Acknowledgements.

The mundi club would like to thank roland ayers for his many cartoons which help to brighten up what would otherwise have been a dull looking magazine. We hope these are just the first of many more.

SPECIAL PUBLICATION no.8

This publication explores the geophysiological threat posed by so-called green cars. This article was first published in ‘terra firm’ issue 8 but has been extended for this publication.

There are greens who believe that the future of the car depends on a switch from fossil fuels to solar energy. Many of the world’s supergreens, who’ve been driving around in fossil fuelled cars for years, also believe that solar cars will be an essential component of sustainable societies. This article looks at the geophysiological damage likely to be caused by these green Earth-wrecking monstrosities.

i) Greenpeace’s 1,600,000,000 Green Cars.

Greenpeace believes that in order to create a sustainable world it is necessary to abandon the use of fossil fuels. Cars would be fuelled by solar energy which would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenpeace envisages a sustainable future in which, "Vehicles achieve around 100 mpg and are based heavily on solar/wind electric systems and liquid biofuels." In its fossil free energy scenario (ffes) greenpeace has carried out detailed research into the feasibility of green cars so it may be as well to explore the validity of these proposals.

Greenpeace points out that at present, "There are 680 million vehicles on the planet, increasing at the rate of more than one every second, or a new car for every two babies born." It estimates that on a business-as-usual scenario the world vehicle fleet will grow to,

"1,620 million in 2030, and a massive

4,930 million by 2100."

Trying to imagine nearly 5 billion vehicles on Earth is just impossible.

In greenpeace’s ffes the world vehicle fleet would grow only to 1,600 million. Although there would be no Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from these vehicles there would be nearly a billion extra vehicles on the roads in comparison to today’s level, "The total number of road vehicles is constrained to

960 million in 2010,

1,150 million in 2030 and

1,600 million in 2100."

This huge number of vehicles would eventually be fuelled by various types of solar power, "A mix of alternative fuels was assumed. Biofuels meet 10% of fuel use in 2010 and 30% in 2030. Solar electric and solar hydrogen systems were assumed to .. meet 30% of fuel use in 2030 and 80% in 2100. Under these conditions, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels falls more than 40% by the year 2030, and 100% by the year 2100."

There are many car-owning greens who will celebrate greenpeace’s achievement in proposing policies which triple the world’s vehicle fleet whilst abolishing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, greenpeace fails to take into account firstly, the Carbon emissions released by the vehicle, and vehicle related, industries e.g. mining, processing, manufacturing, and disposal etc., and, secondly, the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity caused by the massive increase in the number of:-

roads;

car parks;

petrol filing stations;

motorway cafeterias;

out of town shopping centres;

leisure centres;

hospitals;

car/car component/car accessories factories;

mines to provide raw materials;

super dams to provide electricity to smelt aluminium;

urban sprawl, etc, etc, etc.

Greenpeace has not calculated how much this reduction in the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity would boost global warming - even though it predicts the increase in vehicle numbers would be environmentally safe. But is it feasible to suffocate vast areas of the Earth’s life sustaining processes and not cause an ecological crisis? Instead of admitting that it has not taken into account the damage to the Earth’s life support system and that it has not estimated the consequent rise in global warming, what greenpeace’s car owning environmentalists are doing here is deceiving people into believing that just because it is possible to have 1,600,000,000 vehicles running around the world without producing CO2 emissions then the car must be environmentally safe. The fundamental assumption of the ffes proposals is that as soon as CO2 emissions from the transport sector have been eradicated, the Earth will become a safer, more environmentally friendly, place in which to live. This is a grand green fraud. Greenpeace is using the prospect of abolishing fossil fuel emissions to ensure the continued devastation of the Earth’s life support system.

As if to maintain the illusion that its transport proposals have been carefully costed, greenpeace condemns the fossil fuel industries for not ecologically costing their policies! "Selling energy is a multi-billion dollar industry, involving some of the biggest and most powerful transnational corporations in the world. Little or no account of the environmental implications of using such fuels is taken by the companies who sell them and the governments who base their economies on them." Just who is kidding whom? On this issue greenpeace is just as bad as the fossil fuel industries. Although it measures the reduction in CO2 emissions from vehicle exhausts, it does not measure the Carbon emissions from the vehicle, and vehicle related, industries nor the damage caused by this huge increase in cars on the Earth’s life support system, its Photosynthetic capacity.

ii) Solar Powered Cars.

Green fuels are nothing new. The world’s first cars ran on biofuels. Despite the fact that today it is taken for granted that cars run on petrol/diesel, in the early days of the car, oil companies had to struggle against biofuel suppliers to win customers, "In the early days of oil, it was kerosene that was the industry's most prized product; gasoline was thrown away. Henry Ford's cars were built to run on grain alcohol, produced from corn grown by US farmers. Once a role was found for gasoline, however, the oil companies undertook a massive, orchestrated advertising campaign to convince American drivers that grain alcohol was no longer a modern, fashionable fuel." The following sections examine the variety of ways in which solar energy could be used to fuel solar vehicles.

