To the Editor: The discussion of hydrogen as a fuel for cars ("Easy on the Gas," July) omits the production process, energy balance, and sources of energy to produce the hydrogen. There is no free lunch. BP's planned hydrogen power plant would convert carbon in petroleum coke and recycled water into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen would fuel an integrated gasification combined-cycle station. The process is economical because the carbon dioxide can be used to enhance oil production. BP is seeking federal government subsidies (our income taxes).

The article concentrates on cars that could save gasoline, but will owners drive more miles? Owners of larger cars don't care how much gas costs. How about the jet set? How about trains for long hauls and trucks for short hauls?

Saving energy is a worldwide problem. Goods manufactured in the United States, Canada, and Mexico would use much less energy for our citizens than goods manufactured in China. We have to make up our minds whether to save energy or money, and not just concentrate on small cars and the poorest people.

Joseph J. Neff
Indianapolis

To the Editor: The Big 3 will go bankrupt if U.S. drivers switch from gas-guzzlers to 27-average-mile-per-gallon, five-passenger cars. The $65 hourly UAW labor rate, doesn't allow the Big 3 to make a profit on cars, hence the growing transplant market share. Europeans choose great gas mileage vehicles because of their 65 percent gas tax versus the U.S.'s 13 percent. That equates to European $4.80 a gallon for diesel fuel and $5.40 for regular gasoline.

Diesels, with their one-third less fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, are the European choice because of reduced taxes. Americans will switch to more efficient vehicles only when it really hurts compared to their hourly labor rate. Currently, a 27-mpg car costs about $4.45 per hour for $3-per-gallon fuel versus $8.57 hourly for the 14-mpg SUV or pickup. That's a big chunk of income for a $9 hourly worker, but acceptable for a $20 hourly worker.

It will take $5-per-gallon fuel to cause U.S. downsizing to Japanese- and European-type five-passenger cars. The savings from using 27-mpg cars these past 35 years for our 27,000 annual miles has helped us save and invest for a comfortable retirement. Our next second car will be a more fuel-efficient Honda Civic. Hybrids, with their higher cost, make sense only for those making a fashionable political statement. It is energy inefficient to convert $3-per-gallon diesel fuel into $4- per-gallon ethanol through the process of planting, growing, harvesting, and transporting corn.

To the Editor: Perhaps I kid myself, but it seems to me that more and more readers of Mechanical Engineering are thinking critically about issues of a national energy policy. In the June issue, three of the six letters you published concerned energy policy.

I think ASME should take an active role in framing the debate about national energy policy. Substantial national-energy articles in the magazine, even creation of a new ASME subcommittee on national energy, are things the Society could do to capture the high ground in this evolving national debate.

To the Editor: I would like to use this platform to express my personal congratulations to Dr. Terry E. Shoup, P.E., for assuming the high office of president of ASME. Truly, this is no mean achievement. There is a huge task ahead of Dr. Shoup and ASME as a whole in improving the Society.

I am very happy with Dr. Shoup's vision for the Society as he outlined clearly his focus on early-career engineers, meeting their needs since they are the future of ASME and engineering. Considering the experience the new president has received from being a member of the ASME Council on Education and his great concern for K-12 activities, I strongly believe the Society very soon will be experiencing a turn in the right direction.

I would like the president also to consider more international support for the Society, encouraging those who wish to establish international centers. This would be fulfilling the Society's strategic objective of globalization.

To the Editor: I wish to comment on the article that appeared in the May issue, "One Step Back, One Giant Leap Forward," by John F. Connolly.

The proposed design for a moon exploration vehicle is just an enhanced redesign of the Apollo project. We have already been there, and taken the giant leap for mankind.

The Space Shuttle program was implemented to design a reusable space vehicle that would be both robust and progressive. Rather than enhance the Apollo project, the shuttle project should have been enhanced. A new delta wing space vehicle could be used to transport material, passengers, and crew to and from moon orbit for future exploration.

Rather than develop new non-progressive space programs, the current one should be enhanced to implement the International Space Station as a space terminal, which could be used for safety purposes, and the moon as a deep space exploration terminal, again with safety facilities.

The technology already exists in the shuttle and ISS programs, and just needs enhancement. For human safety purposes, the new moon shuttle transport system could be made robotic. The technology already exists for this as well, in the numerous space probes we have in deep space, and satellites in Earth orbit. We already have a biosphere in space—our planet Earth. All we have to do is find ways of carrying it around with us.

