Development pace accelerates for best anti-terrorist, anti-CO2 weapon

Now that the financial markets seem to be taking a short break from the hysteria, I've had some time to check for any new developments related to one of the very best anti-terror weapons on the horizon: ultra-high-capacity batteries and capacitors.  Good news: I found several items that tell me we just might be able to pull this off a lot sooner than I'd thought; see the several links at the end of this article. 

Why batteries are anti-terror weapons
If you missed my energy series, here's a summary of why ultra batteries or ultra capacitors would be a hugely valuable weapon in the terror war: (1) Money flows to the Islamic jihadists largely (and mostly indirectly) because of USA demand for such a large portion of the world's oil production.  (2) Half of the oil we need is due to the gasoline we consume.  (3) We wouldn't need all that gasoline if new technology paved the way to safe, affordable, ultra-high-capacity batteries or capacitors for our automobiles.  (4) If the USA didn't need all that gasoline, the world wouldn't need to buy nearly as much oil.  (5) If the world didn't need to purchase nearly as much oil... well, you can finish that thought. 

National security, national wealth, new jobs
The sooner we achieve the ultracapacitor breakthrough, the better for our national security, our homeland economy, and the demand for our exports.  At first, we could recharge our cars by plugging them into an electrical outlet during nonpeak nighttime hours, when our utilities have excess capacity.  After that, we'd need to build a few more (nuclear) power plants.  Subsequently, if and when affordable home- or locally-generated wind or solar power became economically viable, we could "fill up" our cars from those sources.  And we could accomplish all of that right here in North America. 

Oh yeah, the environment, too
By the way, I almost forgot: A successful battery-or-capacitor breakthrough would also yield a pleasant side benefit for believers in the hypothesis that global warming is mainly caused by human CO2 emissions.  Judging from the headlines I see, that hypothesis seems to have gained a sizable constituency, mostly on the government-knows-best side of the spectrum.  [Personally, I'm on the fence, looking for compelling evidence and scientific-method arguments, from either side, that refute the opposing side's objections—but so far most of what I see are appeals to join one ideological bandwagon or the other.] 

No matter.  The ultra-battery will make that acrimonious debate laughably irrelevant—and the sooner that happens, the better, as far as I'm concerned.  Why?  Because the right ultrabattery could provide the entire world's population with a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine.  Imagine 100% of the world's car-driving population driving as many miles as they want, but emitting no CO2 at all from their vehicles—thanks to the new technology they imported or licensed (...from North America?).  Wouldn't that be a better solution than some kind of new law that merely held Americans (6% of the world's population) to a level near their current level of CO2 emission? 

In fact, now that I think about it, that's another reason I am so looking forward to a breakthrough in ultra batteries: an end to the partisan bickering about carbon dioxide emissions.  New technology saved the trees (...when coal replaced woodburning in England); new technology saved the whales (...when Colonel Edwin Drake discovered oil in Titusville, PA); new technology can also save us from the politically-charged CO2 debate.  Everybody would be a winner (...except, of course, those whose true agenda is politics, not science). 

I can hardly wait.  Bring on the batteries.

================

[Caution: the articles below are encouraging, but so far they aren't mentioning the key statistic that will tell us if we're getting close to the goal of replacing the need for gasoline: energy density, usually expressed in kilowatt-hours per kilogram—"kwh/kg".  Gasoline stores energy equal to about 13 kwh/kg, for example.  If an ultrabattery or ultracapacitor could get halfway to that number, the future would suddenly begin looking very bright.] 

With that, here are some interesting articles from the last week or two:

• Ultracapacitor-assisted Toyota Supra wins endurance race.

• MIT's A123 Systems helping GM's electric car project.

• Paper/nanotube batteries made in a laboratory setting.

• Johnson Controls poised for battery breakthrough.

• Crazy, secretive company Eestor may (or may not) be onto something big.

Comments

[salvatorem]

Steve,
Any battery, whether new technology or the old fashioned lead-acid type, will require recharge. Therefore, the utility power plant furnishing the watts needed for recharge will need to consume btu's to deliver to deliver those watts to your battery charger. So the net amount of btu's consumed remains about the same, as does the net amount of pollutants, unless of course the recharge comes from a nuclear power plant.

If the issue is a battery that will last a long time, then the new technology batteries have some merit. Keep in mind that a high capacity battery will require a larger amount of watts for recharge, therefore a larger quantity of btu's will be needed from the local utility company.

If the issue is reducing CO2, then nuclear power plants are required.

If the issue is finding the cheapest source for producing electricity, then oil, gas, coal, i.e., fossil fuels, are still in the lead. They will probably remain so until the most easily extracted forms are depleted, at which time the U.S. will gravitate toward the next cheapest forms.

