YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis [Archive]

russ_watters

Sep10-04, 11:37 AM

The problems I see are as follows (in order):

1. Pollution, specifically coal: Somewhere around a quarter of our energy usage is in the form of coal - virtually all of that is used to generate electricity. Oil is also a major source of pollution, though its uses (and pollution production) are more diverse. I don't consider nuclear power to be a major (or even minor) source of pollution.

2. Capacity (vs demand): Demand is rising faster than supply and results in increasing costs and more frequent (and more massive) power outages.

3. Foreign dependence: Reducing our emphasis on foreign oil would improve the global political situation somewhat, but more important is reducing our trade deficit.

4. Cost: Obviously solutions cost money, but in the long term, a good solution could reduce energy costs.

My solution is a 30 year, multi-pronged, and three-phased approach:

Phase 1 is short term: 10 years. It will focus on short-term needs and heavily fund research for long-term solutions. It will include:

-Construction of many large, modern nuclear power plants. Five years or so of design and preparation should enable starting construction of 10 a year, taking 5 years to complete, for the indefinite future. By the end of phase 2, it would mean replacement of all existing nuke plants and an overall doubling of capacity from nuclear power. Increases in capacity would start at the end of the 10 year phase 1. This is a major expense: tens of billions of dollars per year.

-Fund alternate energy research heavily. Emphasize things considered viable, but spread money around enough to pick up some speculative research. Fusion and solar power are key. Fund hydrogen fuel cells too, but I'm more concerned with generation than storage. Fund improved fission technologies. Total funding for research would be on the order of ten billion dollars per year.

-Immediately impose heavy regulations to reduce the largest sources of pollution immediately (no 10 year phase-in crap). This means, primarily, coal power plants. Technology exists to greatly reduce their pollution with little difficulty (just money) - require its immediate implimentation. Close other loopholes - trucks and ships aren't as well regulated as cars, for example. This cost would largely be absorbed by the economy, but it would be several tens of billions of dollars.

-Subsidize personal alternate energy, ie solar panels on houses/businesses.

-Reward conservation, ie. give tax incentives for conservation: buying compact fluorescent lights, heat recovery, energy efficient heat/ac, etc.

Phase 2, 10 years, decision-making, development, expansion of Phase 1 solutions. After 10 years of heavy research, we should know where we stand on new technologies. Start implimenting what works, continue research on what is promising, and drop what is not.

-If fusion becomes viable, start planning for massive (and I mean massive) implimentation. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Expand Phase 1 nuclear plant construction (unless a viable alternate is found) and include new technology. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Start de-comissioning coal plants as new nuke plants come online unless significant (and I mean in excess of 99%) reductions in emissions are doable.

-Start implimenting solar solutions: that means ramping up production of 20% efficient solar cells on the order of hundreds of square miles per year (or space-based collectors). This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Start implimenting secondary energy solutions, ie hydrogen fuel cells. Emphasize production and distribution. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Upgrade electric grid to handle upcoming new load and distribution. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

Phase 3: Long term solutions

-Continue nuclear program - fission or fusion:

-If fusion is available, build 10-20 plants, hundreds of terawatts each, and have them take over the vast majority (>90%) of the grid, including expanded capacity for hydrogen generation. This could easily cost a trillion dollars over 10 years.

-If fusion is not available, construct large solar arrays to augment fission capacity. 30-50% of total capacity should be solar. This could also easily cost a trillion dollars over 10 years.

-Close the rest of the coal plants.

-Begin phase-out of gas powered cars.

In my estimation, in 30 years we could transform the way we produce energy in the US. But it wouldn't be cheap: easily $100 billion a year or $3 trillion over the 30 year life of the project. Roughly 1% of our current gdp. Of course, much of this money is recirculated, so its not as simple (or bad) as just sucking it out of the economy.

The benefit after 30 years, would be vastly reduced pollution, vastly increased capacity, assured long term availability/renewability, and lower energy costs going forward.

motai

Sep10-04, 11:56 AM

Phase 2, 10 years, decision-making, development, expansion of Phase 1 solutions. After 10 years of heavy research, we should know where we stand on new technologies. Start implimenting what works, continue research on what is promising, and drop what is not.

-If fusion becomes viable, start planning for massive (and I mean massive) implimentation. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

Hopefully if the progress of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) remains steady, a commercial fusion power plant should be available in the years following 2010.

In my estimation, in 30 years we could transform the way we produce energy in the US. But it wouldn't be cheap: easily $100 billion a year or $3 trillion over the 30 year life of the project. Roughly 1% of our current gdp. Of course, much of this money is recirculated, so its not as simple (or bad) as just sucking it out of the economy.

The benefit after 30 years, would be vastly reduced pollution, vastly increased capacity, assured long term availability/renewability, and lower energy costs going forward.

Its a good plan but...

The only problem in implementing this program is the politics that go along with it. I believe under the Clinton Administration their energy advisor didn't quite know what he was talking about, so America lagged behind in terms of nuclear research. I think the Bush administation's energy advisor wants to continue to build more nuclear plants in the future... and I believe Kerry wants to maintain current nuclear plants.

russ_watters

Sep10-04, 12:02 PM

Its a good plan but...

The only problem in implementing this program is the politics that go along with it. I believe under the Clinton Administration their energy advisor didn't quite know what he was talking about, so America lagged behind in terms of nuclear research. I think the Bush administation's energy advisor wants to continue to build more nuclear plants in the future... and I believe Kerry wants to maintain current nuclear plants. Thanks, and I share your concern: I don't think any politician is really willing to put a serious effort into this and the climate in the public isn't favorable to it either. Being the pessimist I am, I think its going to be 10-20 years of steadily increasing problems (the New York blackout every other month) before people start seriously considering fixing these problems.

In any case, I wanted to focus on problems and solutions here, not politics.

Ivan Seeking

Sep10-04, 10:47 PM

I will give some thought to this later, but I mostly follow the plan outlined by the joint venture between the National Hydrogen Assocication and the DOE, among others. I think these people are on the right tract.

Implemetation Plan"
http://www.hydrogenus.com/implementationplan.asp

Commercialization Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/commercializationplan.asp

PRodQuanta

Sep10-04, 10:51 PM

Dayle's got some good points.

Being in the Midwest, I would love to see biomass become our number one energy supply. i.e.-ethanol. This allows us to become less dependant on foreign oil, but our wealthy politicians who run this place wouldn't want that now, would they!? It doesn't help that some of our countries leaders are so closely tied w/ the oil economy.... CoUgHBuShCoUgH....

I've also done some research on a microbe that will convert any type of sugar to electricity. Why not harvest those, use the same method they use to make ethanol, and feed them the sugar? This would get rid of farm waste also (living on a farm, I'd know).

I dunno... just my OPINION! Whatever you other posters do, make sure you read the word "OPINION" before biting my head off. It is my right.

My $.02

Paden Roder

Artorius

Sep11-04, 10:19 AM

Being in the Midwest, I would love to see biomass become our number one energy supply. i.e.-ethanol. This allows us to become less dependant on foreign oil, but our wealthy politicians who run this place wouldn't want that now, would they!? It doesn't help that some of our countries leaders are so closely tied w/ the oil economy.... CoUgHBuShCoUgH....

In comparison with gasoline, how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere if one gallon of ethanol is burned in an engine? I know that for gasoline, the value is around 20lb. If ethanol releases a substantially smaller amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, it may be a better alternative to gasoline for transportation fuel. Over time, if ethanol is used on a large scale, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may be "scrubbed" back to their pre-industrial levels by the biosphere (this is prob just wishful thinking :tongue2:). But, like you said, with Bush, Inc. in the back pocket of Big Oil, things will not change.

Dayle's got some good points.

I like Dayle's post, too. Instead of placing the burden of the "energy crisis" on engineers to come up with new technology, maybe the burden should be placed on every man, woman, and child to conserve energy resources by changing behavior (by using mass transit, learning to live in hot weather instead of turning on the air conditioner, learning to wear long underwear in the winter, using cloth grocery bags, learning to quit breeding like rabbits, etc.). An intensive educational awareness program of the energy situation and how people can help out is sorely needed. I know that after the brief energy crisis of the 1970's, there was a multitude of such educational initiatives and quick progress in alternative energies. Then oil came back down in price, and we went right back to the status quo of maximization of consumerism. Funny how it all comes back to oil.

That's my $0.02. :smile:

tumor

Sep11-04, 11:05 AM

For start, force people to switch from incadescent lightbulbs to fluorescent ones. In USA fluorescent bulbs are still BIG news.Small steps like this can make big difference.

Cliff_J

Sep11-04, 12:21 PM

I've read that in the most wealthy nations there is not self-sustaining population growth, that the death rate exceeds the new birth rate. However in the poorest nations, this is reversed in dramtic fashion. Even Feyman admitted to not having a clue to how to assist the poorest members of our global society in one of his books. And some controversial (but thought-provoking) ideas have been floated around that the assistance efforts have contributed more to the population growth in the poorest areas to make the problem worse than before the assistance.

But our use of resources does keep increasing, no doubt about that. Russ addressed this in his point of using regulations, taxes, and incentives to change this phenomenon.

And that is my issue, is that the people of the industrialized world won't change the consumption habits without leadership to do so and the policies to provide incentive to change.

Car & Driver did some research into pollution controls on automobiles to see how effective certain policies have been. In short, compared to the pollution emitted by power generation (mostly coal) and industrial pollution the numbers were almost statistically insignificant. Abroad this is even a larger issue as the policies there have yet to even address pollution in many countries, and their problems show little signs of improving.

"Green" policies would go an incredibly long ways to getting this done. Something like what Minnesota is doing with their E85 efforts to bring an alternative fuel to market should be commended, they have plenty working against them. Seattle or Portland (can't remember which one) switching to hybrid public buses to save something staggering like 30 million gallons of diesel each year.

As much of a libertarian as I am supporting less government, I think a simple change to tax polluters and reward conservation would be one of the few methods of accomplishing the goals. Too many people plod along in giant SUVs and give me grief on driving a V8 car that gets 26.5 MPG because they assume it guzzles more gas than their hog. I'd love to convert it to run on hydrogen and get 3000MPG of gas especially if the US government would borrow from Britians laws where they will pay for conversions to LPG to help with their petroleum problems.

I also agree with the nuclear generation of electricity but the public seems far too gun-shy of such a concept to allow this to become a reality. Unfortunately I also agree that many of the upgrades to the eletrical grid will not be implemented until the problem becomes much worse.

Personally I'm happy that just some of us are aware of the multitude of issues and having discussions about it. All we need now is more activists like Dennis Weaver (big supporter of alternative automotive fuels) to champion the cause and get public support for it. Many because I cynically view the population as a whole to not being able to move towards such a goal until its a clear economic choice to pay heavily to pollute and waste resources and save money to do the opposite.

my two cents..
Cliff

PRodQuanta

Sep11-04, 12:29 PM

Just something to break off our foreign dependancy on oil. That reason is a big contributer to higher gas prices and (well, what I've heard) some war going on in the Middle East. Bush's back pocket isn't worth killing American soldiers. Get some smart people in there to enforce E85, hydrogen, or SOMETHING!!! It not only frustrates me, it kinda scares me. One day a bomb's gonna drop, if this doesn't stop.

My (well....$.02+$.02....)$.04

Paden Roder

russ_watters

Sep11-04, 01:46 PM

I will give some thought to this later, but I mostly follow the plan outlined by the joint venture between the National Hydrogen Assocication and the DOE, among others. I think these people are on the right tract. I only skimmed your links, I'll spend more time with them, but it looks like pilot programs for hydrogen fuel implimentation - busses, for example. Pilot programs are good for study, but my fear is that they are emphasizing the end use of the hydrogen, and not the production of the hydrogen. And that's by far the larger issue. Building hydrogen fuel busses is relatively easy by comparison.

Yeah, it is motion in the right direction, but not much... I want faster, bigger ideas. I posted this thread because it appears to me no one is thinking big about these issues.

tumor

Sep11-04, 01:51 PM

we all want changes, then we have to start changing our selfs first.

Dayle Record

Sep11-04, 06:58 PM

I believe you erased my post in this thread. Is that so?

russ_watters

Sep11-04, 10:04 PM

I believe you erased my post in this thread. Is that so? Yes, I did. I thought I had posted an explanation, but it appears it didn't go through. Your post was off topic. If you want to discuss the political and moral issues of people's effect on the environment, start a thread in the appropriate forum. I don't appreciate your attempt to hijack this thread.

PRodQuanta

Sep11-04, 10:42 PM

So, you got any insight on my proposal russ? I mean, seriously, if I'm being led astray here, I'd like to know an experts opinion. Is biomass a likely possibility?

Paden Roder

motai

Sep11-04, 11:11 PM

I'd like to know an experts opinion. Is biomass a likely possibility?

Paden Roder

Im not an expert, but id think that biomass as a primary source couldnt sustain a larger country like America. It seems too low-yield for any substantial energy outputs. Personally I think for best results the primary source should be some form of nuclear (be it fission or fusion) as a base with other sources such as wind, biomass, solar, etc. falling in behind it.

I was able to google a site that compares different energy sources: http://www.ewg.org/reports/choosinggreenenergy/appendix.html?print_version=1

russ_watters

Sep13-04, 09:52 AM

So, you got any insight on my proposal russ? I mean, seriously, if I'm being led astray here, I'd like to know an experts opinion. Is biomass a likely possibility? I thought I had replied to yours too. Hmm. Biomass is a good idea, but I also don't think it has anywhere near the capacity to make more than a local impact.

Artman

Sep13-04, 11:19 AM

There are a lot of missed opportunities out there for recovering energy.

Some energy recovery methods include: grey water heat exchangers (to recover heat from warm waste water), well water heat exchangers and desuperheaters (to precool refrigerant and preheat water), energy recovery ventilators (to recover heat from exhaust air), some forms of active solar air heating systems (Using large metal panels to heat incoming air for warehouses) can be used as insulation as well as heat to achieve 'R' values close to 50 (in heating season).

Recovery of waste heat in cooling systems for preheating hot water benefit both of the systems (cooling and water heating) and can be incorporated in both home and commercial systems.

Magnetic refrigeration systems show potential in the future for low energy use systems for refrigeration of cold storage boxes and large commercial cooling units. These also work with just water as the refrigerant so environmental impact is reduced.

russ_watters

Sep13-04, 12:59 PM

So many of my clients could be doing more for energy efficiency - and tightening the codes to require it would help a lot too. Even on a 5 year payback, most companies still won't do it on their own.

Artman

Sep13-04, 01:10 PM

Some energy recovery methods include: grey water heat exchangers (to recover heat from warm waste water).
Waste Water Preheater (http://gfxtechnology.com/contents.html)
In fact, about a trillion kWh (= 3413 trillion Btu) go down America’s drains each year.

Active solar air heating systems.
Solar Heating Panel Wall (http://www.solarwall.com/sw/swHow.html)

Well water heat exchangers and desuperheaters (to precool refrigerant and preheat water), energy recovery ventilators (to recover heat from exhaust air), Recovery of waste heat in cooling systems for preheating hot water benefit both of the systems (cooling and water heating) and can be incorporated in both home and commercial systems.
Desuperheater (http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/geothermalheating.htm)
# Free or Cheap Hot Water - unlike any other heating and cooling system, a geothermal heat pump can provide free hot water using a device called a "desuperheater".

Magnetic refrigeration systems show potential in the future for low energy use systems for refrigeration of cold storage boxes and large commercial cooling units. These also work with just water as the refrigerant so environmental impact is reduced.
http:/Magentic Refrigerator (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040626/fob6.asp)
With the goal of making refrigerators and air conditioners more efficient, several groups around the world are developing magnetic-refrigerant materials. A magnetic-cooling system could also be less polluting than current systems because it wouldn't use environmentally harmful chemicals, such as ammonia or chlorofluorocarbons.

Artman

Sep13-04, 01:11 PM

So many of my clients could be doing more for energy efficiency - and tightening the codes to require it would help a lot too. Even on a 5 year payback, most companies still won't do it on their own.
I am starting to see more use of energy recovery, but still, the first cost does scare many off of the idea.

Locrian

Sep14-04, 08:44 AM

GENIERE

Sep14-04, 05:18 PM

Cliff_J

Sep15-04, 08:08 AM

I don’t think using any type of combustible fuel, including Hydrogen, is a good idea. Burning Hydrogen generates noxious gases because the atmosphere is only about 21% oxygen.