To the Editor: May God help us with new opportunities. I think mechanical engineers in our society may need the help most when I read about employment issues in your Letters section.

May I comment on a few areas?

Nuclear waste: One way to resolve this question might be to have proponents of nuclear power live voluntarily for three-year periods on the Chernobyl site in Russia, the Three Mile Island site in the U.S., and at the spent fuel site in the state of Washington. Not really a good idea for anyone, recalling what I learned in a course on nuclear fallout analysis.

Ethanol fuel: The Minneapolis Tribune ran an article on running out of water resources in the area. It also mentioned that three gallons of water are required to produce a gallon of ethanol.

Car of the future: My expectation for cars, given the concerns expressed in Mechanical Engineering, is that they will be powered by inexpensive gas turbines running on pulverized animal and human wastes burned in high-pressure pulse combustion gasifiers. The Milwaukee Sanitary District developed Milorganite during World War II as an odorless fertilizer to replace the products produced commercially that were diverted for munitions use. The local newspapers report regularly that another pig manure spill occurred, depositing millions of gallons into streams and rivers.

To the Editor: This letter is in response to Fred Wenthen's letter, "Kicking a Habit" (May).

I am a graduating electromechanical engineering student at Wentworth Institute of Technology, and I just completed a yearlong engineering design course. The focus of my design was the generation of hydrogen using dc power from a wind turbine.

We built and tested a small-scale (33-inch) wind turbine and conducted extensive experimental research on the electrolysis of water and the power required to generate hydrogen. Our group found that generating hydrogen via wind-powered electrolysis is quite viable and is a completely green method of hydrogen generation.

The one snag that the design encountered was the physical storage of the hydrogen considering the heavy energy costs associated with such processes. The design, the "hybrid wind electrolysis synergy system," integrated a dynamic electrolysis system that switches node combinations, to alter the electrical load on the generator according to turbine speed to maintain a low voltage (2V), the voltage most ideal for electrolysis, while maximizing the amount of power allocated to hydrogen generation.

The project was very successful and took first prize at the ASME Boston Regional Paper Competition on April 18, 2006, at Wentworth Institute of Technology.

Upon reading Fred Wenthen's letter, I was quite excited that others were thinking along the same lines as I was, and wanted to let others know that the young engineers of the new graduating classes are thinking green and are tackling today's societal problems with innovation and ambition.

To the Editor: In the June issue (Letters), Stan Jakuba wrote: "Other renewable sources ... are not going to make an appreciable difference on the scale of mankind's present and projected energy use." I agree, but not with the conclusion that we should turn to nuclear energy.

I hope that I am not the only engineer in existence who believes that we, as architects of technology, have a certain amount of social responsibility. Not just to provide for humankind and improve living conditions, but to know when to put our collective foot down.

We all know there are limits involved with the development of the modern world, and, of course, the argument is always what the limit is, but nonetheless, we know it exists.

Our society was designed to grow and prosper, which is great up to a point. But growth has limits, self-imposed or not. If we don't impose these limits on ourselves, then the natural world will.

I believe we are facing a decision that will be the turning point in human history.

We need to start designing technology to promote a slower rate of growth, not continue to advance technologies that promote irresponsible growth. By turning to nuclear energy, we are just allowing ourselves to push beyond the natural limits even further—with potentially disastrous consequences.

Perhaps this time we should pay attention to the limits imposed on us by our environment.

We are capable of surviving on renewable energy sources ... if we're smart enough to realize that growth has limits and adapt to that premise.

To the Editor: The article "No Hurry to Recycle" in the May issue conveys a message that conflicts with other information.

Nuclear "waste" recycling allows for the extraction of more than 100 times as much energy as the first pass, and greatly reduces the volume of high-level waste to be managed per kilowatt-hour produced.

Recycling is currently being carried out in France (La Hague), U.K. (Sellafield), and Russia (Mayak). Japan (Rokkasho) plans to start recycling next year. Recycling would also be done in the United States, were it not for the misguided executive order issued by President Carter in 1977 that blocked it.

Although this executive order was rescinded by President Reagan, industry has decided not to pursue
recycling in this country just yet because of political uncertainty. (President Clinton was against recycling.) The recent public awareness of global warming and the political support for reprocessing may change all that.

home | features | breaking news | marketplace | departments | about ME back issues | ASME | site search

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers