Join us for a Q&A with Vijay Vaitheeswaran, co-author of "Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future"

I think we depend on nuclear energy for the production of less than 10% of our electricity yet countries in Europe have embraced it. Nuclear reactors are responsible for providing the energy to generate over 70% of France's electricity and about 50% of Sweden's. These countries have educated their public as they embrace nuclear. Until we do the same here in the U.S. we are stuck with fossil fuels for creating most of our electricity. If we want to embrace a hydrogen based economy for fuel cells for cars we must create hydrogen. This requires massives amounts of electricity. Again - we're back to how to create the electricity. I'd like to see a serious discussion begin in this country on the need to embrace nuclear.

Have you heard of Dual Mode Transit? What do you think? It seems to me that this technology coupled with nuclear, wind and solar electricity would solve many problems, both real and perceived, with our current automobile transportation system.

Look forward to checking out your book. What incentive does the private sector have to convert from oil sooner than later? Don't we need a government induced program, with a date certain timetable (ten years?), funded by a sunsetting gas tax to get this done? Have any of the presidntial candidates embraced a "conversion" philosophy?

Vijay, Why is there not more interest in on-board hydrogen generation for vehicles instead of heavy batteries or storage of hydrogen, the least dense matter in the universe? For example, powdered aluminum in water releases hydrogen and produces aluminum-oxide that can be recycled back into powdered aluminum using electricity. I wonder if it is the oil companies are blocking this approach because they would participate less in the transition since cracking the hydrogen out of hydrocarbons doesn't fit well into this cycle.

Also, you didn't say anything about fusion power. I know the joke is that fusion power is the energy source of the future; and always will be. Still, the energy source of the stars seems like an important option.

These two technologies together would seem to offer a bright future.

Algae veg oil from Vertigro Technology can be converted to bio-gasoline, bio-diesel and bio-jet fuel. They will be licensing the technology to grow 100,000-180,000 gallons per green house acre by the 1st quarter of 2008. Desert land is preferable. The price to produce Algae veg oil is less than crude oil and will not require subsidies to be profitable. Man Diesel, the largest diesel engine manufacturer in the world is working on engines that burn raw algae veg oil that has not been processed.

Hi Vijay -

I just heard you on MPR - thanks for participating.

Two weeks ago I had never heard the term "peak oil" before. Since then I have heard it several times. There are articles on the web stating that the world will pretty much end when peak oil hits. Others have stated that we need to predict when peak oil will hit, and we need to start acting 20 years before that date. What's your opinion on all this?

Thanks.

Here is a YouTube link to the Vertigro Technology vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvb53l_Nfys

Sometime back students was working on buses that run on magnet ?

THANKS!

On YouTube there are four men who have supposedly already built cars that convert water to hydrogen. These cars do not use fuel cells, only water or salt water is used for fuel. Why haven't the car companies already latched on to this existing technology if it is real?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fK346YMhG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75_TGiwg78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw

If electricity or water replaced gasoline and diesel how would the government tax us to pay for roads?

Do oil companies have an interest in GM or does GM have an interest in the oil industry? Is that why the Electric car concept was scrapped?

I have been looking at hybrids and wondering why plugins are not available in the US? Toyota has a Prius plugin on the market in Japan. Why not here in the US? I understand that a plugin would give you about a 40 mile range before batteries begin to loss its charge. 40 miles would get us to most our destinations in town without using much if any gas. I have also heard of an approach that a plugin charged overnight pulls off the grid at a time when there is a low demand and if you had no plans to drive the next day, that you could plug back into the grid to lower the pick demand. Thanks.

The way most people use automobiles is inherently inefficient. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel you are using. A single person driving a 4+ passenger car a mile to pick up a gallon of milk will never be efficient no matter what kind of fuel that car uses. Look around, the vast majority of 4 door sedans are occupied by one person.