Exactly what gases do you speak of in particular? If burned stoichiometric then H2 is quite clean, even if burned lean and hot so as to result in the production of NOx this can easily be cleaned up with the addition of a little more H2 and a scrubber and would still be as practical as a catalytic converter is today.

And if widespread H2 production were to be employed that used water as the source we could create as much O2 as a byproduct as any rainforest. :biggrin:

If nuclear, wind, PV, hydro, etc power production was more predominant then H2 production is a logical energy storage mechanism and has the ability to maximize resource utilization that might otherwise be wasted. As Russ addressed though, H2 production seems to be a low priority. :frown:

Cliff

Kenneth Mann

Sep15-04, 01:52 PM

I don’t think using any type of combustible fuel, including Hydrogen, is a good idea. Burning Hydrogen generates noxious gases because the atmosphere is only about 21% oxygen. Realistically energy is simply an economics problem. The faster the price of fuel increases, the faster the politicians must respond to the loudly voiced discontent that will surely occur. I’m hoping oil prices skyrocket forcing the rapid development of fusion power generation.

I hope you don't really mean those last two sentences. Do you really wish for a disaster to force us to behave more logically? Think of the possibilities. Sometimes even the strongest societies don't survive disasters if they are sudden enough and cause enough damage. The result could possibly be the onset of another 'Dark Age'. Let's hope for better; that we can make progress without some form of cataclysmic event.

Second point:
A little history for those of you who are younger. Fifty or so
years ago there was great enthusiasm over nuclear fusion. After
all, it had taken only a few short years to control the fission process
for power generation. The great belief then was that we'd have
thermonuclear power generation within five (ten at most) years.
Then, after about twenty five years that great confidence was dampened
down to a cautious hope. Now, after roughly five decades of slow
but discernable progress, that optimism seems to be returning, so
I simply leave the little caveat - - - Don't pin too much hope on this
technology until you actually see it taking place. (Now, with that
said, some people at Princeton Labs do seem to be quite upbeat.)

KM

russ_watters

Sep15-04, 02:35 PM

Someone said in another forum that fusion has been 25 years away for the past 50 years and will likely continue to be 25 years away for some time to come. For that reason, I would agree that any solution needs to be based largely one already existing technology - such as (imo) fission power.

russ_watters

Sep15-04, 02:48 PM

There was an article published in Science magazine around 2000 by a couple of civil engineers in the northeast suggesting that you could replace half of all coal power with wind power and, after taking in consideration hidden costs such as healthcare for coal miners, it would not be significantly more expensive.

The price tag was something like 250 billion. That sounds like a lot, but hey, its half the crooked medicare bill the administration barreled through not long ago.

I can look for the reference if someone is interested, though you'll need access to Science magazine to see the full article. I'd be interested to read it and I'm not surprised since something like 20,000 people die prematurely every year in the US due to air pollution and coal for electric power is far and away the largest fraction of that. Still, thats an awful lot of windmills and I'm not sure its even possible to have that many in the US.

...[2 minutes of research later] Coal accounts for about 250,000 megawatts of capacity in the US (wind power accounts for about 4,500 - but at lower availability due to its variable output). The average installed turbine has a capacity of about half a megawatt and the largest about 1 mW. Assuming new ones average closer to 1 mW, thats 125,000 new wind turbines (assuming 100% availability).

At $250 billion, thats about $2 million per turbine, which I think is overly optomistic, nevertheless its a reasonable number for a multi-year (10 year, probably) project, considering my proposals were on the order of $100 billion a year.

Certainly something worthy of study.

GENIERE

Sep15-04, 07:44 PM

Skyrocket was a poor term to use. Nevertheless attacking the purse is the only means to inspire action. Obviously oil price inflation should be planned and sufficiently gradual to minimize economic damage. The point is moot as oil prices are rising now and with ups and downs will continue to rise. I’m suggesting a $5.00 per barrel tax dedicated entirely to alternative energy development; $2.00 of which to support an international. Consortium. In my mind only fusion power is worthy of investment. I’ve read that wind power widely used could provide 20% of the nations energy. As efficient technology presently exists, implementation should be immediate. Ditto for fission power, with plants built for 30 years of use.

Hydrogen utilization at best can only be considered a means of storing energy, maybe a better battery. It must be:

Produced
Stored
Transported to point of use
Stored
Combusted

None of these methodologies presently exist (large scale), all require at least one decade of development and the commitment of immense monetary resources. I’m not aware of any stoichiometric process affordable by an individual on the consumer end. After this is all in place and functioning, production remains a problem. Hydrogen can be produced by combusting Hydrogen (in the sense of providing energy) but the best known process can only achieve 75% efficiency. We can burn coal, oil, and corn to make up the 25% loss. With the additional losses down the pipeline contributing another 25% (best case) loss of efficiency, what’s the point?

IMO star power is a realistic goal, but maybe a pipedream restricting us to transmuting U235 with a little wind, water, and sun thrown in for flavoring. Once the implementation of the least poluting prime energy source(s) is realised, Hydrogen may be a good choice for utilizing the energy, but first things first.

- -

brewnog

Sep16-04, 01:38 PM

On topic book rec:

Paul Roberts - The End Of Oil (2004, Bloomsbury, ISBN 0747570752)

Not gonna get myself dragged into this thread (which is patently about to become a monster) summarising it, but if you're genuinely interested about the causes, effects and solutions for the impending energy crisis in the western world, it's the book for you.

Ivan Seeking

Sep16-04, 10:50 PM

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- Untapped reserves of methane, the main component in natural gas, may be found deep in Earth's crust, according to a recently released report* in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). These reserves could be a virtually inexhaustible source of energy for future generations. [continued]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/dlnl-mid091304.php

Also
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/ci-hit090904.php

GENIERE

Sep17-04, 10:56 AM

russ_watters

Sep17-04, 01:51 PM

Ivan Seeking

Sep17-04, 02:22 PM

Ivan Seeking - Methaneclathrates are thought to be formations holding immense amounts of methane at shallow ocean depths. Are these formations the same as the ones you've provided links to? I've only scanned the links at the momment.

I don't know exactly how they are related - presumably they are - but this report suggests that methane forms naturally and continuously without the need for biomass. This is completely new information AFAIK. EDIT: This might expand our field of options significantly in that the gas is much more abundant than we ever realized.

Note also that about two or three years ago, a couple of reports surfaced indicating that a primordial layer of Hydrogen may be down there as well. Unfortunately, this rock-bound H2 is thought to be something like 50 KM deep.

Ivan Seeking

Sep24-04, 05:42 PM

A new test that produced methane under conditions mimicking the deep interiors of Earth and Mars lends support to an idea that the gas could theoretically support unseen colonies of microbes on both worlds. And the study hints at the possibility of a potential vast supply of petroleum products. [continued]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/methane_production_040923.html

Rothiemurchus

Sep24-04, 06:10 PM

philocrazy

Sep24-04, 10:52 PM

russ_watters:
YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis
----------------------------------------------------
What us energy crisis,even if us had an energy crisis would
they say it to us!!!!!!
this is a joke right? i mean when you say YOU! you're mean
i just started here,give me some time to do some preliminary world
studies on the energy problem and ill get back to you

thennigar

Oct10-04, 07:29 PM

It's 100 per cent reliable and an endless pollution free resource - tidal power.
Initially, it would cost a fortune to build enough dams in the sea,and they would be
costly to maintain, but in the very long run, they would be worth the trouble.
You'd get a lot of hassle from marine ecologists though and people who like
a nice view over the sea.

Being from the part of canada with highest tides in the world i agree with you for sure. Its been thought about even plans been done before.
Only bad things are the impact it would have on wildlife for example, and if it would have an impact on tidal patterns.

Whatever the solution is it has to be something that is constant in the world and will be for a very long time.... This basically leaves things like Nuclear, Tidal, Solar, and Wind...

Dayle Record

Oct11-04, 11:47 AM

Here is an article from today's Salt Lake Tribune, regarding apomixis a property of some plants that asexually produce seeds, eliminating the need for costly hand fertilization of hybrid seed crops. The potential for energy savings is huge, and the potential for organic fuel sources is also huge. This will fly in the face of those that profit from the hybrid process, holding patents and selling seed. It has great promise for the third world. There are many facets to fixing the energy crisis, and this is a big one. The article discusses the potential for better feeding one billion of the humans on earth.

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2424248

Rab

Oct18-04, 07:56 PM

i like the way you think about clean energy, but nuclear energy can cause disasters ( a hurricane in florida), plus nuclear waste cost too $$$ to get rid off. It has to be shipped and kept in special locations, it has to stay under controlled temperature for 10000 years or it will melt plus it has to be guarded from terrorists. and when the building has to be demolished even after xxx years after intense maintence has to be rebuild and if an earth quake take on the building you ll have contaminated water....
smaller steps can be taken : ppl dont have to drive SUVs 8 cyl and a massive fuel consumption.more solar and wind energy ( switching to those will create jobs in north america)
plus lets say you wanna make fuel out of corn ( u need manpower,water,fertilizers- polluting water- and machines to get this clean fuel).
in our university we r having a nice project buses that run on bio diesel ( used cooking oil)
but it is always about politics and $$$.

tumor

Oct19-04, 10:19 PM

Being from the part of canada with highest tides in the world i agree with you for sure. Its been thought about even plans been done before.
Only bad things are the impact it would have on wildlife for example, and if it would have an impact on tidal patterns.

Whatever the solution is it has to be something that is constant in the world and will be for a very long time.... This basically leaves things like Nuclear, Tidal, Solar, and Wind...

They have one huge tidal dam in France, and it works preety well I guess.
However you might right about impact on wildlife, dams always create problems.
We, each one of us have to conserve energy that is the only conclusion.

4newton

Oct20-04, 02:56 AM

Rab
i like the way you think about clean energy, but nuclear energy can cause disasters ( a hurricane in florida), plus nuclear waste cost too $$$ to get rid off. It has to be shipped and kept in special locations, it has to stay under controlled temperature for 10000 years or it will melt plus it has to be guarded from terrorists. and when the building has to be demolished even after xxx years after intense maintence has to be rebuild and if an earth quake take on the building you ll have contaminated water....

Nuclear power is the only solution at this time. It is easy to make a list of all the problems. It is however more productive to find solutions to the problems. There is an easy way to control the danger of nuclear power. Put the reactor core 500 to 3000 feet underground. Atom bombs have been tested at this depth and the results are well known. This also prevents theft and safeguard from terrorists. Nuclear waste is 100% recyclable and reusable. There is no need for storage. France has been doing this for the countries of the would even the US is sending material to France for recycle.

Nuclear power is less expensive today than any other form of energy, costing about 5 cents per KWH. Coal is running about 15 cents and gas 17 to 20 cents per KWH. Wind and solar are up to 35 cents per KWH.

Most of the problems with nuclear power plants are the result of trying to build to large a plant. This was done by GE to try and make nuclear power compete with oil back in 1950 when oil was $3 to 5$.

We must start to build new nuclear power plants now. Oil and gas will be above 50 cents per KWH in less than 25 years.

russ_watters

Oct20-04, 10:00 AM

Rab, while it is true that in a theoretical sense, nuclear power can be dangerous, its never happened in the US. Let me be perfectly clear: nuclear power has never killed anyone in the US not associated with the power company. Coal power, on the other hand, kills roughly 10,000 a year. The difference in safety record makes he choice (based on safety alone) perfectly clear.

LENIN

Oct20-04, 01:25 PM

I totaly suport nuclear power. There is very little risk if you have good technology and US probalbly does. There is also very little polution created by nuclear power plants, and aldo nuclear waste are very dagerous they don't realy present a thread, if they are stored properly. The only real problem I see with nuclear energy is the reaction of the population.

tumor

Oct20-04, 01:59 PM

France gets almost 80% of electricity from nuclear power stations,and it works very well.Of course all is under goverment controll and question of profit is non existent.

RuiMonteiro

Oct21-04, 06:19 AM

Even not being american and therefore, not very aware of the energetic crisis that currently affects the US I think that my options fit the US as any other country, and because of this I’ll often use as an example what has or will be done where I live, in Portugal.

First, there is a need to diversify the energy sources for each country because this brings obvious benefits for the economy. Here are some measures I propose to achieve this taking into account the factors already stated:

1.Solar Energy
This is one of the energy sources that we can implement at present time as the technology in this area is very advanced and has been used for several years but not taking profit of its maximum benefits. I can give you the example of Portugal where is planned to start constructing any time soon the biggest solar plant in the world with a capacity of 60 MW wich is supplied by 100 hectars of solar panels. Of course I must add that the region where it will be built is number one in the world on getting the most hours of sun per day. This, however, shouldn’t be seen as an impediment for other centrals for obvious reasons. What is also planned is to build micro-stations around the country to serve small populations. On that same region a school is taking advantage of solar energy by consuming it and sell what’s left to the electric network bringing profit to the school, a good measure. I would extend this to hospitals, other schools and public services. Besides reducing costs in the long term should make people more aware of the benefits of the sun.

2.Biogas
Another source that should be implanted and can be implanted right now, the technology is already available, is the use of biogas to produce electricity. Biogas can be produced using common house garbage or animal excrements. There is a small station here in Portugal using biogas from garbage producing enough energy to supply 1200 families, wich can be extended to 5000 families in about 2 years. This is great to supply small populations and to reduce environmental impact of the big problem that is garbage.

3.Ethanol/Gasoline
It was already mentioned the use of ethanol in transports. If it is possible to produce at large scale enough ethanol to supply a good amount of transports I’m totally in favour of this. But if possible and happens something like what happened in Brazil where the ethanol prices were initially low but gradually increased to the level of gasoline its not worth and the ethanol market eventually was not profitable. So I propose increasing the general use of a ethanol/gasoline mixture wich is already used in some countries if I’m not mistaken, this mixture has the advantage of decreasing the CO2 emissions and the oil dependacy (the percentage of ethanol in the mixture is relatively small I think but enough to produce effetcs).

4.Tidal Energy
I also agree that this type of energy is one of the future sources to have a big real impact on each country. I would however correct something that was said. There is not anywhere in the world a tidal power plant that is working and supplying energy to the electric network. There is several projects being studied. I could also tell you about the first and only tidal station to be connected to the electric network that was working during the year of 99 in Azores, Portugal. However after some time being working it had to be disconnected for problems cause by the adversities of the sea and inexperience in this area. The station is being recovered. I believe that it shouldn’t take long to make tidal power available as there are already several large projects being prepared, of course that with new technologies how long is too long is very hard to tell.

5.Eolic Energy
Another source that should be explored and where the potential is huge, of course it takes a lot of investment to produce at mass scale but it’s widely accepted that it should be profitable and doesn’t present many difficulties. It could be at a first stage introduced to small populations has its done now and in the future improve its capacity.

6.Network Improvment
It is more than accepted that a good electric network is one of the steps to have more flexibility and prevent blackouts like those in NY. The US should invest a lot of money in the network as a first step because they have a very weak network that needs a lot of improvement. Essential to any country.

7.Public Transportation
Another measure to decrease oil dependacy is to reduce the number of cars increasing the public transportation offer of hydrogen, electric and gas bus and metro and trains. This is essential too if a government wants to take seriously the environmental impact, and most importantly the economy.

8.Fiscal Benefits
As it’s been said already I also agree on this. Fiscal benefits should be given to buying home solar panels even if its just for water heating, public transportation, etc. It should serve essentially as an education tool to alternative forms of energy sources.

Finally I would just add some facts. As I said a long time ago in another thread, fusion reactor will only be available around 2050. that’s according to a treaty the US signed with other countries and where the US is responsible for the appear of this technology, I should also add that its estimated the oil ends around 2050… But when this technology is available and if its clean and secure enough I’m in favour.
Another note is on coal plants, the US has already planned the construction of 90 new coal plants to prevent economy crisis and asian countries like China, India… have around 1000 new coal plants planned.

Rui Monteiro.

P.S. I apologise for my English errors….

Cliff_J

Oct21-04, 07:51 AM

Well said Rui. Couple thoughts reading your post.

Tidal energy wouldn't be very simple to implement - the enviromental studies alone could hold it up for years and is the new tool used by those who wish to slow progress. Its not like I'm in support of ruining the environment, far from it, but the ability to implement large public works projects takes a lot of political savvy to keep the scope larger than focusing on a few acres of habitat.

