On Alternative Energy
March 1, 2009, April 15, 2009 (minor edits)
Historically, petroleum has had great political influence, instigating conflicts and wars. After the widespread introduction of the internal combustion engine in vehicles for transportation, a great need developed for petroleum. The Second World War did not directly occur because of a need for petroleum, but the need for petroleum played a deciding factor in the war's outcome. When the Allied powers bombed petroleum refineries in Germany and German tanks in Russia lacked fuel to operate, the once-powerful German army was halted. A similar situation is precarious for any nation.
After World War II, Western nations established corrupt governments in the Middle East and elsewhere, through force, coup d'etats, and bribery. These nations provided a cheap source of petroleum and petroleum therefore did not appear to be an issue at the time. Nevertheless, the long-term consequences of short-term decision-making based on a need for petroleum were devastating. When the corrupt governments were eventually overthrown, governments hostile to the West in varying degrees were established in many of these oil-rich nations.
When society depends on a single resource that is either monopolized, rare, or destructive, it must move to alternatives. The world now depends on petroleum for 90% of vehicular fuel, much of which comes from nations that are not particularly friendly to the consumer. Petroleum is monopolized by both oil corporations and oil-rich nations, may run out, and is destructive towards the environment. For political, economic, and environmental reasons, alternatives are needed. While the alternatives may have a higher initial investment cost, they must be practical improvements over petroleum.
Contrary to the common misconception, petroleum is only used for 2% of electricity generation in the United States. It is therefore clear that all energy need not switch to an alternative fuel. Eliminating petroleum as a fuel for transportation would eradicate 70% of petroleum usage in the United States.[1] It also becomes apparent that fueling electrical power plants from alternative sources of energy by itself does little to solve the problem. Furthermore, since electricity is powered by diverse fuels and can relatively easily move to a new fuel source, powering vehicles via electricity is a robust alternative. The fuel source for electricity generation is a resulting secondary issue.
Electric vehicles predate the internal combustion engine by over 50 years. At the turn of the century, electric vehicles outnumbered their internal combustion counterparts. Now, during the past 50 years, small companies have produced electric vehicles and "do-it-yourselfers" have converted internal combustion cars. Electric vehicles are far from impractical. If the price of electric vehicles is analyzed from a point of comparison that includes fuel, maintenance, and depreciation, electric vehicles appear cheaper than their gasoline counterparts. The cost of electricity for an electric car is roughly 75% cheaper than gasoline for a gasoline car. (And it's much cleaner, even if the electricity is powered by 100% coal.) The only maintenance electric vehicles require is battery replacement (every 100,000 or 200,000 miles, depending on battery type), windshield wiper fluid replacement, and ordinary tire and suspension maintenance. As a result of fewer moving parts and the resulting long lifespan, the depreciation is much less. Regardless of the cheaper total price, electric vehicles are not inferior modes of transporation. While electric vehicles often have less range on a charge than vehicles powered by internal combustion, they also have far less noise, faster acceleration, and provide the convenience of charging at home.
The problem in switching to electricity as the fuel for transportation is not so much the technology as it is getting over political obstacles. Oil corporations and automakers have tried very hard to preserve the status quo. When funding is provided to automakers for electric vehicle technology, they intentionally misuse it and either claim that electric vehicles are impractical or claim that some other fuel, like hydrogen, is more practical. Hydrogen cars are and never were practical because of their extremely high price, low range, expensive fuel, and lack of a fueling infrastructure. Automakers also sometimes claim a lack of consumer demand, but do nothing to promote it in the first place. In order to implement change, the entity doing change must do some work. When corporations are incompetent to the task, governments and organizations must meet the task.
A possible solution is difficult to implement because oil corporations, automakers, and their lobbyists will do their best to counter any proposal, and governments often submit to their requests. To put it blatantly, progress requires a commitment to ignoring these groups. To fund a possible solution, a small tax on gasoline and other petroleum-based products could be employed. Given the amount of gasoline that is produced and sold, even a small tax would raise a large sum of money. Depending on the situation, the money may be used for individual incentives to consumers, marketing, government research and development, subsidies, or other ways of promoting electric vehicles. Care must be taken with subsidies to ensure that automakers make good faith efforts to promote electric vehicles. Otherwise, the mistake of the 1990's[2] could be repeated.
The issue of fuel sources for electricity generation becomes a secondary problem. Already, electric grids in the United States have enough capacity to allow overnight electric vehicle charging. Still, alternative sources of energy can be used for both environmental and economic reasons. Part of the funding generated by the gasoline tax could go towards establishing better electricity grids powered by alternative fuel sources.
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is a controversial alternative fuel for political and safety reasons. Other than in extreme cases, the United Nations, Security Council, and member nations have no jurisdiction on the matter of safety without interfering with the sovereignty of independent nations. On the matter of politics, decisions must be based on legal rights. Other than the five permanent members of the United Nations (France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), nations that have voluntarily signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have an inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, after agreeing to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For example, Iran is a party to the NPT since 1968 and has signed the "Additional Protocol" in 2003 requiring that facilities be reported during the planning phase. It is therefore entitled to certain rights, including using and enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. Both Russia, which is helping Iran build the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, and the IAEA, have not found any evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons technology. Therefore legally, the United Nations and member nations cannot interfere. Additionally, removing the right of a nation like Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes would destroy the incentive for Iran to be a party to the NPT. Similar to Israel and North Korea, Iran could then start a secret nuclear weapons program without any inspections whatsoever. Clearly, preserving the right to peaceful nuclear energy is a much safer option for the world.
[1] In the United States, 24% of petroleum is used for industrial processes including the production of chemicals and plastics, 2% is used for electricity generation, and 5% is used in various residential and commercial environments.
[2] See also: "The Return of the Electric Vehicle"
California established a zero emissions vehicle mandate in 1990 that would have required 5% of all vehicles sold in California in 1998 and 10% of all vehicles sold in 2003 to have no emissions. The major automakers then started manufacturing electric vehicles and leasing them, with much of the funding provided by California taxpayer money. But after other states started to consider similar mandates, American automakers did perhaps the worst marketing of any product in history, citing limitations of their cars in "marketing" material, rather than their advantages. They eventually decided to refuse to renew lease contracts, citing "lack of consumer demand" (yet somehow there were more people on waiting lists than cars available). Companies like GM ended their electric vehicle programs and laid off employees working on those programs. With the exception of Toyota, the major automakers literally destroyed every single last electric vehicle by car crusher after their leases expired, even after lessees had collected more than enough money to purchase the remaining vehicles. GM then replaced their electric vehicle program with a purchase of the Hummer brand.