Since they are in the business of selling gasoline-powered automobiles, the manufacturers understandably are reluctant to come out and publicly announce the obvious solution to air-poisoning by the gasoline engine: Get rid of the gasoline engine.

On the other hand, every member of the industry is actively engaged in trying to do just that.

–W.E. Butterworth, Wheels and Pistons

While editing down the number of books I own, I found Wheels and Pistons: The Story of the Automobile, a history written for middle schoolers that my grandmother gave me years ago. It is a 1971 book championing the car and car companies, and how the number of cars on the road and miles driven demonstrates the USA is better than the Soviet Union. The chapter on the future is interesting. It mostly talks about turbine and steam engines, but also mentions electric and hybrid gas-electric cars, showing a couple Ford and GM experimental cars.

From the pictures, you can see that GM was treating electric and hybrid technology as a play technology, for use in toy cars. The examples of turbine engines in the book are installed in production cars. This fits well with my understanding of the history of the automobile, where GM has kept up enough research on modern technology to not fall too far behind, but does so in a way that they never have to actually sell a car that could cut into gasoline car production. The book also shows a similar Ford of England Comuta electric car.

It is worth to noting that Wheels and Pistons was published two years before the first oil embargo, and that GM still does not sell an electric or viable hybrid car. (I’m not counting the EV1 beause they were destroyed at the end of their leases, or their current hybrid options because of sub-par performance.)

This is a good time to put in another recommendation to read Edwin Black’s Internal Combustion, an excellent history of the car.

Sources:

@book{butterworth1971,
	Author = {W. E. Butterworth},
	Publisher = {Four Winds Press},
	Title = {Wheels and Pistons: The Story of the Automobile},
	Year = {1971}
}

@book{black2006,
	Address = {New York},
	Author = {Edwin Black},
	Publisher = {St. Martin's Press},
	Title = {Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments
	 Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives},
	Year = {2006}
}

My disagreements with Friedman are his technological over-optimism, solutions that increase complexity, and philosophy. I’ll ignore the philosophical differences in this review.

One example of Friedman’s overly complex, overly optimistic solutions is the smart electrical grid. I agree that we need a smart grid. The details are a problem I would like to work on. I disagree with Friedman’s vision of a smart grid. He basically says we should make the grid as smart as possible. This ignores the energy and reliability problems caused by unnecessary complexity. It is an example of a way of thinking common in engineering and politics: add a fix to what we have, even when fixing an underlying problem is easier and solves additional problems. This way of thinking creates unnecessary complexity and contributes to many of our problems. Unfortunately, it is easier to find support to add a law or feature than to change one. There are too many entrenched interests for a real solution to be likely without first moving through suboptimal answers, like the ones that Friedman proposes. Even though they can be better, these are the best likely solutions, so we should move forward as quickly as possible.

The section ‘Make the Word “Green” Go Away’ almost makes up for the rest of the book. Friedman says that green should be normal, so we should stop saying ‘green.’ This is an excellent point. The the word green has been abused recently, especially in greenwashing products. Adding an extra word makes it sound like being green is special. It isn’t. Sustainable practices must become the norm. There isn’t a good answer for this linguistic difficulty, but an improvement would be to drop the word ‘green’ and start calling other things ‘dirty,’ or some better term. It’s too bad stores won’t (or can’t) put soot symbols, or something, on boxes of anything that isn’t green. This would help make unsustainable products appear as different, and environmentally friendly solutions appear normal.

The solutions in this book aren’t always the best, but, Friedman’s proposals are pragmatic and more likely to be implemented than better solutions. While Hot, Flat, and Crowded makes some good points—and has some good quotes—I’d recommend reading a different book on Why We Need a Green Revolution. If you are interested in energy, I recommend Winning Our Energy Independence by S. David Freeman. For more on the business side, the best I have seen is Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution by Hawken, Lovins and Lovins.

BibTeX reference:

@book{friedman2008,
	Author = {Thomas L. Friedman},
	Publisher = {Farrar, Strauss and Giroux},
	Title = {Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a
		Green Revolution--And How it can Renew America},
	Year = {2008}
}

New York Times: China Is Said to Plan Strict Gas Mileage Rules

You should also read Thomas L. Friedman’s latest editorial. It is past time for Americans to get serious about energy efficiency.

Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How by S. David Freeman is an excellent book by an expert. It is an apolitical pragmatic argument for how and why the USA should change our energy use from fossil fuels to renewables. Freeman spent decades rescuing power companies and improving their efficiency. If the guy called in to save failing power companies says making them greener saves them, we should probably listen. Freeman certainly has more accurate and thorough knowledge than the people claiming we can’t afford to move to renewable energy. He provides a good critique of the distorted system that has led to current inefficiencies.

… efficiency and renewables are cheaper even on the misleading pricing system we use. If we consider–and we must–the health costs of air pollution, the proliferation and radiation risks of nuclear, and the health and global warming costs of coal, it is a no-brainer.

Now that sustainable energy is economical–but still little used–Freeman proposes using subsidies to jump-start their implementation. He proposes a workable solution that will make the world a better place as well as saving money over the long term. I agree with Freeman’s assessment of the situation and the end results of his proposed solution. I don’t like all the details of his proposed solution, but it is probably more likely to happen than my preferred answer of removing the existing subsides to dirty power. The existing subsidies probably won’t be removed, so this is a more pragmatic, less idealistic solution.

In addition to the solution provided, I like that Freeman provides some numbers to go with statements I have heard from other sources. For example, an interisting statistic that I hadn’t seen anyone put a number with is that compared to the average car, a plug-in hybrid emits 1/4 the CO2. And that is when powered by coal generated electricity. The number goes down with cleaner power plants. This is in addition to the gasoline saved, “If everyone drove an HEV 60, it would cut gasoline consumption by over 70 percent.”

This is an excellent book that debunks all the arguments against moving to sustainable energy. I wonder if Freeman puts too much emphasis on hydrogen for storage, but over all his solution is reasonable. I spent far more time searching for original sources and checking his math than I did reading the book. If I hadn’t, this would have been a quick read. I would have preferred better footnotes, but the format used is appropriate for the intended audience. Winning Our Energy Independence makes my short list of books that everyone should read. As Freeman says, “There can be no more urgent task for humanity than to find, as rapidly as possible, alternatives to burning the limited fossil fuels on Earth.” I hope it is effective enough that I am able to move it from this list to a list of books that are interesting for their historic impact.

BibTeX reference:

@book{
	freeman,
	Author = {S. David Freeman},
	Edition = {First},
	Publisher = {Gibbs Smith},
	Title = {Winning our energy independence: an energy insider shows how},
	Year = {2007}
}

The world population is currently around 6 700 000 000. In the next four decades, it is expected to reach 9 500 000 000. The US population is around 306 000 000, and is expected to be around 440 000 000 by 2050. So if we assume we are using all land available for food production, the efficiency of the land usage must be increased by a bit over 1.4 times to feed everyone in 2050. This makes the generous assumption that the land is currently being used sustainably. In reality, the food production efficiency must be increased faster to balance the resources lost to non-sustainable land use practices. The results in other categories are similar.

I am particularly interested in energy usage and transportation efficiency. For example, cars and trucks in the US. The current CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards dictate that the average fuel economy for all new cars and trucks in the US is around 24 miles per gallon. The true average of all cars on the road is lower. Accounting for population growth in the US, this combined average must be over 35 miles per gallon by 2050 to maintain current fuel usage. To return to 1990 petroleum usage in 2050, the CAFE standard must be increased to almost 49 miles per gallon.

These efficiency gains merely maintain current standards of living. This is especially important for food. Increases that merely match population growth still leave the same percentage of people without food or clean water. As can be seen in India and China, more people are moving up from extremely poor to poor and middle class. They then eat more and use more of other resources. This increase in living standards necessitates a concomitant increase in the efficiency of resource usage. But even these efficiency increases aren’t enough.

In transportation, food, and water, we are using resources faster than they are replenished. As the population is increasing, the resources available are decreasing. This must stop at some point. All reasonable people agree that it is necessary to move to completely sustainable use of resources. Until we reach sustainable resource usage, we must increase efficiency significantly faster than required by population growth. Gains below this rate merely delay an inevitable disaster. Improvements at this rate–or better–save the world. Do we have a critical mass of reasonable people?

• A significant fraction of Fort Wayne is anti-government, not just anti-bad-government.
• This ordinance was passed because of an argument between neighbors, not as a reasoned addition to the building code.
• Most people made up their mind without giving the issue any thought.

