Politics must aid science in reaching energy goals

Barry Ware's effort to get to China powered by used French fry oil is the kind of story we love — off-beat and on-topic.

The topic Ware addresses, of course, is the energy crisis. He puts a face on the whole boring debate over a national energy policy.

What should Washington do about global warming and the rising price of oil? Ask that inside the corridors of power and pretty soon you're sidetracked onto topics like subsidizing ethanol in order to help farmers and scuttling the Kyoto Accord because big oil fears the tax consequences.

The energy and global warming crises are so much more interesting and easier to understand if one avoids the politics of these issues and looks at the science and engineering instead.

In the info box at right is a list of Web sites that provided answers to some very interesting questions. For instance:

• Why doesn't Detroit make a decent hybrid-powered car?

• Why can't I have a small wind turbine or an array of solar panels on my house?

• Why don't we build more nuclear power plants in this country?

• Why aren't we doing more to reduce greenhouse gases and stop global warming?

• If hydrogen, solar, wind or cold fusion generators will solve the crises of global warming and dwindling petroleum, what's holding things up?

Here's what a quick surf of the 'Net turns up:

Detroit is indeed several years behind Japanese hybrid development, but GM, Daimler Chrysler and BMW have teamed up to develop a new compact transmission. It reduces friction by disengaging the virtually useless electric motor when a hybrid car reaches cruising speed. This efficiency boost, noted on technologyreview.com, may get Detroit — and Germany — back in the hybrid race.

A new lithium-ion battery that doesn't heat up and catch fire is also in the works at GM, but Technology Review thinks GM and BMW don't have a prayer developing cars powered by hydrogen. The auto giants have misread the science, the MIT editors say.

The site goes on and on with the latest on solar, wind and fusion. Despite what comes out of Washington, alternative energy is not being ignored by corporate America or the world's universities.

Careful readers will remember a recent editorial that expressed skepticism about the idea that human-generated CO2 is responsible for global warming. Technology Review and About.com both challenge us to rethink that. The MIT site has a very simple video on the topic. An on-camera engineer says there's only one scientist at MIT who doubts human actions are causing global warming. We got to the Chevron site from About.com, and there, Chevron doesn't defend itself a bit in global warming debate; it talks exclusively about what its doing to reduce CO2 and methane emissions.

The posting on the KGO site gave us a fresh look at nuclear energy. We've expressed doubts about the risks of nukes because nuclear waste has no approved dump site. But Nicholas Kristof, a self-confessed "greenie," makes an excellent scientific point: The health effects of carefully buried spent nuclear fuel rods are minuscule compared to smoke from coal fired generators.

The political debate is seldom informed by such counter-intuitive data. But following the facts is such a refreshing way to look at these issues. Our political leaders might be surprised at how many votes they'd win of they did more of that.

Lodi News-Sentinel