And public transportation is not a viable option in many places based on the years of poorly managed expansion. When I lived in Minneapolis the city bus was a great option as it went from my apartment in a nice suburb directly to downtown where the jobs were located. But here in Atlanta its very different as the downtown area is incredibly expensive and businesses have many advantages to being located in the suburbs and its similar for housing. So as a result of simple economics the expansion has created a massive amount of suburb-to-suburb traffic over a huge geographic area that would be near impossible to service with a train or bus system. Having a lot of land isn't a good thing when it is utilized poorly and without good foresight. :frown:

Cliff

RuiMonteiro

Oct21-04, 08:19 AM

Thank you for the words Cliff.

Tidal energy wouldn't be very simple to implement - the enviromental studies alone could hold it up for years and is the new tool used by those who wish to slow progress. Its not like I'm in support of ruining the environment, far from it, but the ability to implement large public works projects takes a lot of political savvy to keep the scope larger than focusing on a few acres of habitat.

I understand your concern, but i don't really know to what extent environmental studies would prevent the implementaion of tidal energy, i'm saying this taking into account the Azores example i stated because i don't recall hearing or reading objections in terms of environmental impact, i'm not saying there wasn't any but i don't recall. And, at least here, it had the support from politicians.

And public transportation is not a viable option in many places based on the years of poorly managed expansion. When I lived in Minneapolis the city bus was a great option as it went from my apartment in a nice suburb directly to downtown where the jobs were located. But here in Atlanta its very different as the downtown area is incredibly expensive and businesses have many advantages to being located in the suburbs and its similar for housing. So as a result of simple economics the expansion has created a massive amount of suburb-to-suburb traffic over a huge geographic area that would be near impossible to service with a train or bus system. Having a lot of land isn't a good thing when it is utilized poorly and without good foresight.

That's very intersting to hear, i wasn't familiar with those situations or at least never thought of them. It sure would be complicated to have a effective system of public tranportation in those areas, i would be very intersted in reading any studies regarding that. Do you know if there is any available?

Rui M.

Cliff_J

Oct21-04, 01:02 PM

For the tidal generation I don't have any direct examples but a large number of improvements ranging from cleaning beaches to rebuilding highways seems to get bogged down in enviromental concerns. If it is going to be built on the beach and have access to the water, it better have a lot of public support so the politicians can support it without fear. Many people living on the western coast are strong enviromental supporters and make haste decisions that would likely not include proper information - for example they increase smog controls on their cars but yet do little to control the power generation plants that creates 80% of their pollution. (and without sounding like too much of a cynic, if you watch/read any of what's happening here for the elections, a lot of the country makes decisions based on little information)

For the suburb phenomenon I don't have any sources but the concept of changing traffic patterns was mentioned on a Discovery program about traffic. It went on to inteview the guy who came up with congestion pricing which allows people to pay for using the carpool lane even if they are not qualified. It speeds up the commute for everyone else with less traffic in the other lanes, raises money to help build more roadways, and cuts pollution. Sounds good to me! But here in Atl they voted down the "Lexus Lane" saying it discriminates. All my neighbors want to vote down a measure to expand the local roadway.

There seems to be a lot of info on the net about suburban sprawl and its negative effects but not as much on studies in terms of costs and solutions to fix it. If you find something would you please post a link.

Cliff

Burnsys

Oct21-04, 02:06 PM

[deleted] Sorry, but we won't be discussing politics or conspiracy theory in this thread.

-Russ

RuiMonteiro

Oct21-04, 02:53 PM

For the tidal generation I don't have any direct examples but a large number of improvements ranging from cleaning beaches to rebuilding highways seems to get bogged down in enviromental concerns. If it is going to be built on the beach and have access to the water, it better have a lot of public support so the politicians can support it without fear. Many people living on the western coast are strong enviromental supporters and make haste decisions that would likely not include proper information - for example they increase smog controls on their cars but yet do little to control the power generation plants that creates 80% of their pollution. (and without sounding like too much of a cynic, if you watch/read any of what's happening here for the elections, a lot of the country makes decisions based on little information)

It's somewhat disturbing to me how people are against effective and positive measures but at the same time are not against big real problems... Cynism and hypocrisy (not referring to you) is how US citizens are perceived by the Europeans and it seems correct. Of course and fortunally not all US citizens don't fall into that category and there are many Europeans with those charecteristics too, just to make sure people understand what i just wrote...

For the suburb phenomenon I don't have any sources but the concept of changing traffic patterns was mentioned on a Discovery program about traffic. It went on to inteview the guy who came up with congestion pricing which allows people to pay for using the carpool lane even if they are not qualified. It speeds up the commute for everyone else with less traffic in the other lanes, raises money to help build more roadways, and cuts pollution. Sounds good to me! But here in Atl they voted down the "Lexus Lane" saying it discriminates. All my neighbors want to vote down a measure to expand the local roadway.

I see, the traffic patterns should be interst to study.

I don't really know what a carpool lane is? I went searching into the dictionary what a carpool is but can't find a translation...

I'll try again to look for some information on the net.

Rui M.

russ_watters

Oct21-04, 04:03 PM

I don't really know what a carpool lane is? I went searching into the dictionary what a carpool is but can't find a translation... Some cities have special lanes for cars carrying 2 or more passengers. When a group of people get together and take turns driving each other to work, that's a carpool.

RuiMonteiro

Oct21-04, 04:47 PM

Some cities have special lanes for cars carrying 2 or more passengers. When a group of people get together and take turns driving each other to work, that's a carpool.

Thanks for the information. It's really intersting and an imaginative solution.

Now i can answer what Cliff said more properly regarding carpool lanes.
It does sounds good the idea of people who are not qualified paying to have access to this lane but in practise i don't see it working properly because a great amount of people either would join that system and pay to use the lane and therefore congestionating both the carpool lane and the other lanes or people wouldnt simply join and making this new method useless. I am taking into account that people would vote "yes" primarly, but of course they vote yes as an opinion that it would work but they aren't necessarly going to use it.

This could work however if it's set up a maximum of users that don't qualify but want to pay to use the carpool lane so that there isn't a saturation in the special lane, and as i see it this is the only solution that could work because it would prevent the system to become pointless. In the begining the number of users should be an estimative and then if this works properly the number of users should be adapted to the time of the year and the results of the first test.

And i don't see this being discriminatory.

Rui M.

tumor

Oct21-04, 09:34 PM

I don't think there is any real energy crisis,everything is made for profit.We could switch at any moment to the hydrogen or some other form of cleaner economy ,but
as long as oil makes more money for energy companies,humanity will live in misery.

Cliff_J

Oct22-04, 12:41 AM

Rui - my bad on the word confusion - I thought carpool would be easier than High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane. Sometimes its too easy to assume..

The basis of congestion pricing is supply-demand and the author won a Nobel Prize for economics. Here's a page that has a link to the PDF of his paper (verbose) near the bottom and a link to his guidlines right after it and the guidlines is far easier to read.
http://www.vtpi.org/0_price.htm

In short, the price is set high enough to keep the usage low. Somewhere in California they have this system implemented and while more than half the motorists have the ability to pay to use the carpool lane it is still well below saturation. A survey revealed that most people purchased it as a backup in case they were late for work or congestion was bad and it would be worthwhile to pay the $3 or whatever fee on that day but otherwise they use the regular lanes. Computers monitor the carpool lane and the price is adjusted to keep the traffic level appropriate in that lane to keep all the cars moving at the speed limit or better.

I don't see discrimination either but there are deep historic wounds that have yet to be resolved by some. That's pretty common anywhere, especially when times are tough and blame is assigned to the usual suspects.

Maybe instead of saying "think globally, act locally" it should have just been "think globally, act globally" so people would think of things more as a system instead of discrete elements. Once everything is reduced to pieces its easy to be selfish and get local optimization but hurt the overall system. Where's my magic wand.... :smile:

I think the idea of increased nuclear power production is a very good use of technology and resources with low costs (unlike solar with its hidden costs of manufacturing the panels). But the implementation challenge is massive, 3 mile Island and Chernobyl were very well covered by the media and the Chernobyl site is still a mess. All a politician would need to say is "...do you want that in your backyard..." and emotion overrules intelligent discussion about the real dangers.

Cliff

4newton

Oct22-04, 02:56 AM

russ_watters

Oct22-04, 11:53 AM

There is no energy problem there is just a political problem. Any government that has not provided for the future needs of the country is a failure. Any government the uses restrictions, limits, conservation, or rationing to solve a problem that it has all the resources for is a failure.

We have and have had for over 50 years all the energy that we will ever need for the next 2000 years or more. Only by political pressure from shortsighted Dark Age intellectuals have we failed to develop this energy.

Nuclear power is the answer. That is true except for what to do about cars and ships. They would still need to be converted over to some form of electric power - battery, fuel cell, or other. That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

Aquamarine

Oct22-04, 01:05 PM

That is true except for what to do about cars and ships. They would still need to be converted over to some form of electric power - battery, fuel cell, or other. That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.
Nuclear energy is an excellent way to generate hydrogen as a fuel for transportation:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf70.htm

But hydrogen has lots of problems, this may be a better solution:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

About other energy sources:
Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.

In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm

RuiMonteiro

Oct22-04, 05:30 PM

Cliff,

Thanks for the information. That's a good system for the carpool lane then, very intersting and imaginative.
I took a look at the site you provided and also saw some information on what London did when was decided to keep cars out of the center of the city and for what i read it seems other cities are trying to implement this system wich also seems a good idea.

I think the idea of increased nuclear power production is a very good use of technology and resources with low costs (unlike solar with its hidden costs of manufacturing the panels).

I don't know exactly what are the hiden costs of manufacturing the panels. I can tell you again about that solar central in Portugal and the investor is private and not a big company. And the production of solar panels is getting bigger, i think Greece leads the production.

That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

As i see it and many other people see it converting all of the gas, oil and coal power to nuclear (or other any energy source) is a big mistake. The reason for this is very simple, the uranium reserves are not ilimited and we would eventually fall into the same problems of finding alternative energy sources and the problem of oil dependacy that many countries suffer today would become a uranium dependacy. I'm not saying that nuclear power shouldn't be used at all, i'm saying, as i said before, energy sources should be diversified, its benefical for everyone.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Saying that the peak of oil production will be in 50-100 years is completly irrealistic. First the oil reserves are not estimated to last that long, second as time goes by the oil available decreases and because of the decrease in the reserves and the oil demand that increases every year the price will go up to a value making oil useless, a simple law of market.

Rui M.

Cliff_J

Oct22-04, 05:42 PM

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

I'd say its pretty universal and the media did nothing for it with the 3MI and Chernobyl coverage (even though that could use more to help raise money to fix it before it gets worse). Its like what the movie Jaws did for public perception of sharks and so on. As a kid I remember both being mentioned a lot and no one mentioned the pollution and deaths from other power generation. Maybe because of the vested interest in the coal production in the state and economic benefit of keeping that industry around.

Ever watch the Penn & Teller show on Showtime? Its entertaining and thought-provoking as they examine both sides of an issue (and then poke fun at one side). The show they did on recycling was very interesting as it was based on a paper that showed recycling as a waste of resources. They brought up the barge in the 80s as a media event that worked well with an EPA report that said the number of landfills was decreasing (without mention of the size of the landfills). Their point was how we have been tricked by subsidies and inaccurate information that leads us to support a wasteful activity. The only thing they said they supported was aluminum recycling and made no mention of industrial recycling which both have clear numbers (and with aluminum the electricity needed to convert bauxite is staggering).

Aquamarine - that was an awesome link for biodiesel. If you've ever driven through farmland in the US its amazing how much productive land the government pays farmers to keep idle that could easily be turned into production for energy purposes. At least they've started testing something:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/biomass00.htm

But I think it would be an easy sell to the population that such a readily available source is already in their backyard and under-utilized. I especially like the EROI method of determining the viability of a fuel source. And since the sulfur content of biodiesel should be low (ignorance?) then pollution would easily be on par with current vehicles without many modifications.

My question would be why Europe with its far higher diesel car density hasn't made progress to adopt biodiesel when their fuel prices are so incredibly high in comparison to the US? I know that Britian has made efforts to switch cars over to LPG, but this seems so much easier (assuming people drive diesels).

Cliff

hitssquad

Oct23-04, 01:23 AM

My question would be why Europe with its far higher diesel car density hasn't made progress to adopt biodiesel when their fuel prices are so incredibly high in comparison to the US?Before-tax mineral fuel prices in Europe are about the same as they are in the US. Fuel taxes in Europe are higher, though, making the pump price higher (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=662):

taxes comprise $2.82 of the $4.07 gallon in France, $2.56 of the $3.91 gallon in Germany, and $2.53 of the $3.97 gallon of fuel in Italy. In the U.S., fuel taxes comprise about 39 cents of the average $1.64 gallon of gas.

What is high everywhere is the before-tax price of biodiesel in comparison with that of mineral diesel. This would help explain why, in Europe, mineral diesel is preferred over biodiesel.

Aquamarine

Oct23-04, 03:25 AM

More on Biodiesel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

But I think it would be an easy sell to the population that such a readily available source is already in their backyard and under-utilized.
There seems already to be a growing grassrot interest, this forum is quite active:
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/default.asp

A somewhat optimistic thread, "Can oil producing algae be grown at home ?"
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3414

Cliff_J

Oct30-04, 07:37 PM

Umm, I just watched part of a program on the History channel about what happened at 3 Mile Island. I almost change my vote from nuclear to anything else after that, no wonder the population doesn't want more nuclear plants after the extremely poor planning by the designers and actions by the company running the plant. After the first nuclear power plant ran by the military had its problems I guess I assumed there would be better planning, but I guess maybe even partial ignorance is bliss. :frown:

Cliff

russ_watters

Oct31-04, 01:01 AM

Could you be more specific as to what the program said, Cliff_J - I studied the TMI incident in school and the conclusion I drew is that the incident shows how safe nuclear power is.

gech

Oct31-04, 03:07 AM

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those alternatives (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html).

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.

Aquamarine

Oct31-04, 03:52 AM

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those alternatives (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html).
The usual malthusian scenario that have always been wrong before. The link contains gross inaccuracies.

There is enough nuclear fuel to last at least thousands of year. Certainly enough time to get into space and to build an economy based on solar power:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46366

Read my prior links on biodiesel. The price of fuel for transportation can rise but not more than to the cost of producing biodiesel.

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.
This is of course what the extreme environmentalists want, energy crises or not. They hope for a breakdown of the capitalistic society which will create a socialistic/anarchistic utopia.

RuiMonteiro

Oct31-04, 08:59 AM

There is enough nuclear fuel to last at least thousands of year. Certainly enough time to get into space and to build an economy based on solar power:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46366

I just took a look at the links you provided. The first report from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency is highly speculative. Sometime ago i found several reports stating that even taken into account the unknown and undiscovered uranium resources, at current rate of uranium consumption, it would last around 150 years. So current estimates (with current comsuption of uranium) project that uranium use should end around 2060 or so.

Another problem is the geographical distribution of the uranium reserves, wich the same report makes believe that they are more well distributed then oil. The uranium reserves are well localized and that would take us back to the dependance problem, not counting with the processing of the uranium, wich only a few countrys have the technology.

But let me say again that i'm not against or in favor of new nuclear plants, i do am against, like i already stated on this thread, substituting all the oil and coal plants for nuclear plants. For obvious reasons it would be better economically and socially that the energy resources of one country isn't based primarly on one type of energy but on several.

On a final note regarding oil and uranium dependance, just because one country is rich in a determined energy source it doesnt mean they will use it before using another country resources. Thats whats happening in the US, they don't have the need to import has much oil has they do, the US has one of the biggest oil reserves, they do this to prevent a faillure on import oil supply and to make sure the US will have enough oil to use when the world reserves are low.

Rui.

Aquamarine

Oct31-04, 09:30 AM

More on the supply of uranium and thorium:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm

The only way to get the low supply figures quoted by the malthusians is to ignore thorium, breeder technology and that higher higher uranium prices will automatically increase economically usable resources.

On other other power sources:
Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.

In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power, however important they may become in particular areas with favourable conditions
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm

This may change if hydrogen or other ways to store massive amounts of energy ever becomes feasible. But even so there will energy lost converting to and from storage.

RuiMonteiro

Oct31-04, 01:35 PM

The only way to get the low supply figures quoted by the malthusians is to ignore thorium, breeder technology and that higher higher uranium prices will automatically increase economically usable resources.