Why I am in favor of Fort Wayne’s new anti-light-pollution ordinance:

The history of a lighting ordinance in Fort Wayne may stem from someone’s pet peeve, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious issue.

Not creating light pollution is common sense and common courtesy. No one benefits from light pollution. It takes no extra effort to avoid creating light pollution. Any decent designer, architect, or thinking person, will already only use lighting that meets these standards. When deciding how to light something, the goals are to put good quality light where it is needed, and to not waste any. Any lighting that comes close to meeting these basic requirements will fit within the range allowed by the ordinance.

Any light directly illuminating anything it is not intended to is simply wasted. This extra light creates glare and sky-glow. Neither of these have any conceivable benefits. Glare makes it harder to see both what was intended to be lit and anything else in the area. Many people probably notice that something isn’t right, but don’t know what. This leads to more poor lighting being installed, exacerbating the situation.

Security lights don’t actually improve security. They are a placebo. People feel they have done something, so they must be more secure, but this is not true. The studies have shown no security difference between lighted and unlighted.

The only problem I see with this ordinance is that it only applies to residential properties. It should apply to all lights, not only residential lights. Common sense anti-light pollution rules should be added to building codes.

Light pollution is insidious, so many do not consciously notice it, but all will benefit from its elimination.

This is silly.

The idea that increased domestic oil production will lower prices has several flaws. “Drill, baby, drill” oversimplifies supply and demand. It ignores physics. It assumes that oil companies are altruistic. It forgets that oil is a fungible commodity on a world market.

I’ll start with physics. Oil is called a fossil fuel for a reason. It was deposited in the past. The supply isn’t increasing. The law of conservation of mass doesn’t make a special exception for oil. There is only so much petroleum in the earth. Oil doesn’t magically reappear some time after a well runs dry. Once we use oil, it is gone. Oil isn’t produced, it is tapped from limited reservoirs. Increasing the rate of withdraw doesn’t increase supply, it decreases the time the fixed supply lasts.

“Drill, baby, drill” forgets that oil companies are for-profit businesses. It assumes that an increase in their ability to tap oil means they will increase availability, lowering prices. This action wouldn’t make sense for oil companies. As dealers of a limited resource, their goal is to make as much money as possible off the resource before it is gone. They need to maximize their lifetime profit per barrel. Increasing the rate of delivery to higher than demand lowers profits. Lowering the rate of delivery leads to higher prices. Using this basic supply and demand idea, it is in the interest of oil companies to decrease the rate of production.

This is also an oversimplification. Increases in oil prices encourages people to look into alternatives. As more people switch to alternatives, the demand for petroleum decreases, leading to lower prices. The profit maximizing strategy for oil companies is to keep delivery as low as possible to maximize the price per barrel, but high enough that demand doesn’t decrease. This is what they are doing.

To make this strategy more effective, they are also pursuing political and public relations. They admit that we need more than oil, but then claim that alternatives aren’t ready yet. This helps lower the interest in alternatives, keeping oil demand high. The high price and demand encourage people to thing that increasing availability will lower prices. This lets oil companies claim that they would increase production, but these pesky taxes and environmental regulations are in the way. So the call goes out to practically give them public land and have the public take the responsibility for cleaning up later. Now they are not only maximizing profit and ensuring demand, they are lowering future costs. The calls for drilling now are exactly what the oil companies need to maximize their long term petroleum profits.

The calls for “increased domestic production” to lower prices also ignore the fact that oil is a fungible commodity. The oil tapped in the US isn’t reserved strictly for use in the US. Increasing delivery rate in one country increases the rate for the world. Any price change in the US would be the result of a price change on world markets. While the remaining supplies of petroleum in the US sound large compared to American consumption, what matters to price is how they compare to world supplies. While American oil consumption is very high, consumption outside the US is increasing faster. This means that any change in American delivery is becoming less important.

The call for more drilling ignores the fact that it takes time to create the infrastructure to make newly tapped petroleum useful. Most estimates I have seen say that the soonest we would get oil from new American wells would be ten years. Then the oil would be withdrawn over several years. So the best case is we add a little oil to the world market from ten to twenty years from now. There no short term decrease in gas prices. Only a ten year delay. We are then left in the same position as now, but with no reserves.

The solution to the cost of energy in the US isn’t increased tapping of oil. The lag between drilling and delivery would be better used to increase efficiency, decrease demand, and switch to renewable energy sources.