Fueling the Future:
No Magic Bullets

September 18, 2009

A host of contradictory messages surround the topic of energy, both inside and outside the Beltway. Some warn that we are in danger of running out of affordable fuels, while others emphasize the dangers of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

“We have no magic bullet solutions to the energy problems we face,” says Paul Ronney of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. “We can have convenience, economy, and environmental protection — but we have to choose any two.” He notes that many proposed solutions, like electric cars, carry hidden costs.

On the subject of energy shortages, Ronney is optimistic. “We have been 40 years from running out of fuel for more than a century and half,” he points out, adding that new sources continually present themselves. Enormous amounts of petroleum remain in existing, known deposits, and can be extracted simply through improved methods, he explains. And if the price of oil goes over $100 a barrel, we can convert abundant coal into liquid fuel using well known industrial techniques.

But the problem of CO₂ emissions is much more intractable, and involves complicated trade-offs. Electric vehicles are a classic example of the difficulty, according to Ronney. “You wouldn’t believe how much energy we spend to save a little fuel.”

The production of electric vehicles involves large financial costs in mining and manufacturing components, environmental costs in mining lead, and energy costs in mining copper. Cars that rely on battery systems have a shorter life than fuel-powered vehicles, and the energy used to recharge them adds to the greenhouse burden, particularly if it comes from coal-fired plants.

The solution is basic conservation, based on understanding of all elements of the fuel cycle, Ronney says. And some answers may be extremely low-tech. He explains that the best and cheapest way to store electrical energy is to use water and gravity: pumping it uphill in low-demand periods, allowing it to run downhill when power is needed.

Ronney concludes that there is an unavoidable bottom line: “We can use alternative forms of energy, but it will cost more and it will be less convenient. But that will have to happen if we’re going to have significant reductions in CO₂ emissions.”

Paul Ronney, professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, is an expert on fuels, engines and combustion. He is qualified as an astronaut and has had numerous experiments conducted at the International Space Station.