I certanly am not ignoring thorium or how technology will evolve through the years. What i'm saying is that those reports are very speculative (also including the last links provided), it's easy to see that.
And regarding proven and estimated uranium resources the main problem is not their physical limitation but their economical limitation, as the uranium price starts to get higher (and it will also suffer peaks of high cost due to many unpredictable factors) it won't automatically increase the investment on new technology to make use of other type of high cost uranium resources. This is what is happening with oil. With a current elevated oil price no one is investing on new technlogy to extract other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources, simply because there are many factors involved, it's not that linear. I'm not saying this on what i assume because i'm not an economist but i'm saying this based on reputed economists and not some malthusian theory from the 18th century.

Rui.

Aquamarine

Oct31-04, 04:03 PM

I certanly am not ignoring thorium or how technology will evolve through the years. What i'm saying is that those reports are very speculative (also including the last links provided), it's easy to see that.
And regarding proven and estimated uranium resources the main problem is not their physical limitation but their economical limitation, as the uranium price starts to get higher (and it will also suffer peaks of high cost due to many unpredictable factors) it won't automatically increase the investment on new technology to make use of other type of high cost uranium resources. This is what is happening with oil. With a current elevated oil price no one is investing on new technlogy to extract other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources, simply because there are many factors involved, it's not that linear. I'm not saying this on what i assume because i'm not an economist but i'm saying this based on reputed economists and not some malthusian theory from the 18th century.

Those new technologies are less speculative than those required for a hydrogen economy or for other power sources. There have already been functioning breeder and thorium reactors.

And in contrast to oil, uranium is ubiquitous in nature. There will not be a sudden decrease as when large oil fields deplete. Just a slow conversion to minerals with lower concentration of uranium.

Regarding uranium price, if it increases, it will greatly increase available resources without have a large effect on final energy price.
The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

Cliff_J

Oct31-04, 09:29 PM

Could you be more specific as to what the program said, Cliff_J - I studied the TMI incident in school and the conclusion I drew is that the incident shows how safe nuclear power is.

Sure, here's what I remember.

General maintenence ends up causing something to go wrong. Ok, no big problems.

Pressure builds up and a safety vent allows excess pressure to escape. Still no problem.

Safety vent sticks but light in control room goes out as computer merely tells them the signal was sent and not the position of the valve. The pressure drops allowing more coolant to evaporate and temperature rises.

Somewhere in the operator training to never let the reactor "go solid" by completely filling with water and the vibrating pumps from low water level the operators drop the control rods and completely shut off flow of water.

Designers are unreachable by phone, NRC is unable to get in as only one phone line exists and all they get are busy signals.

Power company lies to NRC and public (repeatedely) and downplays extent of problem (no idea on timing here, memory fuzzy). The lies told here seem to be only one step shy of the Soviet government's intial lies about Cherynobl but I digress.

Designers of reactor finally get through and tell operators to turn on water, forget the "go solid" or not just get some water in there to get temperature down. Temp gauges only go to 700F but reactor is at 4000F and reaches china syndrome at 5000F and has been sitting without coolant for 15 hours. Estimates are that 30-60 mins more without coolant would have been threshold for meltdown.

Carter sends out a direct person from NRC to run the show, finds that now the long running reaction has filled containment room with lots of H2 that could easily explode. Some NRC people thinks its nearly critical, others think its days away. Carter flies out and makes on-site visit since he trusts his man and has experience with nuclear subs in navy. Later NRC people find mistake in calculations and find H2 is days away from critical.

One person tries to go in and finds water inside reactor that is to be pure is actually green and bubbling, holding a beaker of it for a few minutes would have killed him and that he measured 10,000 REMs which they said was a lot. Nothing besides robots has gone into building since.

So here is my short list of issues I compiled from the show:

- Poor training where 'go solid' was placed above meltdown
- unclear control interface (light that goes out regardless of valve position)
- gauges that do not allow monitoring of temperature (although if its that hot shouldn't common sense overrule 'go solid'??)
- no CC cameras at all to see vent or inside the reactor or even the flooded basement as the vent leaked out the water
- one phone line
- no direct communication to designers

Obviously I've left stuff out and maybe got a couple things out of order but anyways it didn't paint a real safe picture of what happened. The message of the shows was that ignorance, complacence, and confidence in technology leaves us vulnerable to failures. They mentioned that the promise was that nuclear power was suppossed to produce electricity so cheap that it wouldn't make sense to meter it. The series of shows went on to feature the Kursk as the sign the russian military lacked the funds to maintain an advanced sub and the space shuttle as a sign that NASA implemented policies that placed frequent missions over the safety of the crew.

The NRC and all nuclear facilities are suppossed to have learned from the mistakes made and implemented changes to make things safer. But 3MI and Chernobyl are seperated only be severity and luck in the historic TV shows I've seen and this show shocked me at how close we came to a meltdown.

Cliff

Aquamarine

Nov1-04, 08:38 AM

Obviously, there is always the risk of a serious accident. But the new generations of plants will have greatly reduced risks:
The greatest departure from second-generation designs is that many incorporate passive or inherent safety features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.
* Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety depends only on physical phenomena such as convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm

But even today, the risk associated with realistic alternatives like coal are much greater than for nuclear. Both in the form of increased diseases like cancer and effects like global warming.

And to not find replacements for oil and gas means the starvation and death for most of humanity.

RuiMonteiro

Nov1-04, 01:31 PM

Those new technologies are less speculative than those required for a hydrogen economy or for other power sources. There have already been functioning breeder and thorium reactors.

And in contrast to oil, uranium is ubiquitous in nature. There will not be a sudden decrease as when large oil fields deplete. Just a slow conversion to minerals with lower concentration of uranium.

Regarding uranium price, if it increases, it will greatly increase available resources without have a large effect on final energy price.

Are less speculative? I would say the speculation is likely the same. I am aware of the new technology for new nuclear reactors but the technology to provide a constant supply of uranium for a very good amount of time is highly speculative. What would be the point to search for an alternative to oil if the resources for the alternative presented ends around the same time oil ends. But let me clarify, i'm not excluding nuclear energy here, what i said already is to make sure there are wider sources of energy available.

Now, economists predict the price will go up, nevertheless, and i'll repeat again what i said, it's not linear or automatic that the new technology will appear if the prices go up, this is a wrong assumption, i already mentionated a concrete example. You actually have a contradiction here, if before you assumed that the uranium price will go up, now you're saying IF it goes up.

And it's also wrong to assume that the final energy price won't suffer a large effect, i'm not saying it will, i'm just saying you are, again, assuming. Economy can be very complex but it follows simple rules and there are many impredictable factors that we cannot prevent, but don't confuse me with a negativist, this is just what many specialists say, not to mention this is merely common sense.

But back to the uranium availability. Sure that uranium is ubiquitous on nature, but that doesn't mean it is possible to make use of all of the mineral. Even the site you provided doesn't make a direct connection. Uranium reserves are well localized, not to mention that there isn't the necessity of many uranium processing facilities as there are for oil refining.

The question would be, in my opinion, with the available uranium we have and the capacity to recycle spent fuel (for a maximum of an estimated number of cycles with spent fuel), with other energy sources and other measures already discussed in this thread, how can we reach a more well equally balanced energetic system?

Rui.

Aquamarine

Nov1-04, 02:33 PM

Regarding oil exploration, you are wrong. It is increasing due to higher prices:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041031/BUSINESS/410310305/1046

If you accept breeder technology as you say, using only today's totaly certain and economically usable resources gives 50x60 = 3000 year of uranium. Adding thorium and much more uranium with slightly higher prices and more exploration gives much higher numbers.

I agree that we should certainly look at all alternatives, all the way from hydrogen to tides to helium on the moon. But if peak oil is happening this decade, or have already happened, coal and nuclear are the only technology already realistically available. With biodiesel making a contribution as transportation fuel.

Actually, since I am a libertarian, I am not advocating any state intervention. Stop excessive regulatiions of the energy sector, stop subsidaries, stop unequal taxes. Let the best alternative(s) win and let the market decide.

RuiMonteiro

Nov1-04, 05:25 PM

Regarding oil exploration, you are wrong. It is increasing due to higher prices:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ap.../410310305/1046

If you accept breeder technology as you say, using only today's totaly certain and economically usable resources gives 50x60 = 3000 year of uranium. Adding thorium and much more uranium with slightly higher prices and more exploration gives much higher numbers.

You're either not well informed or you just took a quick look at what i have been writing. The site you provided shows that new oil wells are being drilled, but some posts ago i said "other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources" not the traditional and familiar oil wells, on these un-familiar oil resources it's included the bituminous sands (i don't know if that's the correct name in english) - wich Canada has a high level of proven reserves or the freezen gas contained in the bottom of the sea at very long depths, and this types of resources require a new type of technology wich is estimated to be of a very high cost.

And this not to mention that the article doesn't make a direct relation or any relation at all that the new technology appeared because of the high oil price. They say that a conjugation of factors, in wich are included the high price, new technologies and tax incentives provide a boost in profits, they never say that the high price caused all that, they clearly say that the high price directly and obviously improves profits.
Of course that there is new technology, it evolves every year, but there isn't available any technology capable to extract other forms of reserves, this technology costs a lot of money, it's not profitable.
And this is what happens with the estimated uranium reserves for wich most of them would become only available if a high cost technology is developded, and what i'm trying to say here is that uranium reserves to last thousands of years are for the moment irrealistic and that the technology necessary to make use of those reserves don't automatically appear if the price goes up.

Regarding the breeder reactors i said i was not ignoring them but i also said that the site in wich you are basing what you're saying is very speculative (not to say biased). But let me repeat one thing, what i said is that the limitation for the use of nuclear plants is the physical available uranium (and this has to do with the technology wich i already discussed) and the economical limitation of the mineral, and not, if the new types of reactors can have a more effecient energy production, but lets not be fooled, this higher efficience doesn't make wonders, even BNFL admits that.

Let me also add that if the country where i live presented a project to implent a nuclear central i would support it. We don't have any nuclear central, there was a plan to build one about 30 years ago but unfortunally the activits had a very big impact in the public.

Rui.

russ_watters

Nov2-04, 10:39 PM

The NRC and all nuclear facilities are suppossed to have learned from the mistakes made and implemented changes to make things safer. But 3MI and Chernobyl are seperated only be severity and luck in the historic TV shows I've seen and this show shocked me at how close we came to a meltdown. What they don't tell you on those shows is that not only did all of those things need to go wrong in order for the situation to have gone as far as it did (an extrodinarily unlikely string of concurrent failures), but the design differences between Chernobyl and TMI (such as a concrete reactor building) made what happened at Chernobyl utterly impossible at TMI.

Essentially, they had about everything that could go wrong go wrong and still there was no significant release of radiation. That's why I think it validates the safety of American nuclear reactors.

Chronos

Nov3-04, 03:14 AM

US reactor designs are extremely safe. Add up all the years of operation compared to 'disasters' [think TMI]. NASA would be more than proud to have such a safety record. The politics of nuclear power are a greater threat to public safety than the technology.

Cliff_J

Nov3-04, 02:22 PM

Funny thing about watching some of these TV shows about historic failure is the "lesson" to be learned from the incident(s). Some things have the string of concurrent failures and some have single points of weakness. Hindsight may be 20/20 but the shows really don't stretch things too much to make parallels between failures.

The TMI show depicted a place designed and operated with the arrogance that no more than one failure mode would occur. I wouldn't expect redundancy on a safety valve or other items involved but lack of monitoring and training/communication on how to read the remaining indicators is frightening. The same shows on the space shuttle disasters need not search to find previously silenced people who were concenered about the particular failure modes before they occured.

I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant about the exact workings of a nuclear power reactor and the failure modes of each piece and how that translates to a catastrophic event. But my faith that all efforts are made to keep things safe is most definitely tempered by the actions of the people involved. For TMI, what if Carter had been overseas? In 15 hours at least one shift change would have been scheduled to occur, an operator couldn't have gone to a nearby phone in a non-stop attempt to reach the designers?

And I'm not saying that the top would have blown off the reactor like Chernobyl at TMI, but according to the show once the China Syndrome is reached at 5000 degrees that the core would melt its way through the containment structures and into the earth below it. My understanding is that Chernobyl did this and its effects are still measureable in rivers miles away. That's much more sinister than reading Feynman's arguements about the amount of radioactive particles in the air, that nuclear pollution would enter the food supply and would need to be monitored very closely. We can't even agree if genetically enhanced grains or growth hormone feed livestock are totally safe. Or maybe I read too much chaos theory stuff.

Sure the nuclear power industry might pass a Six Sigma test, but man did they group plenty of failures into one incident. I agree that about everything that could go wrong at TMI did and with about as long a time between action/inaction as would ever be imaginable. And how that the control rods did their job (learned from that early army reactor failure?) which was a huge design asset, the containment building minimized leaks and risks so its another asset, and so on. But the human factor scared me the most with the outright lies given by the power company and the lack of urgent action. There are plenty of examples where an designer/engineer would "...go down with the ship..." but TMI is an example to me of an incident where if the engineers had been on-site from the begining reactor #2 would still be operational.

The best design can be messed up by poor decisions by the wrong people and NASA has unfortunately become its own case-study in this phenomenon. And in short that is my concern, not that 8 inches of high-carbon steel was used here or other design considerations, but that the people running the show need to be as good as the design.

tumor

Nov3-04, 03:04 PM

Big changes demand small steps from each of us:

russ_watters

Nov3-04, 09:15 PM

Big changes demand small steps from each of us: I'm a big fan of compact-fluorescents - 10x the life and a quarter of the energy use.

CharlesP

Nov8-04, 08:35 PM

hitssquad

Nov8-04, 10:06 PM

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today.Page 53, Albert Bartlett (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/). Were there two articles?

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.Nuclear fission was ruled out in terms of maintaining a worldwide hedonic pact at present population growth rates; or nuclear was ruled out in terms of being able to power individual diverse cooperatively competitive (http://www.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm) groups? The former sounds plausible.

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

Aquamarine

Nov9-04, 05:47 AM

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today. My take on the two articles is two sentences: There is no possible solution to the energy crisis. The only way to avoid large scale loss of life is to immediately implement a strong population reversal program world wide (especially in the USA). (That means possibly the Chinese, one child per family, method.)

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.
Many responses here:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p12.html

For example,
Paul Weisz's article on long−term energy supplies (Physics Today, July 2004, page 47) states that uranium resources with breeder reactors could provide the world's energy needs for "hundreds of years." That is a gross underestimate. The world's energy needs could be provided by uranium−fueled breeder reactors for the full billion years that life on Earth will be sustainable, without the price of electricity increasing by more than a small fraction of 1% due to raw fuel costs.1

The error in Weisz's calculation is that he is referring to uranium available at its present price, $10−20 per pound. But in breeder reactors, 100 times as much energy is derived from a pound of uranium as in present−day light water reactors, so we could afford to use uranium that is 100 times as expensive.

The cost of extracting uranium from its most plentiful source, seawater, is about $250 per pound—the energy equivalent of gasoline at 0.13 cent per gallon! The uranium now in the oceans could provide the world's current electricity usage for 7 million years. But seawater uranium levels are constantly being replenished, by rivers that carry uranium dissolved out of rock, at a rate sufficient to provide 20 times the world's current total electricity usage. In view of the geological cycles of erosion, subduction, and land uplift, this process could continue for a billion years with no appreciable reduction of the uranium concentration in seawater and hence no increase in extraction costs.

Reference
1. B. L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983).
Not that we need that many years. We need only enough time to get into space and really start using the greatest fusion reactor, the Sun.

urbsurfer

Nov10-04, 05:14 PM

There are a few fundamentals to energy usage and how to effectively supply more energy demand while the source of energy is reducing as in oil and becoming increasingly toxic and costly such as nuclear production and waste.

So breaking down the utiliation of energy into transportation, manufacturing, and lifestyle; what are the alternatives?

The alternatives for electrical requirements are soon coming to market. See production ready devices such as www.blacklightpower.com, perendev magnetic motor/generator, and Beardens MEG motionless electromagnetic generator. Look at all of J Naudins work and tests and working devices from people all over the globe. http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm. Join the free energy yahoo group.

The alternatives for transportation are near as well. The disclosure project, the searle effect generator and offshoot technologies, impulse drive technology, propellentless propulsion devices, flash hydrogen generators.

