Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there are a lot of naïve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.
We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.
Take solar power as a comparison. If you use solar power to charge your iPod, it requires an array of panels, it takes a long time, and you will need to do it again in a day. That's not a knock on solar energy, the efficiency of solar power panels are pretty good, about 8 percent; by comparison even plants using photosynthesis are only 5 percent efficient and it's hard to argue with plants and photosynthesis. But efficiency alone is not painting an accurate picture. The energy density of gasoline is much, much greater. For perspective, Ken Cohen of ExxonMobil (I kid you not, they have a blog - it's pretty interesting too) notes that a gallon of gas has enough energy to charge an iPhone every day for almost 20 years.
Is that right? How did he come up with that number? Let's do some arithmetic.
Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108 J/gallon. 3.61 × 106 joules is 1 Kwh and 1 Kwh can run a TV for about 24 hours. That means a gallon of gas contains the energy density to power your television for 36 straight days - in a comparatively tiny package. How large a battery would you need to run a TV for 36 days? Gigantic.
Link: ExxonMobil Perspectives
Cohen likens it to backpacking - anyone who has hiked or been in the military knows you want as much energy as possible in as small a space and weight as possible. MREs may not taste good but there is no question they pack a lot of calories in a tiny form factor. So it goes with gasoline. If 13 gallons of gasoline keep an entire car going for 400 miles at a high rate of speed, that is darn efficient energy density. It is also not easy to replace, not because we are 'addicted' to oil or because oil companies are buying up alternative fuel ideas and mothballing them.
It's plain hard to beat and progress is about making our lives better, not living in the dark and being happy about windmills. Hydrogen would be great but unless you have a fuel tank the size of a double-decker bus, it is not taking you 400 miles. And electric cars are risky unless the government spends trillions putting in electric stations every 10 miles. Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.
The same naturalists who think ancient Egyptians had better technology than the modern kind and want America to be like it was a hundred years ago don't accept that gasoline has lasted for 150 years because it packs a lot of energy density punch.
It doesn't mean electric cars are out of the picture, they are the wave of the future, as is solar power - but that's a basic research problem before it can become a technology one. Rushing to replace what we have because activists hate successful companies isn't good for anyone.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Sexual Fantasies: Threesomes Are Normal, Golden Showers Not So Much
- Ghost Light From Dead Galaxies - A Hubble Halloween
- Mediterranean Diet Linked To Better Kidney Health
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- US Wildlife Bans On GMOs And Neonics Lack Transparency And Scientific Rationale
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Game Theory: When Are Groups Social? Or Insufferable?
- "Twelve years in a major urban public school system, and I couldn't once bring myself to eat a school..."
- "Hardly a day goes by without some creative new take on the eternal Evil White Man meme. Without..."
- "There would be no controversy if it were all balloons and ponies stories like that. But I hope..."
- "Let's talk about this disaster: I lost a course at the university where I work and became ineligible..."
- "Partisan nastiness doesn't advance dialogue. We are all in this together. You asked for solutions..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Report examines health care challenges for pregnant women enrolled in covered California
- NYU research: Majority of high school seniors favor more liberal marijuana policies
- ESA Frontiers November preview
- Sexual fantasies: Are you normal?
- Synthetic lethality offers a new approach to kill tumor cells, explains Moffitt researcher