light. One might say, if one’s ever looked at an periodic table, it’s the lightest. It’s my understanding that despite all the measures taken to keep it in place (#2.5), it is currently impossible to sequester hydrogen without losing it at a steady rate (energy loss #3).

What form of “alternative energy” did Bush jump after 9/11 made it clear that relying on foreign oil wasn’t a solid long-term strategy? Hydrogen, our “Freedom Fuel”, would power the “Freedom Car” of the future. You can’t make this stuff up. Not only is a hydrogen-based economy just a bad idea, the cost of building the required infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. It’s interesting to note that both alternatives to petroleum (although neither truly is) that Bush has stood behind are inherently flawed. No conspiracy theories here… yet. There’s a lot to be gained from purposely failing when you have a “well we gave it our best” fall-back position.

You could argue that he’s doing it all to protect oil, but that’s sort of silly. Assuming the government doesn’t do too much to push our energy policy in a particular direction – and I honestly believe there’s nothing government intervention could do to force a hydrogen economy – our eventual replacements for petroleum will be a hodgepodge of every available option. Who do you think is doing the most research in all of these fields? Who is best equipped to scratch and claw for every inch of competitive advantage in one energy form over another? The companies that control our energy today and are flush with cash because of it have every intention to remain leaders in the future of energy.

Here are a couple links on hydrogen.

I don’t hate fuel cells. I still want a laptop powered by a tiny fuel cell that can go days without a recharge. I just don’t want one in my car, thanks.

—

So whatever did happen to the electric car? Never got around to watching the documentary since I already knew the answer. To take a step back from the automaker/oil conspiracy, I think it’s absolutely true that the vast majority Americans wouldn’t want a car with an 80-mile range that needs six hours to charge. However, there are a damn lot of very uneducated opinions on electric cars that must have come from somewhere, i.e. someone was purposely spreading misinformation. Batteries are prohibitively expensive! They have to be replaced all the time! They’re made out of toxic components that destroy the environment when they’re thrown out! Unless you’re charging from solar panels, you’re using electricity from coal/oil/gas fired plants which is horrible on the environment! And so on.

Batteries aren’t prohibitively expensive. Of the batteries used in this most recent round of electric cars, such as the Toyota Rav4 EV, the batteries have proven to have incredible lasting power. Incidentally, this battery argument is used against buying hybrids – but has anyone heard of an epidemic of batteries having to be replaced? Battery technology grows all the time thanks to laptops and cell phones; by the time you have to replace batteries in an electric car, you could get better ones for cheaper. Old batteries aren’t tossed into the dump, they’re recycled part-by-part more thoroughly than an aluminum can. Powering an EV from your own solar panels is the dream, but even if you’re getting your electricity from a fossil fuel plant the environment is winning.

Energy is not immune to economies of scale. An internal combustion engine (ICE) is very inefficient compared to a massive power plant. They pollute more per equal amount of energy than the power plant. Meanwhile, electric motors are much more efficient than an ICE. You’re charging from energy coming from a more efficient source, and putting it into a vehicle that can make more efficient use of that energy. Oh, and electric motors require far fewer moving parts than an ICE which means much higher life-spans and drastically reduced maintenance costs. Between these savings and the massive savings on fuel, it might just balance out those alleged battery costs.

If it isn’t clear, I want an electric car. I don’t know the current state of battery technology, but I’m willing to bet we’re getting damn close to the possibility of 200-300 mile range with 2-5 minute charges. If Honda and Toyota joined forces and put a lot of work into it, I’m fairly certain that would be doable within 2 years. Just intuition. Unless it’s a flex-fuel car that can also use gasoline, such a vehicle can’t take long trips without carefully placed recharge stations along the way. People like me, who don’t take long trips, would be willing to put up with that lack of flexibility.

—

Many of my arguments about politics end up with me asserting that a moral dictatorship is the greatest form of government. Give me a team of energy experts/assorted geniuses and authoritarian control over energy policy. I’m pretty sure we could pound out something a lot better than what the House and Senate are working on. We wouldn’t have to deal with an asshole like Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the automakers’ whore.

Since this post has made numerous references to market efficiencies, it’s important to note that there are also many flaws inherent in a system where short-term (quarterly) results are given precedence over long-term planning. Energy is too important to be left solely in the hands of corporations that need to meet quarterly expectations and maximize value for shareholders.

For example, there is an ongoing silicon shortage (recent article) that has led to novel cooperation between chip and solar panel makers. The cooperation is an example of market efficiency, but the shortage that led to it isn’t. The market would eventually work it out, but the problem is that dependence on oil is a problem now that will only become more severe in the future. However, you can’t just build a silicon factory, solar panel factory, and use those panels to build a massive solar power plant overnight. Solar should be a massive component of our energy policy. Oil may once again drop to the mid-$50s to low-$60s for some inconsequential period of time, but over the long run the cost of oil will go up.

Solar panels produce energy for an extended period of time. Oil is used and it’s gone – and we have to use it, or some other replacement, to build the panels in the first place. Knowing that the price of oil and natural gas will continue to rise in the future makes building solar now a guaranteed long-term winner even if it isn’t cost-effective today. Unless we discover that cold fusion thing, or the Rapture comes. Always gotta watch out for that Rapture. There’s plenty of research being done on making solar panels more cost effective. Once the breakthrough comes that lowers the cost of production by half, or possibly an order of magnitude, it would be nice to know we’d have the infrastructure to put that in place as soon as possible.

—

I have no big finish, just a homework assignment for anyone who made it this far. I keep hearing conspiracy theories that Big Oil is hoarding all manner of alternative energy patents and not utilizing them to protect their market share. Sounds fishy, in the “not true” sort of way. Could someone find out for me? If it is true, I have no problem with the government stepping in and loosening intellectual property laws related to energy-specific patents. If Bush Jr. is willing to vomit on the Constitution in a manner his father reserved for the Japanese, I don’t see why we couldn’t get that done.