The lifestyle of using energy in our daily lives is something that will only grow over time. So we must enact these pioneering technologies now to perfect them and reduce the costs for the masses to adopt.
Imagine the possibility that within the next ten years you will be able to use a magnet only motor to propel a vehicle 300mph at altitude and have the same magnetic motor provide the electricity needed onboard without having to stop running for 25 years.
The state of CA spends billions and billions on fixing and adding asphalt to our state. If they routed just 20% of those funds to technologies mentioned above, we could be in an energy surplus in 10 years.
Take a look at the flash hydrogen generator from www.emergingtec.com. Runs your car on water or seawater and the only byproduct is purified water. I have mine on order when they start production.
I am crafting a inertial drive mechanism for propellantless propulsion which runs on electricity. Combine that with a free energy magnetic motor = unlimited range, unlimited direction, unlimited exterior conditions (undersea, air, space). Any body want one?

CharlesP

Nov10-04, 09:36 PM

Page 53, Albert Bartlett (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/). Were there two articles?

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Biomass/alcohol is insufficient land area. Photovoltaic is too expensive. Coal is forbidden because of greenhouse. Wind energy is only local because of infrastructure. It has been a forgone conclusion since the 70's that humanity will be greatly diminished when this is all over.

hitssquad

Nov10-04, 11:18 PM

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today.Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.It got lost? The July 2004 Physics Today is right here (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html), and it says there are two articles on long-term energy. One is by Albert Bartlett, and the other is by Paul B. Weisz. The only issue with regard to nuclear fission mentioned by Weisz is finite uranium resources. He ignores the uranium resources present in the oceans and incorrectly states that breeder technology would be required in order to extend uranium supplies beyond a few decades' worth.

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time.This is solvable via mass production and possibly by routing around, via free enterprise, government red tape.

Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.One way to deal with radionuclide fear might be to desensitize the public with regular radionuclide releases at randomly-selected spots around the country. Since easily-obtainable chemicals exist that protect against radiation-induced biological damage, this would not necessarily harm anyone.

CharlesP

Nov11-04, 10:50 PM

The July 2004 Physics Today is right here (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html), and it says there are two articles on long-term energy. One is by Albert Bartlett, and the other is by Paul B. Weisz. The only issue with regard to nuclear fission mentioned by Weisz is finite uranium resources. He ignores the uranium resources present in the oceans and incorrectly states that breeder technology would be required in order to extend uranium supplies beyond a few decades' worth.

That comeback is not helpful because Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Thanks for the URL. I notice they hid Bartlett. I am getting tired of all this APS members stuff.

This is solvable via mass production and possibly by routing around, via free enterprise, government red tape.

Don't start with that "free enterprise, government red tape". I just got finished bashing a bunch of Republican/Libertarians and I will tell you the best thing for them is for folks like me to take a hike and watch 10 years down the road as the lynch mob gets them. It is the corruption of folks like them that causes all the "red tape." There are basic physical reasons why enough reactors cannot be built in time.

Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

One way to deal with radionuclide fear might be to desensitize the public with regular radionuclide releases at randomly-selected spots around the country. Since easily-obtainable chemicals exist that protect against radiation-induced biological damage, this would not necessarily harm anyone.

You better speak softly, I feel a lynch mob coming near. If the problems of the National Radioactive Depository in Yucka Mountain are not solved soon, there is going to be a horrible radioactive mess scattered all over the country.
And there is no way the mob will let you build another nuke.

Aquamarine

Nov12-04, 12:01 AM

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Biomass/alcohol is insufficient land area. Photovoltaic is too expensive. Coal is forbidden because of greenhouse. Wind energy is only local because of infrastructure. It has been a forgone conclusion since the 70's that humanity will be greatly diminished when this is all over.
You actually think that most people prefer to die rather than to build out nuclear power? Or die rather than use coal, even if this means global warming?

If energy prices increase to very high levels and significantly starts threatening people, then there will be no more opposition to nuclear. And time for approval and construction will be very short if it is a matter of life or death.

But oil will not suddenly end. There will be a gradual decline with gradual increasing prices. Long enough to notice when the peaks takes place, for higher prices to change attitudes and to build new plants. If necessary using more coal for a while.

You are wrong regarding biomass. Biodiesel produced from algae require much smaller land area than previously. See earlier in this thread. Fuel prices will not rise higher than the cost of producing biodiesel.
And there is no way the mob will let you build another nuke.
The only mobs will be those chasing "environmentalists".

CharlesP

Nov12-04, 10:35 PM

You actually think that most people prefer to die rather than to build out nuclear power? Or die rather than use coal, even if this means global warming? If energy prices increase to very high levels and significantly starts threatening people, then there will be no more opposition to nuclear. And time for approval and construction will be very short if it is a matter of life or death.
You are wrong about lead time. It takes five to ten years to build a plant and we have ten years at the most. Meanwhile we are nearly guaranteed to waste the first five.

But oil will not suddenly end. There will be a gradual decline with gradual increasing prices. Long enough to notice when the peaks takes place, for higher prices to change attitudes and to build new plants. If necessary using more coal for a while. In five years oil prices will be much higher, essentially making gasoline unavailable for many folks. The Europeans are already mad at us for failing to adhere to the Koyoto limits. You say more coal? Coal is soon to be forbidden.

You are wrong regarding biomass. Biodiesel produced from algae require much smaller land area than previously. See earlier in this thread. Fuel prices will not rise higher than the cost of producing biodiesel. Let me state categorically that no useful amount of fuel can be produced by biological means without decreasing available food. All such processes are extremely inefficient and expensive. You can't pay $10 for $1 worth of bio anything.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists jacked the price of freon up a hundred times and starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. We just stopped the National Nuclear Repository dead in its tracks.

Aquamarine

Nov13-04, 12:48 PM

You are wrong about lead time. It takes five to ten years to build a plant and we have ten years at the most. Meanwhile we are nearly guaranteed to waste the first five.

In five years oil prices will be much higher, essentially making gasoline unavailable for many folks. The Europeans are already mad at us for failing to adhere to the Koyoto limits. You say more coal? Coal is soon to be forbidden.

Let me state categorically that no useful amount of fuel can be produced by biological means without decreasing available food. All such processes are extremely inefficient and expensive. You can't pay $10 for $1 worth of bio anything.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists jacked the price of freon up a hundred times and starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. We just stopped the National Nuclear Repository dead in its tracks.
At least honesty.

CharlesP

Nov13-04, 08:35 PM

It seems the internet is permeated by the same right wing cult which has overtaken American society. This cult is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh. Most of what he believes and says is lies. Since his nonsense on such subjects as environmentalism, global warming and the energy (actually population) crisis is widely believed, we now have a populace which is in poor condition to think rationally based on historical and physical fact. I was hoping that I would not find such ilk on this message board but apparently they are dominant. I think discussion should be confined to folk who are educated in physics and share the same recognition of facts as the mainline physics community. The articles in Physics today indicate what is accepted truth in the physics community. If you are so dishonest that you choose to ignore facts and push an ideology no matter what the cost then you should identify yourself as such a person. If you want to see reliable scientific reports on these and more issues read Scientific American and visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website ucsusa.org.
I am interested in talking engineering numbers about specific technologies. There have been hundreds of reports about breakthroughs in recent years that have not panned out. Therefore a healthy skepticism is warrented.

russ_watters

Nov15-04, 01:25 PM

Two things before I am forced to throw a leash (choke chain) around my own thread:

urbsurfer, the things you cited are a combination of hoaxes and conspiracy theories. If you just weren't aware of this, that's fine (and I'd be more than happy to explain any of them), but if you're advocating them, we'll have a problem.

CharlesP, your opinions are just not scientifically sound and your hostile rhetoric/attitude is most unwelcome in the engineering section.

"Peak oil," for example, is not widely accepted by the scientific community. I remember being told in elementary school that we had 20 years of oil left and it wasn't true then either (about 20 years ago). Saying a 10-year lead time (actually, its probably more like 20) is a deal-breaker for nuclear plants is invalid for two reasons: first, the vast majority of that lead-time is political-based red-tape. If we entered a real energy crisis, we'd be much better motivated to build nuclear plants faster. There is no technical reason a plant can't go from drawing board to power-up in 5 years.

Regarding the rhetoric - consider who you are talking to: most of us here are scientists and engineers. Don't you think we should know what we are talking about? I'm not saying this to be insulting, but it seems your opinions and what you consider facts are clouded by your preconceptions.

For example, you say we have "10 years at the most" (before a cataclysmic energy crisis) after citing an article that says we have at least 20. Also, "Peak Oil" isn't even being characterized by its proponents as a cataclysm: its not a sudden running-out of oil, but the peak (as the name implies) of our production.

If you're smart enough to understand what those articles (only the first was free...) are saying, you're smart enough to see that they do not support your position. So which of us is lying? Ignorance doesn't bother me: lying and personal attacks do. Consider carefully, your next post here. Let me remind you that we few environmentalists... starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. You do realize you're talking about ecoterrorism, right? Its only a small step from there to ELF.

Locrian

Nov15-04, 04:48 PM

You better speak softly, I feel a lynch mob coming near.

No, it isn't.

I think you'll find cheap scare tactics do not elicit results in these forums.

hitssquad

Nov15-04, 06:38 PM

For example, you say we have "10 years at the most" (before a cataclysmic energy crisis) after citing an article that says we have at least 20. Also, "Peak Oil" isn't even being characterized by its proponents as a cataclysm: its not a sudden running-out of oil, but the peak (as the name implies) of our production.Peak oil may very well be real and the consequences may be great. Individual automobile owners are not the only users of oil. America's shipping sector has been relying on cheap oil. Moving past the peak of oil production, as it appears that the world is doing right now (and even as China is getting set to dominate world oil consumption) may precipitate dramatic economic shocks.

One way to soften these shocks is for futures markets to raise the current price of oil by speculating on future scarcity/high-demand and high production prices. The benefit of artificially raising current oil prices would be a relatively gentle-but-firm economic pressure encouraging the development of technologies useful for surviving oil scarcity. Futures markets may not be adequately doing that job (i.e., taking future oil scarcity and demand into account, the per-barrel price today should perhaps be several hundred dollars).

CharlesP

Nov15-04, 08:23 PM

I was just in a "frying pan" group that met all my sorry expectations so you can see where I am coming from. You folks look a bit more professional which is a relief. Still there are many bad signals on the horizon, many are on the ucsusa website.
For oil the turning point criteria is the world wide available oil per capita figure which has peaked long ago, I believe around 1980. In recent years demand and price have risen rapidly. This is already having an adverse impact on the US economy. Similarly heating costs have risen rapidly. If this continues, and there is every reason to believe the pace is quickening, then many folk will see a serious degradation of their living standard. For oil, "runout day" is defined as the time when demand rises faster than supply, and prices rise rapidly. This will be years before the consumption peak.
Although some developments like conservation, hybrid cars, white light LEDs, have had a miniscule effect, I see no development that will interrupt the ominous trend. Further, I can find no cost effective devices available today which I can buy to prepare for the inevitable energy shortage.
Compounding this is the waste problem just one part of which is carbon dioxide. There is a worldwide call for reduction of co2 emissions because of global warming. The scientific community prevailed on the issue of freon and ozone, and there is no reason to think that they will not prevail in restricting co2 emissions. That will impact coal. There is an enormous amount of money for anyone who can really impact these problems. I don't see anything happening.

Aquamarine

Nov17-04, 12:08 AM

It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will prefer to die rather than use coal or nuclear power. Assume that very worst scenarios are proven right, like that coal produces an immediate increase in global temperature or there is a nuclear power plant accident or that nuclear waste must contaminate the environment. Even so, if the alternative is the extinction of most of humanity and dramatically reduced living standards, people will choose nuclear or coal.

And increasing prices of energy will automatically reduces use. People will drive less, stay at home during holidays and buy smaller cars. Not to mention possibilities like reducing air conditioning. The industry will avoid transporting by air and trucks and instead use railroads and ships. Flying will become a luxury for those most rich. Better insulation, more efficient lamps and household machinery will reduce home use. Substitutes will be found for the most energy demanding processes and materials in industry. Luxury goods from far away lands like coffee, tee, tropical fruits, chocolate and teak may become rare.
Things like this can greatly reduce energy use without greatly affecting the health of people. And this will happen automatically with higher prices.

It is true that energy demand from the third world is growing. But these countries, like China and India, are also those countries that are right now building out nuclear power. And countries can function perfectly well using mostly nuclear power. France is one example. These countries will gain greatly in the future if those opposed to nuclear manage to slow development in the US or Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm

It is also true that that oil is today necessary for transportation and in agriculture. But it is in transportation that some of the easiest conservations can be made. And biodiesel is rapidly growing and has the potential to handle all the US transportation fuel needs on a very small area. Another possibility is converting coal to transportation fuel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf

CharlesP

Nov19-04, 08:21 AM

It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will prefer to die rather than use coal or nuclear power. Assume that very worst scenarios are proven right, like that coal produces an immediate increase in global temperature or there is a nuclear power plant accident or that nuclear waste must contaminate the environment. Even so, if the alternative is the extinction of most of humanity and dramatically reduced living standards, people will choose nuclear or coal.
Global warming has already happened. Living standards have already fallen. It is going to get a lot worse. There are lists of civilian nuclear accidents and near misses too long to read. By the time the energy suffering overcomes the hatred of nukes it will be too late.

And increasing prices of energy will automatically reduces use. People will drive less, stay at home during holidays and buy smaller cars. Not to mention possibilities like reducing air conditioning. The industry will avoid transporting by air and trucks and instead use railroads and ships. Flying will become a luxury for those most rich. Better insulation, more efficient lamps and household machinery will reduce home use. Substitutes will be found for the most energy demanding processes and materials in industry. Luxury goods from far away lands like coffee, tee, tropical fruits, chocolate and teak may become rare.
Things like this can greatly reduce energy use without greatly affecting the health of people. And this will happen automatically with higher prices.
This is the most productive field. There is a long way to go.

It is true that energy demand from the third world is growing. But these countries, like China and India, are also those countries that are right now building out nuclear power. And countries can function perfectly well using mostly nuclear power. France is one example. These countries will gain greatly in the future if those opposed to nuclear manage to slow development in the US or Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm
China is building cars rapidly.

It is also true that that oil is today necessary for transportation and in agriculture. But it is in transportation that some of the easiest conservations can be made. And biodiesel is rapidly growing and has the potential to handle all the US transportation fuel needs on a very small area. Another possibility is converting coal to transportation fuel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf
Biodiesel suffers from enormous startup costs and very low productivity. I won't believe it until it becomes a large profitable business. Government research is the start of such effort not the finish line. Many biologists have said that no such method will work with today's technology.

Aquamarine

Nov19-04, 10:34 AM

Living standards are increasing worldwide. The percentage of people in poverty living under 1$ per day (PPI adjusted) have halved since 1980.
http://www.worldbank.org/research/povmonitor/

Regarding China and cars, they are at present mostly a luxury. If oil prices raises rapidly as you predict, they will simply remain a luxury for the rich. Similar in other third world countries. Their society is not organized with the assumption that everybody has a car, like the US, and thus that people can live a long distance from work and stores without mass transportation.

Regarding startup costs for biodesel:
In "The Controlled Eutrophication process: Using Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agircultural Fertilizer Recycling"3, the authors estimated a cost per hectare of $40,000 for algal ponds. In their model, the algal ponds would be built around the Salton Sea (in the Sonora desert) feeding off of the agircultural waste streams that normally pollute the Salton Sea with over 10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each. To be conservative (since their estimate is fairly optimistic), we'll arbitrarily increase the cost per hectare by 100% as a margin of safety. That brings the cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL's yield rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308 billion to build the farms.

The operating costs (including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $46.2 billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare that to the $100-150 billion the US spends each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of that money leaving the US economy.
I am unsure what you mean with productivity, but read this:
What is the energy efficiency for producing biodiesel? Based on a report by the US DOE and USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus"5, biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1. That means that for each unit of energy put into growing the soybeans and turning the soy oil into biodiesel, we get back 3.2 units of energy in the form of biodiesel. That works out to an energy efficiency of 320% (when only looking at fossil energy input - input from the sun, for example, is not included). The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy (oil). Current generation diesel engines are 43% efficient (HCCI diesel engines under development, and heavy duty diesel engines have higher efficiencies approaching 55% (better than fuel cells), but for the moment we'll just use current car-sized diesel engine technology). That 3.2 energy balance is for biodiesel made from soybean oil - a rather inefficient crop for the purpose. Other feedstocks such as algaes can yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using thermochemical processes for processing wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

And you are ignoring that fact that coal can be converted to transportation fuel at only slightly higher cost than oil in the ground. The technology for this is already available and in use, see the link in my previous post. Germany used this successfully during WWII to produce most of its transportation fuel at the end of the war. The western world has large coal reserves. If all else should fail and time is of essence, this will be used until other technologies become available or built out.

