Introduction. Skip to abstracts if you are familiar with the basic ideas.

Energy and environment are intricately connected; for scientists, unaffected by special interests, the answers to these problems are in front of our eyes, simple and straight-forward. However, often they are made to look complicated because, as we see it,  special energy interests are trying to fudge energy/transportation issues to a degree that would allow them to keep taking us to the cleaners - - while increasing pollution and complicating true solutions.

Thank God, we are past stage 1, when every polluter tried to influence news-makers, politicians and YOU - - suggesting that global warming wasn’t real. Scientists from all around the world agreed and put politicians on the spot: “Global Warming is real, key villains are greenhouse gases – mainly CO2 - , and we need to act quickly to ensure this planet’s survival.” Tremendous disasters caused by climate changes – from hurricanes to droughts and floods in areas where this was not the norm – woke up even the last naysayer.

But the tide is changing, slowly but surely! There are some real leaders in industry - even though few in numbers - that have acknowledged the problem and are making a serious effort to help solve the problem - - may their numbers grow quickly!

But many others, in the name of healing the planet, are trying to sell us a bill of goods - - politics as usual - - that has, so obviously, their profit as the (hidden) # 1 priority.
Since reducing pollution and greenhouse gases is our # 1 priority in fighting global warming, this must also be the determining factor in energy and transportation - - but that’s not what is happening! Energy companies, for the sake of maintaining their profits, are working hard to promote their less efficient and more expensive (BS) “energy and transportation solutions.”

Just two scenarios:

1) Certain energy industries push for the hydrogen car and for nuclear reactors. They tell us that nuclear reactors produce electricity that can be used to take water apart into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then used in fuel cells in your car to produce electricity that, in turn, powers electrical motors. The hydrogen car in essence is an electrical car. Add up all the costs of building nuclear reactors, maintaining them, later decommissioning them, and all the costs of “gas” stations that will sell you the hydrogen, and guess what they’ll sell you the hydrogen for. Present estimates suggest that you would be paying at least 50% more in monthly fuel costs relative to what you are spending now. Would you have a choice in all this? The cost of the hydrogen? Could you make your own hydrogen to power the car? No! “No” to all of the questions.

For the record: Hydrogen can also be burned with the oxygen in air in combustion engines, very much like gasoline is burned in present-day cars. However, there are problems with such hydrogen-burning engines, like burning far too hot, and carburetor problems, so the emphasis is on fuel cell cars.

2) Compare this to driving an EV (fully electrical car or plug-in hybrid). The cost of the batteries (to store the fuel, electricity) is easily balanced by not having to purchase an expensive fuel cell (a necessity in a hydrogen-powered car). For a source of electricity you have two choices: Charge the batteries in the car right out of the wall socket ($ 1.50 for 100 miles), or you can install solar electric panels on your house to make your own fuel/electricity. For an example of a photovoltaic solar panel installation, check out the “IAAM Demonstration Project” at the ENVIRONMENT Folder (at E-books on this web-site).
Now you add up the numbers and decide what makes more sense.

In solving our energy problems, we therefore have to focus on two areas:

1) Reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
a) Reduce consumption with better mileage cars and trucks; it CAN be done!

Poking holes in Detroit’s wining: “It’s tough to be green!” Axel Friedrich, a top German environmental regulator got tired of the wining of the automobile industry - - that they can’t lower emissions until hydrogen-powered cars hit the roads - - - so he got a few engineers and showed them. They modified a Volkswagen Golf, a car that already has very low emissions, and lowered it by another 25% with simple changes like low-roll tires, gear shift indicators, and just a few low-weight parts. This is quite impressive in a country where emission level standards are at the US equivalent of 40 mpg.

b) Strong development on biofuels. Vegetable oils and other biofuels can replace diesel, and ethanol can replace gasoline. In Brazil an entire country runs on such fuels. Keep in mind that all these biofuels, even though they help to make us independent From foreign oil, still produce CO2 when burned in cars and trucks. It is therefore especially important to focus on new energy/transportation means that DON’T
produce CO2 at all. 
                                                           
2) Creating means of energy/transportation that don’t produce carbon dioxide as oxidation products.

Since hydrogen, the oil company promoted dream-BS, is out for now (science details see below), the answer is very simple: Combine the unlimited US capacity - much of it based on NASA technology - of manufacturing electricity-producing solar panels and wind-power with US-manufactured electrical cars and plug-in hybrids (for details check  out the IAAM demonstration project in the ENVIRONMENT Folder).

Is it really that simple? YES, it is!What stands between us and applying such simple US-based technologies?

Do we really have to ask? You already know the answer!
It’s called The Politics of Energy!

PLEASE check out ELECTRICAL SUPERCARS in the ENVIRONMENT Folder (at E-Books), and one more request, PLEASE: watch “Who killed the Electrical Car?” Or go to

www.zapworld.com
www.wrightspeed.com
www.teslamotors.com

Abstracts:

A few statistics about global Energy Needs/Consumption.
In 2001 the world energy consumption was 13 trillion watts, or 13 terawatts, TW.

Of that energy consumption 86% came from coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 86% of energy production is connected to CO2 and extra pollution, the causes of global warming.

Stats:
“More energy from the sun hits the earth in 1 hour than all of the energy consumed by humans in an entire year.” Nathan Lewis, California Institute of Technology.

“To achieve only 1/3 of the world energy consumption through nuclear power, a 1-gigawatt nuclear power plant (the largest, most expensive and high-risk) fueled by nuclear fission would need to be built every three days for the next 45 years.” Report by Pasadena Institute of Technology, Science News, V. 171, 5.26.2007, page 328 – 329.

All remaining exploitable hydroelectric resources around the world could contribute less that o.5 TW, according to United Nations documentation.

As of 2001, less than 0.1% of the world’s electricity came from the sun.

The sun showers the earth at the rate of 120,000 TW per year.
According to a report in SCIENCE NEWS (5.26.07, p. 328 – 330), numerous sunlight-to-electricity projects presently being developed are more efficient than the present photovoltaic, silicone-based, cells.
According to a 2005 Stanford University report, the US gets less than 1% of its power from wind; there is enough wind to capture at least 20% of the present US electricity demands.

The total amount of extractable wind power worldwide is about 2 to 4 TW (Terawatts).

The US Government’s energy budget is out of proportion; it spends more than twice as much research money on nuclear energy than wind and solar combined.

California offers new incentives for solar water heaters.

This California Legislation is running into opposition from - - guess who - - the gas and electricity companies. Why? Because their profits are threatened! Oh God! We could have falling energy prices!
The bill, which would offer $ 250 million in incentives to build 200,000 solar water heaters statewide is an excellent approach to reducing greenhouse gases and lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

If you live in California, please get involved. Contact your representatives to show support for this excellent and much needed bill.
Studies by KEMA-Xenergy, an energy consulting firm, show that using solar systems in California homes and businesses with access to sunlight could cut the use of residential natural gas by about 24% and reduce total statewide consumption by more than 5%.

Your cost: only 13 cents per month!
For more details: See Environmental California Research and Policy Center.

Reference: LATimes, 5.29.07, p. B1.

HYDROGEN - - Oh yes, the Hindenburg was full of it.

YES, cars powered by air/hydrogen combustion would be 100% pollution-free.

YES, fuel cells fed with hydrogen produce pollution-free electricity; for powering electrical cars, for example.

YES, hydrogen sold at a “gas” station would be extremely dangerous to handle.

THE PROBLEM with hydrogen is that it’s reactions are extremely exothermic, meaning that it is always found chemically bound, like in water (H2O), or hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, oils), carbohydrates (sugars) and more. In order to pry it lose, to get elemental hydrogen (a gas) one needs LOTS of energy. Where would this energy come from? If we had tremendous amounts of excess electricity it could be used to split the water molecule ( - - to form hydrogen, then sold to you at oil company GAS stations, at oil company prices, to then create electricity in a fuel cell to power an electrical car? Why not use the electricity, stored in battery systems, to power EVs in the first place?).

Another major method of making – expensive – hydrogen gas is from coal via syngas. Requiring lots of energy and catalysts, coal and steam can be made to form at first syngas (contains hydrogen and carbon monoxide) and then (more energy, catalysts, steam, high-pressure reaction vessels) hydrogen and CO2. Coal is a major polluting source of energy; to create clean-burning hydrogen one would have to pollute at least twice as much in the first place than what we would save by burning the hydrogen, or making electricity in a fuel cell. Even if we could balance the pollution and energy requirements, the major undesirable side-product (the greenhouse gas we are trying to eliminate in the first place) is CO2. A TRIPLE NEGATIVE FOR A SINGLE POSITIVE? The numbers don’t add up!

                                    Energy
C       +    H2O                 H2      +        CO  
Coal       steam            Catalysts     hydrogen     carbon monoxide
                                                       syngas

                                                 Energy
H2    +    CO     +     H2O            2 H2    +    CO2
     Syngas                steam       Catalysts

Reference: Popular Science, February 2007, pages 28-31.