[Steve]

salvatorem:
You're right. But oil independence is what we achieve first with a hyperbattery or hypercapacitor; besides that, the large scale steam turbines at power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines at converting fossil fuel into vehicle mileage. Anti-fossil fuel people should smile on that, and then get behind a nuke-building program to replace or supplement the coal plants, as well as the Yucca Mountain project to organize the disposal of nuclear waste deep in the ground inside that geologically stable rock formation. (All the above assumes anti-fossil fuel is the top priority, of course.)

[mark]

Only problem is tommorrow never gets here. The terror owned states know what they have to do to keep us hooked.
The technology exist today. The major hurdle is money. Big business will not take the lead because big business does not give a hoot about national security (unless it means big bonuses for management). And middle class America does not have the money to pay for the up front cost.
Hybrid cars exist today as does the technology to charge these cars from the grid. Most commutes to work could be done on the battery alone so the gas engine could be shut off (but still be there for longer trips). Residential solar and wind systems exist today. A spare battery for the car could be charging during the day (from the solar or wind system) and swapped for the next day's commute.
Is this the most cost effective or efficient solution (compared to burning fossil fuels)? Absolutely not. But how much money do we send to terror states for oil and then pay for a war to fight them?
What's wrong with giving the American people (not big business) tax credits to pay for the above systems. Sure it will run up the deficit, but Steve often says two things: "it's what we get for the money" and "we never have to pay the principle, only the interest". Maybe someone with a lot of time and a calculator can sit down and compare the cost of the interest on the debt with the money spent for foriegn oil and the war. I don't have to run the numbers, common sense gives me the answer today!.

[Bob]

I'll jump in by stating that I am a fervent supporter of electric personal transportation...for all of the reasons Steve stated.

That stated, there will be infrastructure issues...all hotly debated. For example: what about the people that don't have a garage?

However, some of the objections I see bounced around are not supported with facts. That's partly because there are still unknowns. Nevertheless, until we know how much juice it takes to charge these things, the affect on capacity and what the net
affect on CO2 will be, the objections are nothing more than negative thinking.

There is one fly in the ointment, though. Unfortunately it appears our government is all too inclined
to make friends in the Middle East
by ensuring them that oil revenue will sustain them. I'm thinking of the Saudi's in particular though it is clear the Iraq is in the mix as well. Geopolitical strategy is a drug for the intellegista and WDC elites.

[James Aach]

You've highlighted a key point: battery improvements would be a great thing with respect to energy issues. There's two levels of possible improvement: A good car-sized battery (probably on the way)is a nice start. A battery for storing the massive amounts of electricity needed to help support the grid (a bit further away) would make use of intermittent renewable sources far more practical.

As someone who works in the electric energy sector, one of my major concerns is that pundits, the press, the politicians and the public seem to be far removed from how much electricity we produce and use, and what goes into producing it. When making decisions about our energy future, I think we need to start by first understanding our energy present. So I've written an introduction to my own field of expertise - nuclear power. To avoid reader boredom "Rad Decision" is the form of a thriller novel. It's available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and is also in paperback. Reader reviews at the homepage have been very positive.

"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, National Book Award winner, noted futurist.

[rufus]

THIS is an excellent first step:

http://biopact.com/2007/08/nuclear-power-complex-that-integrates.html

[Matt]

Steve,
This post has absolutely NOTHING to do with your last article but I came across it and found it so funny that I just had to post it ASAP.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Illegal application

Application to become illegal
(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his Democrat Senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue
Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the
Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the
process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to
illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the
Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's
provisions is accurate, an illegal alien needs to have been in the U.S
for five years. If he then wishes to become a citizen he needs only to
pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I
know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process
started before others figure out the advantages.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay
taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two
years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way
that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an
excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in
2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local
emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped
paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could
save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter
would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school
applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges
throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the
burden of renewing my driver's license and making those annoying car
insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still
have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become
illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms,
I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

[rufus]

Then, there's THIS:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uoia-sne082007.php

[James Dhimmi]

I hear this argument often, that reduducing our dependecy on Mid-East oil will inevitably stem the tide of terrorism, but I'm not too sure.

Certainly, in the short term, Saudi princes and Iranian oligarchs who are sympathetic to jihadism will not be able to fund global terrorist movements,nor build as many madrassa missionaries in foreign lands. This will give us a leg up.

However; consider that the only source of income for many people in gulf-states is some kind of socialist oil-wealth distribution, and that by cutting it off, we are likely to see rampant poverty and destitution in these societies, not seen since the famines of Ethiopia in the 1980's. The totalitarian governments prevent innovation and economic growth by any other means than petro-dollars, and the Islamic fascist stranglehold over the lives of individuals will likely become entrenched. More everyday muslims will turn to fundamentalist Islam as a desparate attempt to assuage their woes.

Hatred and anger towards the west will grow, rather than wane, at least in those petrollous countries, the west and the Jews will be blamed for all of their ills - the way Hamas blames Israel for the humanitarian crises in Gaza today.

