The cost of energy has gotten America's attention again. Will we learn from the past, take steps in the present, and plot a course for the future? Three recent news stories caught my eye recently, and they fall on those axes. Read on for some links and musings about electric cars, the synergy of rails and roads, and changes at the top of the USAF don't mean backing away from alternative energy - or do they?
Follow me below the fold to find out.
First off, return with me to the grim days when the U.S. realized it had a serious oil addiction, the 1970's! Would you believe one of the responses to the Arab Oil Embargo was the founding of America's 6th largest car company - one all about building electric cars? Chris Landers at Baltimore City Paper takes up the tale of Bob Beaumont, the man who was right 40 years too soon.
Bob Beaumont had an idea he thought would change the world, but he was 40 years too early.
It was some time in the mid-'60s when Beaumont had the epiphany that led him to become the largest manufacturer of electric cars in U.S. history. He was pumping gas outside his Chrysler-Plymouth dealership in upstate New York, saw the fumes from the gas hit the air, and said to himself, "This is ridiculous."
"I thought, There's got to be a better way than to pump this stuff out of the ground and piss it away in gas tanks," Beaumont says, sitting at the kitchen table in his Columbia home. "That thought stuck with me."
Take a read about one man's efforts to fill a need, and how far it went. The pictures of the CitiCar (Here's some survivors still out there.) are worth a look all by themselves. Alas, falling gas prices and Consumer Reports doomed the company - but now that history is repeating itself, perhaps the time has come again?
Meanwhile, back in the here and now, Cathy Woodruff of the Albany TImes Union takes a look at how Bill Biers is using railroad access in the Port of Albany to expand his business and save shippers money while saving energy.
ALBANY -- Mulch and bark from upstate trees helped Bill Biers build his landscape-supply business at the Port of Albany, but prefabricated jail cells from Georgia and liquid asphalt from Connecticut are paving the way to a more diversified operation.
It's a route Biers said he found by chance.
As supplies of forest products from upstate paper manufacturers faded, Biers found sources elsewhere. Those suppliers often shipped their materials by rail to his operation at the port, where Albany Port Railroad General Manager Richard Stack is promoting trains as an alternative to trucking.
Biers decided to start marketing his business, Wm. Biers Inc., as on-site support for potential rail shippers who need to get their goods distributed locally. He offers space, equipment, trucking and other services.
What makes this attractive? Here's an example of the difference in costs. Rensselaer County is expanding its' jail with prefab modules shipped up from Tindall Corp. of Conley, Ga.
The cost differential was underscored when one set of cells needed early in the Rensselaer County job didn't make it onto the right train in Georgia.
"Getting the cars placed like they should be is critical for us," Sorrells said. "These modules have to go in order. They're like Lincoln Logs." [Cherylene Sorrells coordinates Tindall's rail shipping.]
The cost of delivering the single module by truck was about $17,000, compared with about $10,000 for three modules traveling by rail, she said.
emphasis added
As shippers look for ways to save money, as energy costs drive trucking fees higher, the rail option is going to keep getting more and more attractive. Biers has found a way to bring shippers and rail service together. Who knows how many similar local opportunities are waiting out there around the country? There are plenty of idle rail sidings in old industrial parks that might be candidates for this kind of synergy.
Finally, off to the Wild Blue Yonder and plans for the future. There was a recent shakeup at the Air Force when Defense Secretary Robert Gates ousted the top two officials of that service after several serious incidents involving nuclear weapons. At least, that was the public explanation. There are also reports that Gates' view of what the Air Force should be doing was vigorously disputed by the top brass. Gates has been irritated by what he calls "next war-itis", while the Air Force finds itself with anaging fleet and not enough new aircraft in the pipeline now controlled by Gates to meet future needs. (The clash in Georgia may change Gates strategic thinking rather abruptly.)
In any case, fired Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne had been a strong proponent of alternative energy: wind, solar - and synthetic fuels made from coal/natural gas. Despite the current myth being promoted by the GOP that drilling everywhere will provide all the oil we'll need, Wynne as head of the largest consumer of energy in DOD was planning for real future contingencies. An interview excerpted in the Washington Watch section of Air Force Magazine's August 2008 issue points up the disagreement over this between Wynne and Gates.
There were other disagreements. Wynne said he had been "told early on to knock this stuff off about the Air Force buying synthetic fuel, because ‘we can always get fuel.’ " Wynne believed the Air Force could be the launch customer for a new industry that could help ease the nation’s energy crisis. He saw it as no different than seeking to buy an advanced missile or other technology which then has commercial spin-off possibilities.
"I remember that when ARPANET arrived, ... the government was a big investor in ARPANET," said Wynne. "[It] made the market, and then boom, the rest is history." The ARPANET, an early computer communications system for the defense community, was a forerunner of today’s Internet.
emphasis added
A recent Daily Report from Air Force Magazine indicates that although Wynne is gone, the USAF is going to keep up efforts to certify all of it's aircraft to fly on synthetic fuel. A recent DoD News Briefing with Acting Secretary of the Air Force Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Schwartz from the Pentagon affirmed this:
Q May I ask about alternative fuels? That was a big priority for General Moseley and Secretary Wynne. Do you intend to carry on with the certification, ultimately leading in 2016 to having the whole flight flying on some sort of alternative; the whole fleet flying on alternative fuels?
MR. DONLEY: We do intend to continue with the certification. I think energy is an important priority for the Air Force. And we're going to continue to work that issue.
We will take a closer look at the role of the Air Force going forward and the public-private partners that are potentially out there. But we'll take a closer look at those before we move forward.
Q (Off mike) -- major priority to get that undersecretary position filled again; undersecretary for Logistics that's handling energy issues?
MR. DONLEY: We have an acting assistant secretary, Kevin Billings, who is very strong in this area. And I think he'll continue in that role.
Q When you say you're going to take a closer look at the public-private partnerships, can you provide a little more detail about what you mean on that? Are you looking at specific ones to see whether you'd continue them or not?
MR. DONLEY: I'm still looking at the details of the Air Force's energy program and how it's expected to spin out over the next couple of years. I want to make sure that we remain in the role of a consumer and not be perceived, by other government agencies or others, as a producer of energy.
The Air Force is fundamentally a consumer. If we're going to be involved in this cooperative work going forward, we will make sure we're in partnership, with the Department of Energy and the other federal agencies and departments, that need to be involved in this, before we --
emphasis added
Reading between the lines of the above exchange, it does look some push back is taking place. While moving ahead with synthetic fuel testing will continue, it would seem Air Force hopes to build a full scale Fischer-Tropsch plant will be put on the back burner. This is both good news and bad news.
It's good news in that the industrial processes that produce synthetic fuel would not help with reducing the CO2 load on the atmosphere; quite the contrary. There would also be increased environmental loads from extracting fossil fuels for the feed materials, coal and/or natural gas, and from the waste products of the process.
It's bad news in that it looks like someone who was actively trying to do something about the nation's energy supplies, for good or ill, has been removed in favor of a business as usual approach. More denial in other words. Why does this matter?
While political parties may argue about who is stronger on defense, typically military programs take years to come to fruition. They outlast administrations; the strong military touted by the Reagan administration for example was based in part on weapons programs that got started under Jimmy Carter. What this means is that - unlikely as it may seem - the Department of Defense could actually be one place where long term energy solutions might stand a chance of getting developed.
Well, there you have it - food for thought from the Past, Present, and Future.