I: Direct Solar Energy Cars.

It is possible to use solar energy directly to run cars. However, on a global basis this is simply not a feasible option.

II: Battery Driven Cars.

II.A: The Development of Battery Driven Cars.

Some car manufacturers are developing battery powered cars, "Chrysler, Ford and General Motors have joined forces and will spend $130 million on research co-ordinated by their Advanced Battery Consortium during the next 4 years. The companies were shocked into action in 1990 when California passed a law stating that 2% of new cars sold in the state must be emission free by 1998." The most advanced models today can do 100mph but, after a 60 mile journey, the battery needs recharging - typically taking two to three hours. "The French government is .. installing recharging terminals in every major city by 1995 ... Oslo, Norway .. is currently planning 10,000 electric cars on the roads of Norway by 2000 and the authorities are preparing for unlimited parking in the country’s city centres. In addition the government is considering dropping duties and taxes on electric vehicles, so the transition from pollution to ‘pollution free’ motoring will be painless!"

II.B: The Solar Sources of Electricity for Battery Driven Cars.

Electricity to recharge batteries could be obtained from a wide range of sources. Although batteries could be powered by fossil fuel generated electricity the following sections will examine only solar sources of electricity.

II.B.a) Solar Energy.

"In the United States, there are signs that solar power generation may be approaching the point where it can compete economically with oil, gas and coal. At least, the Enron Corporation, the largest natural-gas company in that country, is betting that that day comes sooner rather than later. Enron is investing $150 million in a solar power plant in the desert of southern Nevada which will produce sufficient electricity for a (new? ed) city of 100,000 people (and their cars? ed). The plant will be over ten times larger than any previously built and that means that the costs of the solar-power cells will drop as a result of mass production." The amount of energy which could be generated by solar power stations totally dwarfs the energy currently being obtained from fossil fuels, "A 1,000-megawatt solar thermal facility would require 24 square kilometres of land. Meeting all US electricity needs with this technology would thus require about 29,000 square kilometres, an area one tenth the size of Arizona."

II.B.b) Wind Energy.

Oil wells could be replaced by wind farms to generate electricity for battery operated cars.

II.B.c) Wave Energy.

Wave power could also be used to generate electricity.

II.B.d) Hydro-Electric Power.

Hydro-electric power could be used to generate electricity.

II.B.e) Biomass (Manure) Energy.

Manure from humans and factory pharm Animals could be used to produce electricity, "A pioneering London based firm called Fibrowatt has already set up two power stations fuelled by poultry litter. Rupert Fraser, finance director of Fibrowatt, said the company’s new stations at Eye, suffolk and Glanford, South Humberside would be competitive within five years. And he added, "As it is we are producing energy from a genuinely renewable source and with significant environmental benefits.""; "In December the government finally announced its first round of support for renewable energy in Scotland. The Scottish Renewables Obligation gives the go-ahead to 30 projects: 12 wind farms, 15 small hydro schemes; 2 landfill gas projects and a biomass project - utilising 110,000 tonnes of poultry farm litter."

II.B.f) Organic Waste.

Organic waste consists of household rubbish such as food waste, paper etc., which could be used to generate electricity.

II.B.g) Phytomass (Crops).

Crops could be grown to provide fuel to generate electricity. However, this would be a waste of resources since it would be more efficient to convert Phytomass directly into a transport fuel rather than use it as a source of energy to produce electricity. The argument highlighted in the last paragraph also applies here.

II.B.h) Phytomass (Forest Plantations).

Forest plantations could be grown to provide fuel to generate electricity.

II.B.i) Phytomass (Aquatic).

1. Photoplankton.

Photoplankton is a microscopic plant which provides the primary source of food for marine life. It could be harvested from the oceans and converted into energy, "Algae could be converted into fuel for car engines and power stations."

2. Hyacinths.

"Sewage enriched warm water can produce several tons of hyacinths each day which is enough to yield several thousand cubic feet of methane."

Unfortunately, there is very little information about aquatic Phytomass. This could be one of the largest sources of Phytomass for electricity generation. However, there are limitations. Plankton cannot grow in the tropics because the waters are clear which exposes Plants to high levels of ultra violet radiation from the sun. The optimal conditions for plankton are in the polar regions where levels of ultra violet radiation are lower.

II.C: The Geophysiological Damage Caused by Battery Driven Cars.

The following geocentric analysis is only a sketch of some of the many factors involved in assessing the geophysiological damage caused by battery driven, solar electric cars. A comprehensive analysis is not required for the purposes of this article.

II.C.a) The Damage to the Demand Side of the Carbon Spiral Caused by Battery Driven Cars.