Global communications technology is already out of the bag, there will still be means to spread jihadism on the internet - so it is not absolutely necessary to spread the ideology with boatloads of money.

The violence, tyranny, and misogyny inherent to fundamentalist Islam must be confronted and repudiated by muslims if we are to ultimately end the threat of terrorism, and I fear that simply cutting off the life-blood of the people of the Middle-East is not the ultimate solution, in fact, it might ultimately make the problem worse in the long run.

[Bob]

James,

I've heard your argument before. Assuming we have to wait for terrorists to extinguish themselves, possibly through an enlightenment of non-radicals (if there is such a thing) let me ask a few questions:

Would you rather fight well funded terrorists or impoverished ones?

Would you rather have a technology to license and/or export that not only solves a pressing problem at home but can also contribute to prosperity world wide or are you content with a status quo that is more likely to constrain economic growth?

What would be your reaction to Japan, Germany, India or France announcing a major breakthrough in energy storage before us?

[Kevin]

Just a couple of sober thoughts:

a) Nothing about energy policy will make terrorism go away. Terrorism will remain alive and well whether or not the US is buying any Mideast oil. Might help slightly to decrease their funding -- but oil is not the root cause of terrorism, and batteries will not make it go away. And the US will continue to engage in international geopolitics even if Mr. Fusion is invented tomorrow.

b) There are some 230 million cars in the US, and new cars sales only run about 16 - 17 million a year. Even if the perfect electric car were available right now, it would be many years for its manufacturing and sales to go from zero to a significant portion of the new car market, and decades more to displace gas burners in the total fleet.

If the perfect electric car -- better in every way than internal combustion cars and cheaper to boot -- were rolled out tomorrow, we're talking 30-40 years before it represents a preponderance of cars on the road. But in fact it won't be here tomorrow. Gas is here for a long, long time.

(On the other hand, this gradualism is one reason we need not worry about the load on the grid from plug-ins. That's a moot issue.)

[Kevin]

*** What would be your reaction to Japan, Germany, India or France announcing a major breakthrough in energy storage before us? ***

My reaction would be "Fantastic -- we'll benefit from that technology just as they will, but we didn't have to spend the money on R&D."

[Ken]

I think Steve is incorrect with the anti-terror benefit. There was plenty of terrorism when oil was only $15/barrel. And its not like the financial cost of doing terrorist acts is that high. I'd bet 9/11 didn't cost the terrorists more than a couple million in U.S dollars. McVeigh took out an entire federal building for probably less than $10,000. Part of the reason terrorism exists because the barrier to entry is low.

Furthermore, much of the terrorist's money comes from (or came from until some crackdowns) false Arabic/Islamic charities. And those charities were supported by Western Arabs as well as the rich oil states.

[Bob]

Kevin:

Many people subscribe to the view that we are in a long struggle with the jihadi's or whatever you want to call them. Some include all of Islam. However, if we use your logic we should continue along the same path pumping petro dollars to a region that is supportive of something we are battling against. No pun intended but why add fuel to the fire?

I don't think reasonable people would argue that it would take some time to replace internal combustion vehicles with electric powered ones. However, there is always a starting point for something. Until a viable product is available I don't think we really know just how long it will take. But, it didn't take decades for the personal computer to find it's way onto every corporate desktop or many, many homes.

Regarding your thoughts on saving R&D dollars it occurred to me that
if that had been the prevailing thought in our history folks like Thomas Edison and John Bardeen, William Shockley and William Brattain (co-inventors of the transistor), just to name a very few, may never have invented what they did and the subsequent businesses established here may never have been created.

I'm wondering if you would rather be forced to buy something from an entity that increases their economic output or would rather sell something to them that would increase our economic output?

[Kevin]

Bob, I'm not saying we shouldn't develop electric cars and other forms of alt energy, and I certainly recognize the problem of radical Islam.

I'm just pointing out that people often get unrealistic in their expectations, and ignore some real-world facts like the amount of time it will take to replace the world's nearly one billion existing vehicles.

But I certainly think people do get far too carried away with the idea that it must be the United States that invents everything, or else we will be harmed somehow. That is nonsense. As long as we have free markets and take care of a few other basics, our economic output will continue to be limited primarily by our available working population, just as it is now.

[Mirco]

Jihadist will not be deterred from the ultracapacitors.
But they will have major problems without so much money from oil.
The saudis will not be able to continue to fund mosques and preachers in US, Canada, EU, and so on.
Without the oil dollars, the saudis and the iranians will be subject to major economic crisis; and with the biofuel the price of the oil will be linked to the price of food. And they need to buy food to eat, buy drugs to cure, buy tech gadgets, TV, and so on. When the economy will go in turmoil the foreign workers (25% of the populations) will go home, and the economy will nosedive.
Then the jihadist will need to worry about food and not the jihad.