CharlesP

Nov19-04, 09:57 PM

I moved out to Denver at the time of the big coal to gasoline scene. Housing was booming. Shortly after I left the whole thing went bust and housing busted too. They are not going to try anything like that again for a long time.

Those figures didn't look all that inviting to me so I am waiting for someone to go into the business and make it work before I believe.

Astronuc

Nov23-04, 09:56 PM

Clearly conservation must be part of the strategy.

For example, more efficient use of lighting and heating can contribute to less electrical demand.

More efficient vehicles, especially personal transportation, should be encouraged. It seems that automobile companies would rather build profitable SUV's than cars with more fuel efficiency, because that's what the market demands. On the other hand, the IRS has been offering a $35,000 rebate on Hummers (which cost $106,000) for "business" use - but then one can use them for personal use before and after working hours. The rebates for hybrid cars have been on the order of $1000-$2000. (source: Graydon Carter, "What We've Lost", p. 155-156, 2004).

An increase of 3 miles/gal (mpg) in fuel efficiency could save the US on the order of $25 billion and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 155 million tons. (source: Graydon Carter, "What We've Lost", p. 156, 2004).

To deal with CO2 - plant trees - lots of trees. For every tree I remove from my property (I have to cull diseased trees that were planted too close), I plant one or more. I see a lot of open space that could use some trees. The shade of trees can actually reduce energy costs in the summer time, and provide wind breaks which cut heating costs in winter.

Reforestation in parts of the world, particularly Africa, could significantly reduce CO2 burden, reduce global temperatures, and even increase rainfall in Sahel, Sahara and Arabian Peninsula.

As for nuclear power - new reactor and plants designs are ready to go.

BNFL/Westinghouse
AP-600: http://www.ap600.westinghousenuclear.com/
AP-1000: http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

The AP600 received its final design approval from the U.S. NRC in September 1998, and the design certification in December 1999. The AP-1000 just received its final design approval (FDA) from NRC on Set. 13, 2004

AREVA (Framatome/Siemens) - EPR (http://www.framatome-anp.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Framatome-ANP/view&c=rubrique&cid=1049449651493&id=1049449651453) (European Pressurized water reactor). EdF has announced plans to build the first EPR (a 1600 MWe unit) at Flamanville, in the Basse Normandie region of northern France. Construction would begin in 2007 and would last 5 years with the unit on-line in 2012. TVO has selected the EPR for the third unit at Olkiluoto (http://www.tvo.fi/362.htm)

GE has the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) - The ABWR is the proud recipient of U.S. Standard Design Certification #1, issued on May 2, 1997.
http://npj.goinfo.com/NPJMain.nsf/0/5e5a077946dd6292862569f40079c3cd?OpenDocument
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/abwr/abwr.html
Two units, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 and 7, are operating in Japan since 1996 and 1997 respectively, and two units are under construction in Lungmen, Taiwan. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lungmen/

hitssquad

Nov24-04, 07:08 AM

To deal with CO2 - plant treesCO2 is reduced mainly by ocean life, not trees. This is why ocean seeding has been explored:
http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+ocean+iron

For dealing with CO2 production from coal plants, Richard Garwin suggests that sequestration might be profitable:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:xR6sadLanwwJ:amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375403949/ref%3Dpd_sim_dp_3/+garwin+sequestration+co2&hl=en

The authors first consider the bridging contribution of coal, arguing (p. 232) that CO2 sequestration is certainly feasible at the cost of reducing power-plant net energy output by 30-50%. Coupled with oil+gas decline, sequestration would reduce anthropogenic CO2 generation to levels well below the lowest 2100 projection of the IPCC

The shade of trees can actually reduce energy costs in the summer time, and provide wind breaks which cut heating costs in winter.Three-foot-thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls might provide similar shading and wind-breaking capacity.

Reforestation in parts of the world, particularly Africa, could...Provide perhaps a couple of years' worth of firewood for the local inhabitants.

Aquamarine

Nov24-04, 08:03 AM

GE has the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) - The ABWR is the proud recipient of U.S. Standard Design Certification #1, issued on May 2, 1997.
http://npj.goinfo.com/NPJMain.nsf/0/5e5a077946dd6292862569f40079c3cd?OpenDocumentInter esting that the construction time has only been 3 years in completed units.

More on new reactor types:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm

Long term, especially the information on fast neutron reactor (=breeders) is interesting.
About 20 liquid metal-cooled FBRs have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supply electricity commercially. About 290 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated.

Natural uranium contains about 0.7 % U-235 and 99.3 % U-238. In any reactor the U-238 component is turned into several isotopes of plutonium during its operation. Two of these, Pu-239 and Pu-241, then undergo fission in the same way as U-235 to produce heat. In a fast neutron reactor this process is optimised so that it can 'breed' fuel, often using a depleted uranium blanket around the core. FBRs can utilise uranium at least 60 times more efficiently than a normal reactor. They are however expensive to build and could only be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to pre-1980 values, about four times the current market price.
Even an increase in uranium price this large will probably affect final energy cost much less, since fuel cost is very small part of final cost. Approximately the fuel cost is 0.30 c/kWh today. 3/4 of that is from enrichment and not from the price of uranium itself. Breeders should make the uranium last 60x longer. And the plants and probably enrichment of tomorrow will be more efficient.

The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

Entropy

Nov24-04, 09:56 AM

You know what we need: Superconductors! If be can get the TC of superconductors up to near room temperature then we could drastically increase effecienty in almost everything involving electricity. Car's engines could be up to five times for effencient and several times more powerful. Turbines in dams and other power plants could generate much more power and no power would be loss through power lines!

brewnog

Nov24-04, 02:06 PM

An increase of 3 gal/mile in fuel efficiency could save the US on the order of $25 billion and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 155 million tons.

Mmmm, I like the way that you have described fuel economy figures in terms of "gallons per mile", rather than the more traditional 'miles per gallon'. :smile:

I'm not sure if you intended this or not, but it's a good point well made. There is absolutely no excuse for the use of SUVs (or as they're known in the UK, 'Chelsea Tractors') in urban environments. Anyone who owns one without just cause (and no, having 3 kids is NOT an excuse, nor is favouring the driving position) should be truly ashamed of themselves.

I realise that they are by no means the largest producer of the gases we are trying to curb, but I think it has to be the first step to turning peoples' attitudes around.

/rant

Astronuc

Nov24-04, 07:55 PM

brewnog, thanks for pointing out the error. The ratio has been corrected to an increase of 3 miles/gal rather than 3 gal/mile.

As for
Three-foot-thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls might provide similar shading and wind-breaking capacity.

it is much less expensive to plant trees than to erect a reinforced concrete wall three feet think. Imagine the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that one would have to to. :biggrin:

I maintain that trees are part of the solution. I had an oak tree that was growing at a phenomenal rate of about 1 foot/yr. After 10 years, it was putting on some mass, growing laterally as well as vertically. If that were multiplied by 2E9 trees over an area of 72,000 sq miles, that could handle perhaps anywhere from 10 million to 100 million tons of CO2/yr depending on growth rates. I am also being generous with 1000 sq ft/tree.

The dryland area of the US about 3,537,438.44 sq miles, but perhaps 1/2 is mountainous or urban/suburban so its use for trees would be limited.

The Sahel and Sahara areas have much larger areas that could be reforested. Assuming that increases rainfall those areas, then crops would be more successfully grown.

Use of trees for fuel is not necessary. Solar power (PV or solar dynamic systems) can be used for energy in the Sahel and Sahara, so inhabitants do not need to burn wood. Clearly Africa needs substantial improvements in energy sources and distribution.

brewnog

Nov25-04, 06:26 AM

Aw, I thought it made quite a good point Astronuc, even if it was an error...

hitssquad

Nov25-04, 07:21 AM

it is much less expensive to plant trees than to erect a reinforced concrete wall three feet think.Trees are dangerous and destroy property (http://images.google.com/images?q=tree%20storm%20damage%20house&num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi). Like other live pets, they require constant supervision and frequent health check-ups. The property damage and the health maintenance of trees are expenses that might make the total ownership costs of concrete walls seem inexpensive in comparison.

I had an oak tree that was growing at a phenomenal rate of about 1 foot/yr.The average American produces 20 tons of CO2 per year (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar%5Cglobalwarming.nsf/content/EmissionsInternationalInventory.html). Was your oak tree putting on 20 tons of dry weight per year?

multiplied by 2E9 trees over an area of 72,000 sq miles, that could handle perhaps anywhere from 10 million to 100 million tons of CO2/yrAnd, meanwhile, America produces 5,480 million metric tons of CO2 per year (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar%5Cglobalwarming.nsf/content/EmissionsInternationalInventory.html). One reason ocean seeding is being explored is that trees are notoriously pathetic at soaking up atmospheric carbon.

[edit: Keep that filth out of my forum, hitssquad. I won't tolerate it. -Russ]

Astronuc

Nov28-04, 07:32 PM

Regarding trees, I was actually thinking about areas outside of those with high population density. I have flown over the country numerous times, and there seems to be a lot of open areas that could be reforested.

they [tree] require constant supervision and frequent health check-ups.

Most trees that I see appear to have no human intervention at all. Some trees certainly do become diseased and that is why property owners need to inspect trees, as much as they need to be aware of the condition of the house.

Most of my trees are at a distance from my house that exceeds the height. I have one maple tree that did drop one of is side trunks just behind the house, so I watch is more carefully - it will probably be removed soon. I also had a large spruce tree removed because it overwhelmed the neighbor's driveway.

But it seems high winds or stormy weather is the culprit. If trees were not around, the storm winds would directly affect the house, and high winds can do significant damage to a house.

If one was going to the expense of a 3-foot (1 meter) thick concrete wall, then it would be worthwhile to build the exterior wall structure of the house in this manner. Then surround the house with trees to shade it and provide a wind break. We have a lot of birds around our property, and it is very nice to listen to them and watch them.

Sitting by the window looking out, I thought today, that it would not be much of a view staring at a concrete wall. BTW, a concrete wall would get quite hot in the summer. Metropolitan areas are usually 4-5°C (so-called urban or metropolitan heat island effect).

Based on the stats that you provided, certainly trees are not the total solution, only part of it. Clearly energy conservation is a necessary part. Reduction of fossil fuel (coal and oil) is necessary. Part of that should be a significant improvement in vehicular mileage.

hittsquad - Thanks for the links on ocean seeding. I will definitely look into that. But is it practical (even if feasible) to put 5.5 billion tons of CO2 into the oceans each year? Is that something in which you are involved?

I just started researching "carbon sequestration" area, so I am still learning about it.

Ivan Seeking

Nov28-04, 08:12 PM

Energy efforts close to starting

State program will help fund solar, wind farm projects

By JOHN G. EDWARDS
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Two developers said Friday they are getting closer to beginning construction on separate alternate energy projects that will take advantage of a new state program.

Developers of Solargenix Energy, a planned 50-megawatt solar thermal project in the Eldorado Valley, and Ely Wind, a proposed 50-megawatt wind farm in Northern Nevada, have applied for approval under a new state program that makes it easier for them to get financing.

Solargenix hopes to obtain financing by March and start construction of the solar thermal plant, said Gary Bailey, a local executive with the company. The facility will use troughs that reflect sunlight and heat on to a fluid-filled pipe that will spin a turbine to generate power. [continued with more information and listed projects]
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-27-Sat-2004/business/25354555.html

Aquamarine

Dec3-04, 05:52 AM

Here is another very interesting new technology. If it works out as planned, if will produce oil from almost all sorts of wastes containing hydrocarbons, like sewage, plastics or paper. And at the same time also reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored and also degrading many dangerous substances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Ivan Seeking

Dec17-04, 07:33 PM

Turkey droppings fuel power plant

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Turkey leftovers will take on a whole new use after a Minnesota company finishes construction of a power plant fired by the birds' droppings. [continued]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/16/energy.environment.turkeys.reut/index.html

Aquamarine

Dec18-04, 09:39 AM

Two interesting articles.

Do we need nuclear power?
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/6/2/1

Order of Magnitude Morality
http://www.aims.ac.za/~mackay/oomm.html

Ivan Seeking

Dec20-04, 01:46 AM

... The fuel cost the Tabbs' $4.02 per gallon, but the business will be able to take advantage of a federal tax credit beginning Jan. 1.

The tax credit may not necessarily make the fuel cheaper than petroleum-based diesel, according to National Biodiesel Board communications director Jenna Higgins.

"We do know it will do a lot to close the gap," she said. The tax credit was included in job-creation legislation signed into law in October.

Higgins could not offer how prevalent Biodiesel had become nationwide, but cited statistics by the U.S. Department of Energy that indicate the alternative fuel was among the fastest growing.

"We estimate that 31 percent of soybean farmers use biodiesel and that number continues to go up," Higgins sad.

"Enthusiasm for biodiesel fuel is contagious," [continued]
http://www.journal-news.net/news/story/1218202004_new01_fuel_121804_n.asp

hitssquad

Dec20-04, 10:49 AM

If trees were not around, the storm winds would directly affect the house, and high winds can do significant damage to a house.If a house cannot withstand predictable wind speeds, it might seem there is something wrong with the design of, or the construction technique used in the building of, the house:
http://www.garylukens.com/steel_frame_homes.htm

More structurally stable and stronger than wood framed homes and safer in high winds and other natural disasters.

The steel framed wall panel used in our construction is the strongest design engineered. This design withstands racking of the structure in winds of excess of 150 mph.

If one was going to the expense of a 3-foot (1 meter) thick concrete wall, then it would be worthwhile to build the exterior wall structure of the house in this manner.Agreed. A concrete dome capping a concrete-lined subterranian space might be just the ticket for blast protection in case of nuclear attack.

Then surround the house with trees to shade it and provide a wind break.?

The proposed house is made out of thick, steel-reinforced concrete.

it would not be much of a view staring at a concrete wall.Computer monitors can be used for viewing. Audio speakers can be used for listening. Birds and trees can be computer-simulated, or live video cameras feeding back to the house can be set up where there are live birds and trees. If you would like to add a babbling brook to the scene, it is merely a few keystrokes or mouse-clicks away.

BTW, a concrete wall would get quite hot in the summer.Perhaps it would not be hot on the inside. This concrete is pretty thick. It might be like living inside a cave (except this cave has as many windows as you are willing to add video monitors.)

solution.... Clearly energy conservation is a necessary part.It would seem that qualification and quantification might be needed in order to be able to reach conclusions.

Reduction of fossil fuel (coal and oil) is necessary. Part of that should be a significant improvement in vehicular mileage.Again, adequate qualification and quantification seems to be lacking.

CharlesP

Jan25-05, 10:33 PM

I just built a house with a full dug out basement lined with 12 inch cinder block. I estimate that the basement if 1000 square feet added $100,000 to the cost of the house. I don't think too many folks have an extra $100,000 to waste. Economically it was a mistake. But it is a fine engineering test bed.

hitssquad

Jan26-05, 01:20 AM

Economics in action, Charles:
http://www.aero-data.com/anaglyphs/hurricane_damage_fixed.jpg

How much is a blown-down house worth? How much is a house with a car embedded in its livingroom worth?
http://www.google.com/search?q=car+livingroom+crash

I don't think too many folks have an extra $100,000 to waste.The average American male makes 2.5 million year-2000 dollars in his lifetime and wastes much of that on luxuries such as cars that can go three times the maximum speed limit, low-brow entertainment, jewelry, dysfunctional clothing, mountains of poisonous "food", glorified 18th-century "health care", preventable "accidents", low-brow weddings, divorces from spouses that simple psychological tests would have told them they should not have married, low-brow funerals, etc. On a $2.5 million lifetime income, I think a person can cut back on a few of those things and afford to build a $500,000 high-security home.

And if it's dug into the ground, you can save a little on energy costs, too. An underground house is passively geothermal.
http://www.kettler.com/geot.html

The Heat Beneath Your Feet

Geothermal energy, the heat beneath your feet, is the most stable renewable energy source. Three feet below most of the eartth's surface, the ground temperature is always at least a mild 50 degrees F., and this temperature increases with depth to several hundred degrees.

Kenneth Mann

Jan26-05, 09:44 PM

Is saving money by building wood houses really saving money
--------------------------------------------------
I think that you might find it interesting that steel framed and concrete structures, when built serially (not one-off) and by well qualified personnel, are generally more economical than the general 'stick-built' wood framed houses. The materials for steel or masonry houses generally cost more, but the labor costs are generally considerably lower. Cutting, recutting, measuring, force-fitting, etc. are greatly reduced, for example. Cost of construction isn't the big problem. That problem is:

Tradition! - - - Tradition!