Looking for new fuels to use in our old cars without changing our habits is like searching for a hammer to replace the nail gun we are currently using to fabricate our coffin.

Finding a new fuel without making serious lifestyle changes is simply finding a new energy crisis. Why almost nobody can grasp this is beyond me.

I have been following the work by George Olah on the methanol economy. Olah won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1994.

There are two reasons Olah has focused on methanol. The first is that it is the only practical, scalable alternative. While the usual way to make methanol is through the Coal to Liquid (Fisher Tropish), the most interesting way is to combine Hydrogen (H2) with Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to make methanol (3H2 + CO2 --> H3COH +H2O).

In other words Olah is proposing to use CO2 as the transportation mechanism for hydrogen. The result, methanol, can be transported as easily as ethanol.

Methanol, with an octane rating of 100, has been used to fuel the Indy 500 cars for the last 20 years.

The second reason for basing the economy on methanol as the alternative fuel is that from methanol you can make any other organic compound.

Related to this is the fact that you have an excellent way to recycle CO2.

Now, last Friday, on Science Friday, Ira Flatow covered a novel, biologic way of producing Hydrogen which is FAR more efficient than splitting water (The claim is that it is 10 times more efficient, and it is scalable).

The problem Ira Flatow points out is that there is no infrastructure available for hydrogen; it is both difficult to store and transport.

Of course, if we had a source of CO2, we could make methanol.

What do you think?

Vijay,
I was wondering what will cause the switch to biomass ethanol, I feel it's very important and I can't wait to see the days when there is a spot where you can just see acres upon acres of switch grass, but my hoping for that won't make that come true, what do you think will start the conversion process to converting corn ethanol plants to biomass ethanol plants? The ratio of the amount of energy we are spending to get this corn ethanol with the amount of energy we are getting out of the process is alarmingly small compared to the huge outputs of energy we could create with biomass ethanol.
Why is it that car manufacturers do not produce the current technologies the world has? e.g. The PHEV version of the Prius, it's economical and I know more people would want it if they could get it at a retailer, even with an increased cost. So why don't manufacturers produce these?
Also VW - Brazil has Total-Flex which can be run on 100% alcohol from sugar cane which is essentially similar to our ethanol or it can be run on 100% gasoline, what is stopping that technology from spreading throughout the globe?
I understand that by doing these things are not economical in the short run, but after these things got going it would be economical for the producers and the consumers and would pay off in very little time.

Wow, glad to see so many folks - with so many terrific questions - already. Check back in tomorrow for answers from Vijay Vaitheeswaran. Since he's with us all week, don't hesitate to add more!

-Julia

Vijay - a couple of questions: 1) Are we creating a future ground water pollution crisis from all these batteries? What happens to batteries that are worn out? In a landfill? 2) Do these cutting edge batteries use rare elements? If so, will there be enough for mass production? 3) When you look at the $98,000 Tesla, what drives the cost up so much? If the Tesla were mass produced, what do you think it could be built for?

Thanks!!

Thank you James, I'll check in with Vijay Vaitheeswaran for the status on answers.

I live on the north shore of a lake in Minnesota...there is always wind, especially between cabins, which acts like a funnel to accelerate the wind. I like vertical wind generators but I think they are too expensive. It would be a good way to help offset coal powered electrical energy...southern exposure would be good for sun powered electrical solar panels...alas, I am not wealthy. If we could get a good design and really mass produce these wind generators, maybe the price could go down. I don't like all the jobs going to China, but...of all things to import, these would more sense than lead painted toys. I also think that if the electrical power companies could mount these vertical wind generators on top of all or some of their power poles and feed the energy directly into the grid that could make an impact.

In many parts of the country, there is a seeming rush to build ethanol plants. I have been driving small cars for most of my life (I'm 52), and would love to purchase another small vehicle that would run on E-85. However just about every flex-fuel vehicle that I am aware of is either a pickup or a mini-van. Is it really that difficult for the manufacturers to build them, or is there some other nefarious reason why every new vehicle could not be flex-fueled? If only a very small proportion of vehicles are flex-fueled (as is the case), I do not see where the market will be for all the ethanol that will soon be on the market.
Thanks Vijay!