1. The Phytosynthetic Damage Caused by the Manufacture of Solar Electricity Generating Equipment.

The manufacture of solar electricity generating equipment would take place in factories which suffocate the Earth’s life support system. The amount of land suffocated could turn out to be quite extensive, "Wind energy appears poised to become a major source of electricity, and one of the largest manufacturing industries in the 21st century."

The manufacture of solar cars would take place in factories which also suffocate the Earth’s life support system.

Gerald leach criticizes biomass energy for two reasons both of which have th effect of reducing Photosynthesis. Firstly, "Among the largest uncertainties are the environmental impacts of energy plantations or other biomass supplies including nutrient leaching, insect attack, disease, and land use competition." Secondly, "In virtually every present method of biomass energy production, all the plant material is removed and converted to fuels or animal feed residues that are too valuable to return to the soil. (The single, notable, exception is again biogas production; in China the nitrogen rich fertiliser residue is considered a more important byproduct than the gas itself). The loss of most or all of the plant material that is normally recycled to maintain soil structure and fertility is potentially far more serious. Several studies have recently established that if husbanding the soil is given high priority, the potential for net production of biomass energy from each acre of land is drastically reduced."

Vast areas of land might be damaged to provide solar electricity for cars e.g:-

* turning over land for the growing of energy crops;

* inundating land under reservoirs to producer hydro-electric power,

* suffocating land under solar collectors, "A 1,000-megawatt solar thermal facility would require 24 square kilometres of land. Meeting all US electricity needs with this technology would thus require about 29,000 square kilometres, an area one tenth the size of Arizona."

* although wind pharms would not suffocate the land's Photosynthetic capacity in the same way as solar power stations it would still prevent such areas from being used to grow trees or Forests, "Although wind farms that produce an equivalent amount of power (to the 1,000-megawatt solar thermal facility mentioned above) would cover a wider area, they would not really occupy the land in the same way; indeed, cattle grazing and other activites could go on as before."

Ever since the construction of solar powered electricity generating stations it has been assumed that the stations would last for centuries. It has recently been suggested, however, that they do not have a long life-span, "The life-span of a solar power station is at the most 20 years. .. the materials required for building and operating solar power plants are mostly exhaustible."

An even more dire predicament is that solar power stations can't provide enough energy to build new power stations, "Can the second generation of solar power plants be built with the solar energy produced by the first generation? All presently known recipes for the direct use of solar energy produce a deficit in the general energy balance i.e. they indirectly consume more of some other form(s) of energy than they produce directly. Solar energy is, therefore, only feasible so long as other sources of energy are available. That means it is not viable."

II.C.b) The Boost to the Supply Side of the Carbon Spiral Caused by Battery Driven Cars.

1. The Pollution Caused by the Manufacture of Solar Electricity Generating Equipment.

The manufacture of solar electricity equipment would entail atmospheric pollution.

The manufacture of solar cars would entail atmospheric pollution.

Some sources of solar energy would not cause atmospheric pollution e.g. wind power, but other sources would, e.g. hydro-electric power.

Battery driven cars would not produce exhaust emissions. However, the disposal of batteries would cause pollution which would damage the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity.

II.C.c) The Ecological Damage Caused by Battery Driven Cars.

In California .. "virtually no new power capacity of any kind has been ordered since the mid-eighties. In 1993, California was also plagued by poor winds in the Altamont Pass - site of the world's largest wind farms - and growing controversy over the danger that the machines in the pass pose to birds .. In late 1993, the national Audubon Society's chief scientist called for a moratorium on wind power in areas where migratory birds are active until the problem is better understood and mitigated."

II.D: Conclusions.

Some commentators believe the electric car is one of the best prospects for an environmentally cleaner future. David morris points out that, "Astonishingly, even now electric vehicles are cheaper to own than gas vehicles. EVs do cost more, and their battery packs must be replaced every 3-4 years. But their fuel costs less than half that of gas powered cars. And, aside from checking battery water levels once a month, EVs need no maintenance. Gas engines have 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. EVs do not need pollution control devices, cooling systems, mufflers, spark plugs or fuel pumps." He is so enamoured by the electric car he fantasizes, "Electric cars can eliminate the pollution costs of vehicles."; "With fewer moving parts, ZEVs (zero emission vehicles) will reduce the need to dispose of air and oil filters, mufflers, catalytic converters, waste oil and hoses and belts."

In themselves, electric cars are not necessarily green. All forms of conventional energy (fossil fuels and nuclear power) as well as alternative energy (incinerating rubbish e.g. tyres, factory pharm/human/household, wastes) could be used to generate electricity for battery operated cars. But, "Running on electricity from coal plants, electric cars would actually worsen greenhouse gas emissions. Electric vehicles can therefore offer reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but only if the electricity is provided primarily by non-fossil sources or natural gas." However, the use of natural gas to produce electricity for electric cars is not a long term solution since it is a finite resource.