More in general, a certain very influential segment of the American populace wants nothing other than a home that buys into the perceived American (sometimes European) tradition of what a proper house should be. That segment, in particular is heavily represented in the lower middle-class WASP female populace. (This has been borne-out in studies in the past.) This preference is basically a way of buying into this perceived tradition. Convince this very large group that the 'stick-built' house isn't preferable and you can quickly and at no extra cost, start to improve America's energy consumption picture. Fail to convince this group, and we muddle on.

Kenneth Mann

Jan26-05, 09:53 PM

And if it's dug into the ground, you can save a little on energy costs, too. An underground house is passively geothermal.

Actually, we can save a lot this way. The average temperature a few feet below ground surface, in most climates, averages near sixty degrees year-round. (This is what makes underground homes so attractive to some people.) Masonry houses (brick, block and especially concrete), however also have other properties that make them attractive in this situation (and a few problems). The main advantages, other than structural strength, are those of thermal 'flywheel' and thermal 'wick'. It is well known that masonry tends to hold onto temperature values much better than most building materials. What is less well known is a little discovery made a few years ago by a builder in the US Southwest, that by anchoring a masonry foundation well into the ground, and then insulating this masonry structure on the 'outside', temperatures on the inside can be easily and economically stabilized and maintained year-round. (And, the house itself doesn't have to be underground.)

The drawback to this is the fact that, because masonry is generally cooler than the hot outside air (in summer); when this outside air comes in contact, it tends to dump a lot of its absorbed moisture onto the colder masonry walls. As result, basements are often wet and moldy, especially in the more humid areas.

KM

Kenneth Mann

Jan26-05, 10:06 PM

Quote:
BTW, a concrete wall would get quite hot in the summer.
-------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps it would not be hot on the inside. This concrete is pretty thick. It might be like living inside a cave (except this cave has as many windows as you are willing to add video monitors.)

There's no reason to assume that concrete will be hotter in Summer than other materials. Actually, it tends to be cooler in Summer and warmer in Winter (thermal, Flywheeling - very similar to water, and the wicking effect). This is why basement walls tend to be cool (and thus damp) in the Summer.

KM

Kenneth Mann

Jan26-05, 10:16 PM

The Sahel and Sahara areas have much larger areas that could be reforested. Assuming that increases rainfall those areas, then crops would be more successfully grown.

It must be borne in mind that the Sahara, at least, was once somewhere between fairly lush, and a savannah area (I believe, as recently as about seven or eight thousand years ago). If so, then before trying to change it from what it is Today, we must ask, "what changed it to this state?" If the cause was in nature, then just maybe we can determine and implement what will be required to restore it, and maybe not. If we find out what is required, maybe it will be economically and politically feasible, and maybe not. The frightening thought, though is - - "What if we caused it in some way?". I suspect that the cause was natural but we could have been the culprit, and if so, we'll probably never be able to bring ourselves to correct it (even if we can). We apparently did cause the heavily forested areas of Lebanon to vanish, and we don't have the faintest idea what we must do to correct the situation there. In like manner, much of Michigan was once heavily forested, and we destroyed most of that. (Will that some day become a desert?) We definitely seem to know how to destroy forests, but not necessarily how to rebuild them (especially the old growth types). Now we are working to destroy the rainforests of the Equatorial regions and this will probably influence the world's rainfall patterns in catastrophic ways. (The reason that this isn't raising great alarms around the world, may possibly be the fact that it isn't predominantly the evil Americans that are doing it, but who rather stand to suffer the consequences if it continues, especially in the Western Pacific. Destruction of the South American rain forests will have similar effects on Europe.)
I, personally have little faith in our will or abilities to create forests. I just hope that we don't destroy more of them.
Regarding trees, I was actually thinking about areas outside of those with high population density. I have flown over the country numerous times, and there seems to be a lot of open areas that could be reforested.

Good luck!

If one was going to the expense of a 3-foot (1 meter) thick concrete wall, then it would be worthwhile to build the exterior wall structure of the house in this manner. Then surround the house with trees to shade it and provide a wind break. We have a lot of birds around our property, and it is very nice to listen to them and watch them.

One added suggestion here. Where possible, plant evergreens (softwoods) to the North and West. This will help to block out the winds and snow in the Winter. On the other hand, put the deciduous trees (hardwoods) to the South. In this way you can help to block out direct sunlight in the Summer, while allowing it to come through in Winter.

KM

ohwilleke

Jan27-05, 11:30 AM

Late to the party here but a few points:

(1) There are multiple energy markets that are currently only tangentially linked.
(2) There are muliple environmental, cost, supply and safety concerns.

Supply

Let's look at the supply issue first. There is no doubt that the supply of fossil fuels is finite. There is no doubt that demand for fossil fuels is poised to increase rapidly as nations like China industrialize. There is no doubt that a limited supply and an inceased demand will increase fossil fuel energy prices in the long run. Technology is going to make more fossil fuels available as prices increase making more expensive to exploit resources more attractive, but the long term trend is still fossil fuel prices going up.

You can argue over whether it will take ten years, twenty years, forty years or eighty years to get there, but an economy that relies on fossil fuels is unsustainable in the long term.

There is also not serious dispute about the fact that the most scarce of the fossil fuels is petroleum, and that the second most scarce of the fossil fuels in natural gas (in both cases relative to current use), while coal, and the non-renewable non-fossil fuel of uranium, are less scarce than natural gas given current useage patterns.

It should also be obvious that our oil supply is highly subject to geopolitical risk. Choosing to exploit oil fields in Alaska may put off the day of reckoning a few years, but the key point is that most of the reserves of oil in the world lie outside the United States in places like the Middle East, Nigeria and Venezula which are not politically stable. (Lots of the world's uranium resources are also located in regions where political stability is lacking).

Multiple Markets

The transporation fuel market, which relies almost exclusively upon petroleum products as an energy source right now, is almost entirely separate from the other demands on our energy supply (i.e. electricity, industrial use, residential and commercial use).

The Non-Transportation Market

The fact that a variety of fuels can be used in the non-transporation market has let to price competition and lots of options to address that part of the energy market. Electricity can be produced using current technology with hydroelectric power, wind power, solar power, coal, natural gas, petroleum, biofuels and waste products, geothermal power, etc.

Petroleum is the least used fuel for heating buildings like homes and businesses in the nation. Industrial users are actively trying to reduce their petroleum use due to environmental and cost concerns. Very little electricity is produced with petroleum and much of that is in isolated areas like Hawaii and rural Alaska where there is no cheap way to transport coal or natural gas and there are insufficient local hydroelectric resources.

Natural gas is primarily used for water heating and heating buildings. It is a versatile fuel which can be used in modified vehicles for transporation, which can be used to generate peak demand electricity (it is expensive as a base electricity fuel), and can be used in industrial use. But, leaving oil for natural gas puts pressure on the natural gas supply (and those of you who heat your homes with gas know that those prices do from time to time go through the roof). Natural gas is the least polluting fossil fuel and can be clean and efficient even in small scale applications (like a home water heater).

There are rooms for significant conservation measures in the non-transportation sector. Better insulated houses and more efficient water heating systems can greatly reduce demand for energy in those areas and the market is likely to make this happen as prices for natural gas (or the main alternative electricity) rise.

There is really no danger of "running out" of energy for the non-transporation section in the near term. Even we knew for a fact that all natural gas supplies would be gone in ten years (and no one is claiming that they will be), electricity could replace every major use of natural gas with no technological advances and fairly modest infrastructure costs as almost all buildings are already wired for electricity. Natural gas is preferred over electricity simply because it is less expensive (outside uses like cooking and artificial fireplaces with are a tiny fraction of the total natural gas consumption of the nation and would still persist even if natural gas prices went up ten fold or a hundred fold).

In the non-transportation sector, thus, environmental, cost and safety concerns are predominant. The main environmental issue in the non-transportation section is that coal fired electricity plants cause significant air pollution and that the mining (mostly strip mining) to burning process for coal also generates significant solid waste and has significant environmental impacts.

Basically, then, anything that is more environmentally attractive than coal is a good idea if it can be done at a manageable cost and with greater or equal safety. Nuclear fission meets this test (particularly with breeder reactors). Wind power meets this test. Photovoltaic power is close to meeting this test for summer daytime peak useage in the sunbelt (i.e. to power air conditioning). Hydroelectric power meets this test but has already been heavily exploited, and geothermal power availability is highly localized. Conservation schemes also abound. Better insultation is the most basic, and solar power is quite efficient at reducing the need to heat water with other fuels (water heating and not photovoltaic applications are the main current commercial use of solar power now). Co-generation plants that use heat directly as well as generating electricity for steam plants in urban or industrial areas are highly efficient. This list is not exhaustive.

In short, the non-transportation section is not in a crisis, and has numerous possible solutions that modest policy nudges to encourage could easily put on a fast track. A simple "carbon tax" on fossil fuel emissions, for example, could easily create the incentive to encourage change while funding research into conservation and alternative sources without unduly tinkering with market mechanisms in this sector.

The Transportation Market

The real problem is in the transportation area. The options for reducing pollution are fewer (and the pollution from this type of energy use is significant), the likelihood of supply being a problem is greater (not actually running out, but seeing prices rise, particularly as China and other developing nations increase their demand while supplies don't get dramatically greater), and the amount of effort needed to adapt to new technologies is greater.

Air

Air transportation will simply have to get more expensive. There is no good alternative for powering a jet to petroleum products, this is a very small part of the total demand (probably under 1%), and this is the highest value petroleum use in the transportation section.

Of course, as air transportation gets mor expensive, passenger rail becomes more attractive for medium distance, budget conscious passengers, indirectly reducing demand in this section.

Rail

One of the best ways energy use in the transportation sector can be reduced is with increased use of rail. Freight rail already is fully converted to diesel-electric hybrid power systems of the type just beggining to appear in passenger cars like the Prius. They are many times less polluting and more fuel efficient and less costly than moving freight by truck with no new technology at all. Shifting more long haul freight to rail, with trucks making deliveries locally, to and from the train station, could dramatically reduce transportation sourced air pollution and petroleum demands.

It does require a new business model and technology, with a focus on containerizing cargo. It would also benefit from modest efforts to increase the speed of freight rail -- not to the 190 mph of the TGV in France for passenger rail, but another 5-10 mph above current norms. Mostly though, it would require much more efficient technology to move containers carried by rail off trains and onto trucks (and visa versa). But, this is a far easier task than creating a hydrogen economy, developing viable fusion power, or a host of other far more commonly discussed sexier energy conservation proposals. Simply removing the government subsidies that favor road over rail (users bear only about 40% of the cost of the road system through gas and other transportatio related taxes, with the rest coming from general revenue taxes mostly at the state and local level) and penalizing trucks that fail to meet the same emissions standards of other parts of the energy use economy would go a long way towards securing this switch.

We also need to look more intelligently at passenger rail to see where it makes sense and where it does not. Passenger rail at an average of about 35 mph over vast rural areas of the interior United States, which is mostly what Amtrack does outside the Northeast Corridor, is idiotic and exists only due to massive per passenger government subsidies. This is better terminated to allow intercity buses (which still beat cars in environmental and safety respects) become more economically viable.

But, passenger rail at 90-190 mph at medium intercity distances (i.e. before the speed advantages of air travel become overwhelming) in high density corridors between urbanized areas (e.g. the California coast, the Northeast Corridor, the Front Range of Colorado, the major cities of Texas, the major cities of Ohio) can make lots of sense. Also, because high speed rail systems are typically in urban areas close to power plants and operate on fixed routes, electricity is often a good energy source for them so the burden on the petroleum supply can be alleviated and shifted to the less crisis prone non-transportation enegy sector. The rest of the developed world (Western Europe and Japan) makes wide use of high speed rail in these conditions.

As long as we don't try to use passenger rail to connect small towns in Nebraska, as we do now, it can be a good part of the solution.

Roads

In the near term future, hybrid drives are the best way to reduce petroleum consumption for cars and trucks. They work well at scales from subcompacts to big rigs (keep in mind that our nation's train system already has used this technology for decades, and it has also been tested in Hummer's and SUVs, as well as the more familiar Toyota Prius). It has all the performance of a conventional vehicle, is less polluting, is more fuel efficient, requires no new infrastructure and has a modest price differential which is partially simply a function of economies of scale.

A near complete conversion to hybrid technology could reduce petroleum consmption by 20-30%.

The easiest way to boost hybrid drive technology would be to shift funding for the road system from general taxes to gasoline taxes, which might incease gas prices by 50 cents to $1 a gallon, which creates an incentive of something on the order of $250 per mile per gallon of fuel efficiency improvement, enough to make hybrid drive technology look good.

Along with hybrid drive technology, we also need to look at ways to make diesel engines cleaner burning (e.g. by removing sulfur so we can use more emissions cleaning technology at the tailpipe) so that this more fuel efficient fuel source can leverage the benefits associated with hybrid drive.

A hybrid drive diesel is even more fuel efficient than a hybrid drive gasoline engine, but produces more of certain kinds of pollutants due to a dearth of regulation of those pollution sources so far. Modest emissions regulations for diesel could make this a real good option for reducing petroleum dependency.

In the longer term, we need to think about reducing the sprawl that makes universal use of cars and trucks to do anything necessary, through better land use, and we need to look at wider use of fully electric cars.

Fully electric cars are already viable for intra-city use. They also perform just like a regular car. But, they have shorter range and take a long time to recharge (even though a plug in your garage or at your workplace parking spot is all that is required). This makes them unattractive for anyone who every makes long range trips, as most people buy vehicles for peak use (hence the trend of single individuals driving to work in huge SUVs).

The peak use purchase syndrome for both SUVs and as a discouraging trend for electric cars can be addressed by making the rental car market work better and reducing subsidies and regulatory biases in favor of big, polluting vehicles. Why own an SUV or full cab pickup you only use the full abilities of, when it is quick and easy to rent one for the weekened, at a fraction of the price. A little nudge and attitude adjustment here could have a big impact. For example, why not sell smaller cars and sedans bundled with a voucher for ten days of year of SUV or pickup rentals?

The technological barrier for fully electric cars is batteries. The rest of the technology is proven, works great, and explains why hybrid cars provide an advantage even now. But, batteries are expensive, have lots of toxic elements, and don't have a high enough energy density, among other problems.

R&D efforts towards better batteries should be one of the biggest priorites in the nation, far ahead of nuclear fusion (which even if discovered would only solve a crisis we don't have), other other long shot efforts. It doesn't take a scientific revolution. Improvements of degree make electric cars and trucks more and more attractive. And, once you have viable electric cars and trucks (even if you need petroleum for rural areas, just as we use it in those areas for electricity generation now) that can get widespread use in urban areas, we have largely solved the problems associated with petroleum and can address the source energy pollution problem with the variety of non-transportation section options discussed above.

CharlesP

Feb11-05, 08:48 PM

The drawback to this is the fact that, because masonry is generally cooler than the hot outside air (in summer); when this outside air comes in contact, it tends to dump a lot of its absorbed moisture onto the colder masonry walls. As result, basements are often wet and moldy, especially in the more humid areas.
I have observed this phenomenon for two years in my new house and it is strange here. In summer moisture is absorbed by the cinder block basement walls. I suspect it goes into the pores so that the basement is not quite as damp as expected. In the fall as the outside cools the water comes out and lands on the windows, lots of it. Then as the basement cools the vapor pressure drops and the windows are dry again.
It is important to have air conditioning or dehumidifier in the basement during some very damp summers.

Ivan Seeking

Mar27-05, 12:19 AM

...Shortly after the completion of the Nagano plant, Pacific Biodiesel began to attack an even larger problem for the Landfill – grease trap waste. With the addition of a custom designed grease trap oil processor, PacBio was then able to supply its own boiler fuel, again while diverting 140 tons of grease trap oil from the Landfill each month. This biofuel product is available for considerably less than petroleum diesel fuel. [continued]

http://www.biodiesel.com/aboutPacBio.htm

Willie Nelson: On the Road Again with Biodiesel
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/20040629_Willie_Nelson.pdf

ohwilleke

Mar28-05, 08:18 PM

The average American male makes 2.5 million year-2000 dollars in his lifetime and wastes much of that on luxuries such as cars that can go three times the maximum speed limit, low-brow entertainment, jewelry, dysfunctional clothing, mountains of poisonous "food", glorified 18th-century "health care", preventable "accidents", low-brow weddings, divorces from spouses that simple psychological tests would have told them they should not have married, low-brow funerals, etc. On a $2.5 million lifetime income, I think a person can cut back on a few of those things and afford to build a $500,000 high-security home.