Gayland H wrote: I think we depend on nuclear energy for the production of less than 10% of our electricity yet countries in Europe have embraced it. Nuclear reactors are responsible for providing the energy to generate over 70% of France's electricity and about 50% of Sweden's. These countries have educated their public as they embrace nuclear. Until we do the same here in the U.S. we are stuck with fossil fuels for creating most of our electricity. If we want to embrace a hydrogen based economy for fuel cells for cars we must create hydrogen. This requires massives amounts of electricity. Again - we're back to how to create the electricity. I'd like to see a serious discussion begin in this country on the need to embrace nuclear.


Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran replied: As an engineer by training, I am comfortable with the view that nuclear power can be safe and geological waste disposal managed properly. Unlike some greens, I believe nuclear power should be allowed to compete for power generation in the future because it does not emit greenhouse gases. However, my beef with new nuclear is that it is one of the most expensive ways to make electricity, on either a per kw basis or on a net present value/ lumpy capital cost assessment. My view is that government policy should never, ever pick technology winners or subsidize particular technologies, be that nuclear or wind or whatever. Therefore, if nuclear power fans want to build new plants without subsidies (or the billions of dollars in hidden subsidies congress is granting the industry through production credits, taxpayer-financed risk insurance, and so on) then go for it! In real life, I predict that in liberalized energy markets where the cost of capital matters, nuclear power---once considered too cheap to meter---will prove to be too costly to matter.

This is a response to Bruce L's question on ehtanol. I would recommend doing a lot of research before buying an ethanol flex fuel vehicle so that you can use ethanol. Ethanol, in my opinion, is a boondoggle. First, there is a question as to whether making ethanol takes up more energy to produce than it yields. Second, each gallon of ethanol takes 5 to 7 gallons of water to process. With billions of gallons of ethanol plants to be on line in MN, the impact on our aquafers could be a big problem. One town's aquafer was all ready sucked almost dry by an ethanol plant. Third - cars using ethanol get significantly lower miles per gallon on ethanol than on gas and it is unclear whether this, combined with emissions from growing the the corn, actually decreases net greenhouse emissions. Fourth - in addition to the water used for processing ethanol, corn fields use huge amounts of water. There are individual farmers in America that pump over 1 billion gallons of water (yes one billion) out of the ground to irrigate their corn fields. The corn then emits this water into the atmosphere, and water vapor is a greenhouse gas. All in all, I believe a thorough review of ethanol as a means of reducing global warming will show it to be a joke, with the only reason it is being made being the tax subsidies that it receives.

If someone wanted to drive 'greener' now, do you have thoughts on the advantages of buying a diesel SUV with the intention of running bio-fuel 80-100? Or would you just recommend getting a Prius?

Tasya:

The much more environmentally sound option would be to keep the car you have and drive less.

Want to use half the amount of gas to get to the grocery store? Walk next door, and offer your neighbor a ride to the grocery store. Ask if they can drive next week. Want to use a third as much gas? Go out your door and walk the other way, and repeat. Or God forbid: walk, bike or bus to the grocery store.

The environmental cost of producing, and eventually disposing of, either of the vehicles you proposed buying will go a long way in mitigating any gas/emission savings you generate.



Of course, if by 'greener' you mean trendier, then I would suggest the Prius.

I'm sorry to seem harsh, but so many of the proposed 'solutions' for this problem simply rob Peter to pay Paul. It is very frustrating that everyone seems to think that simply throwing money at this problem will make it go away.

Also, in response to Vijay's response on government subsidies: How do you square you beliefs on government not subsidising technology with government's indirect subsidies of automobile travel? In particular through zoning laws that make walkable communities virtually impossible to produce?