So we're going to eliminate fast cars, entertainment involving depictions of car chases, bling, pretty stuff, junk food, health care, weddings, divorces, funerals, and accidents. And, while we're at it, we are going to join a monestary and swear oaths of chastity and obediance, so we can spend all day praying that we going get sick or hurt or die or fall in love or fall out of love or have any emotions that involve the limbic system.

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21

Apr2-05, 08:12 PM

while hydrogen is cool, i like this:
Develop nuclear fusion to the point where it is safe and efficent.
Then, develop new battery technology that can recharge quickly and store lots of power.
With nuclear fusion, power everything. No dangerous by-products like smog or radioactive crap.
Then put these batteries in cars and other vehicles and use them to power them. your fueling station will have a plug :bugeye: .
What do you think, it seems logical, dosn't it. THere is probably some problems somewhere, but those can be fixed.

Just an idea that would probably never happen

Fibonacci

brewnog

Apr2-05, 08:27 PM

Robust

Apr5-05, 03:44 AM

Cellulosic oil technology, developed in the UK, but stifled by the Crown\, is our best resource. Next best is "Turkey" fuel, recently developed in US looks to be 2nd best. Things are looking up on the energy front!!

Cliff_J

Apr5-05, 12:00 PM

Cellulosic oil technology, developed in the UK, but stifled by the Crown, is our best resource. Next best is "Turkey" fuel, recently developed in US looks to be 2nd best. Things are looking up on the energy front!!

The ethanol is a small step but not really a solution. And by the Turkey fuel I assume you mean the TDP (thermo depolyermization) where different organic wastes can be converted to oil like products. Again, nice step to reduce oil needs but not a full-blown energy solution and not much help on the pollution front.

The electrical system is the big problem and here in the US its mostly coal with some natural gas so the pollution is huge as well. In addition the infrastrucure is old and costly updates have been postponed to the point of massive costs (postponing them even more) so its a very complicated problem.

After reading up on the issues the strongest canidate is nuclear power. IMO the nuclear proponents need an intelligent PR person who can frankly address the needs of the industrialized nations. One who can address the concerns and admit the over-stated promises of the past and fears about the future. A person who can communicate the problems and overall long-term risks and benefits. Until then, we're clawing at incremental improvements.

ohwilleke

Apr6-05, 12:46 PM

I disagree that the electrical system is the big problem. The electrical system is an opportunity to use cleaner fuels, but, unlike the transportation system, isn't facing any impending fuel shortage and has a host of technical fixes from wind to nuclear available.

In contrast, the continued viability of the transportation system, which overwhelmingly relies upon oil derivatives, is acute. One economic indicator, the price of a barrel of oil (at $58 last time I checked), which has a clear long term trend towards going up, has the potential to paralyze our modern economies everywhere, and particularly in the United States which has chosen not to tax gas nearly as much as its competitors in Europe and Japan (where taxes roughly double the cost of gasoline compared to the United States), and thus is much reliant upon cheap gas than its competitors.

Ivan Seeking

Apr22-05, 03:13 PM

in the news:

After a year-long delay, Honda and a partner have announced they will sell a $2,000 home fueling station for natural gas cars starting in the spring of 2005. Initial sales, estimated at 500 a year, will be limited to California, but Honda could then expand to other states such as New York, where natural gas cars are used in the state fleet.

...The biggest obstacle to broader acceptance of natural gas vehicles is the limited availability of refueling stations," American Honda Vice President Tom Elliott, said in a statement. [continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960905

owl3951

Apr22-05, 04:10 PM

Here's a start, at least. I am thinking the small town of Chico, CA, where I live, could become energy-independent with this tree, while also reclaiming vast areas of hard pan which surround the town.

Karanji Tree (http://www.livejournal.com/users/foolfaerie420/46528.html#cutid1)

In the past year, info on the Internet about the Karanji has doubled, leading me to believe there is already a growing interest. Of course, when I say doubled, you must understand there was not much to begin with.

Azael

Oct26-05, 02:02 PM

This is a project by statkraft in norway to extract power when freshwater mixes with saltwater.

I read a little about it in a swedish science magasine but I have troubble finding more info on this technology. Does anyone here know anything about it and how big can it become? Obviously there is no shortage of either salt nor freshwater in most parts of the world so if its a efficient energy producer it could very well compete.

Saline power plant trials
In collaboration with SINTEF, NTNU and the Research Council of Norway, Statkraft has just opened the world’s first laboratory dedicated to research on saline power generation.

In Sunndalsfjorden fresh water from the Aura Power Station runs into the fjord. The source of energy is actually the meeting of fresh and salt water.

The technology is based on osmosis, one of the basic principles of physics. All energy levels tend to equilibrate. This means that fresh water has a natural tendency to dilute seawater. We can extract useful energy from the mixing of fresh water and seawater, if they were previously separated by a semi-permeable membrane.

When the fresh water diffuses through the membrane it creates a pressure differential that can be used to drive a turbine. SINTEF is working on the development of this membrane.

Scroll down to middle of page
http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/2003-06e/4-7.htm#19

Azael

Oct26-05, 02:03 PM

I did not realise how old this thread was before making my post. So I apologise if I should not have brought it back to life.

willib

Oct29-05, 05:02 PM

i read the article , but can not figure how they are going to get power from osmosis..
below , this was also on the same page
Problematic aurora borealis
The aurora borealis is a beautiful natural phenomenon, but it can also cause real problems for military high frequency (HF) communication systems in northern Norway. The aurora causes distortions in the ionosphere some 300 km up, where radio waves are reflected back to the ground. These disruptions may interfere with the reception of pictures, text, and sound.

anyone see anything wrong with the statements above..??
for one thing the aurora is an effect of solar wind interacting with the magnetic poles of the planet , its not the cause of anything..

Bystander

Oct30-05, 06:53 AM

One approach is to "dam" a fjord or estuary with an osmotic membrane set at the base of the dam. Fresh water passes through the membrane, dropping the fresh water level by whatever distance is desired for conventional hydroelectric power generation methods. Problems to be solved are: 1) membrane strength to withstand couple hundred kPa to MPa pressure differences between the two sides of the "dam;" 2) membrane permeability to pass sufficient amounts of fresh water to make such a project practical; 3) mixing the diluted seawater on the seaward side of the membrane to maintain enough osmotic gradient to maintain flow; 4) filtration ahead of the membrane to reduce fouling; 5) determining bypass flow rates to rinse crud the filtration system passes from the upstream side of the membrane.

If it ain't obvious, the trick being accomplished with the membrane is to add 10s to 100s of meters of fall to the stream, river, whatever at its outlet to be used for h-elec power generation.

Mike Nagle

Apr24-08, 04:09 PM

Dose any one know what the max output of a large hydro generator at full capacity

russ_watters

Apr24-08, 06:16 PM

Dose any one know what the max output of a large hydro generator at full capacity
There is no theoretical limit, but the largest in existence is the Three Gorges Dam at 18,000 megawatts, 18 times a typical nuclear reactor.

sngtdt

Apr25-08, 05:27 PM

Great discussion. I did not read all the posts, but my comments would be: source of hydrogen must be considered. I've heard that most hydrogen comes from natural gas and we're back to fossil fuels again. I think ethanol has great potential if a feedstock like switchgrass can be utilized. Even with corn, this country has a huge agricultural capacity, if it can be grown with less environmental impact. The only thing I don't like about nuclear is the long term waste storage problem. The waste from the nuclear plants that are online now is not stored properly and that waste can remain hazardous for thousands of years. The best treatment I have heard of for the waste is glassification. I don't know the details of the process, but somehow the waste is converted into a glass that cannot leak out of containers.

Mike Nagle

Apr26-08, 06:54 AM

There is no theoretical limit, but the largest in existence is the Three Gorges Dam at 18,000 megawatts, 18 times a typical nuclear reactor.

Thanks for the info. When I've done some math I'll post more.

2stroketech

Apr26-08, 04:02 PM

Trash

This is the plan that I have been playing with for years. It is an all incompasing plan that fixes many problems all at once.

Trash is basically an under tapped resource. My plan would exploit it to it's fullest.

#1 (a) set up electrical genereation plants in every major metropolitin area that can support a trash burning plant. (b) Set up regional plants that can not support one on their own. (c) Smaller plants can be set up by smaller communities as well.

#2 (a) RECYCLE evry thing that is recyclable. This is almost everything. 7% of all trash is metal is is a very valubale commodity at this time. (b) there are small companies all over the US that are building small scale plants to turn plastic waste into recovered crude oil. Recycle plastic waste for this purpose. (c) The waste that is left over would be burned for electricity. (d) all recyclables would be sold at market value.

#3 (a) The work force would be made up of those that are less fortunate or the poor if you want to be realistic. (b)The jobs would be 1.25 times the minimum wage in your area. (c)The jobs would be to pull anything recyclable off the conveyor and sort it out. (d) other jobs would be child care persons, caffeteria workers, grounds keepers, janitors, and so on. After 4 hrs. of work you are entitled to a meal in the caffeteria. (e) Child care is provided on site for those that need it. (f) A medical clinic will be on site for those that work at least 15hrs. per week or for those in an emergency. (g) GED and community college clases would also be available to those completing a minimum of 32 hrs. per week. (h) This would effectively replace welfare.

#4 (a) This system could be used by any one that needs assistance or just to make a few extra $. (b) Minimum work day would be 2 hrs. at a time. (c) Assisted people could taylor there work schedules to their needs. (d) State and federal offices could be located in the same plant for the ease of people working. (e) Using mass transit system to get there, would give you a .25 per hour bonus becasue of the savings it gives on the roads.

#5 (a) Empowerment classed could be taught, such as money management, parenting classes, drug and alcohol classes.

This will provide work fare instead of well fare. This will provide those that have a hard time finding jobs a place to work. This will recycle much of our trash that is wasted in landfills every year. This will allow people access to medical care. This will pull the main polutants (plastics and rubbers) out of the trash that is burnt making it a cleaner burn opperation. This will allow the reduction in land fills, the creation of power and the empowerment of those at the bottom to better them selves with a almost self sufficient system that eases the burdan on the tax payer. Even if this only supplimented the social system is would still do nothing but benifit overall.

I propose that tax breaks be given to companies that set these up or even use the government to set these up. I know the whole system seems a little Orwellian, but it is a system that would give people a choice about their situation and put the responsibility squarely on their own sholders while reducing polution, creating energy and creating a whole new class of productive citizens in our society who will now have the oppertunity to move up easier.

jaap de vries

Apr26-08, 11:38 PM

I Have a simple thing we can do. Raise fuel Tax by 50 cents a gallon and use that solely for research and development of alternative energy sources. This way the biggest polluters become the biggest contributors for the solution.

Mike Nagle

Apr27-08, 06:58 AM

Trash

This is the plan that I have been playing with for years. It is an all incompasing plan that fixes many problems all at once.

I like the way you think. I have a similar plan, but it works with the transportation problem

rocky14159

May9-08, 08:33 PM

Whatever happens, I hope we come up with a better alternative fuel than ethanol, it has a lot of refining going into it, and costs a lot, and all cars with it have to have rubber fuel lines in it, which will use petroleum, which, last time i checked, help the environment very much

Cocacolacan

May10-08, 11:04 AM

Although no one will like this idea as everyone loves a good steak, but get rid of the cattle industry. Insects, although a large annoyance, are extremely easy to culture (leave some sugar out in the summer), they reproduce like nobody's business, and they are inexpensive (compared to cattle). They don't need the vast open fields to run free and consume the grass. The land could be converted to corn or soy fields, and the U.S. could reduce world hunger.

@Rocky, rubber is inevitable in cars.

And there is an infinitely better solution than Ethanol, check out Algaculture on Wikipedia.

nuby

May10-08, 11:10 AM

How about hydrogen from water? What are the efficiency problems with getting hydrogen / oxygen gas from water verse hydrogen from natural gas?

Cocacolacan

May10-08, 12:06 PM

The problem with getting hydrogen from water is that the energy required to separate the two would be the same (assuming 100% efficiency) as the energy released when they are joined. It doesn't create energy, it allows for storage of it, which is what a fuel cell does, but when you are putting more energy into something than you are getting out at a later time, the benefits aren't all that great.

nuby

May10-08, 04:49 PM

nuby

May10-08, 05:42 PM

While searching around the web for electrolysis efficiency, I came across this link:[crackpot link deleted]

Some of this seems somewhat crack-potish. But if it was practical wouldn't it be a great source of energy? This technology claims to use a 'resonant' affect to break water into hydrogen and oxygen more efficiently than standard electrolysis. Is something like this possible?

russ_watters

May10-08, 06:44 PM

toots

May10-08, 10:12 PM

Well, nuclear is limited due to the limited uranium available. I believe we have 50-75 years at current rate. Coal and natural gas supplies are finite.

I propose more hydroelectric. More tidal electric. Wind electric and solar electric are good supplementals. And lastly, algae oil.

At some point, super insulated homes and buildings are going to come into play.

Whatever we do, it's going to be costly.

nuby

May10-08, 10:18 PM

russ_watters

May10-08, 11:57 PM

Well, nuclear is limited due to the limited uranium available. I believe we have 50-75 years at current rate. Coal and natural gas supplies are finite. That is only true because the current method for harnessing uranium (in the US anyway) wastes 95% of it. It doesn't have to be that way: that is purely a political choice.

russ_watters

May11-08, 12:00 AM

If someone found out how to harness, vacuum energy, zero point energy, or a simpler type of nuclear energy. Would this be a viable solution to our energy problems? Or could it be too dangerous for the public to have access to? zero point energy/vacuum energy (same diff) is not dense enough to be of any value.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a simpler type of nuclear energy", but the current technological state of nuclear power is just about where it needs to be to solve most of our energy problems. The barriers to its use are almost entirely political.

Nuclear fusion would be nice, but it isn't really necessary.

nuby

May11-08, 10:46 AM

I didn't see this mentioned yet, but cellulosic ethanol produced at a local level could be good way to go (i.e, from ag. waste, rice stubble, arborist waste, etc.) . And, biofuels (biodiesel) produced from algae farms might be a good way to go as well.

Why not use corn stalks to produce ethanol instead of the corn?

Mike Nagle

May17-08, 08:17 AM

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).

If you want to solve the energy crisis you need to redefine the problem. As I see the issues the problem is how to create a system for creating and delivering enough energy for the whole world( in other words not just for my country). Once you have enough energy(electricity) technology will follow. Third world countrys can develop. And if your solution is "green" enough the reduction of green house gases.

My solution is, as you might have guessed, a very large scaled project. At the same time it is very simple to explain.

1. The world used 1.5 Tw in 2007. So to produce 2 Tw of clean energy I suggest building 10,000 under watter hydro plants aprox 100m depth.
1a. By keeping the internal pressure of the plants static we can use the external water pressure to power the turbines.
1b. Each plant would need to house 15-20 Francis Turbines generating up to 15,000w each, but at 100m there is a fair amount of real estate around.
1c. Building a world wide power grid would use the resources of every country from trench digging to under water construction to tech research to raw materials.

2. "The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence." With this plan capacity is as far as I can see a non issue, along with future availability and foreign dependence. pollution is 0 to negligible. Safety lies in the fact that all the plants are spread throughout the world so in the case of sabotage, or natural disaster the rest of the system is a backup. As for cost ????? but it will create over 1 million jobs around the world.

There you go, if anyone has any feedback "good or bad" please post it. I want to hear from everyone.

Danger

May17-08, 09:57 AM

Just out of curiosity, why would I want to solve the US energy crisis? What have they done for me lately?
Even if they become self-sufficient, they'll still keep trying to steal our Canuk resources because it's in their nature to take without giving back and we're the closest target.

Count Iblis

May17-08, 10:48 AM

Nuclear energy as proposed by Russ is the best choice. We will need fast breeder reactors to generate enough fuel. Also we have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants cannot be started up very fast to deal with peak demand. So, we may have to build powerplants that can burn hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made using nuclear power. So, we generate a small amount of extra power which is continually used to produce hydrogen.

Another way to store energy is to use so-called "power islands". This has been proposed for wind power, but it works equally well for nuclear power. The idea is to build artificial islands in the sea. Power (wind energy and/or nuclear energy) is used to pump out sea water. When extra power is needed you let the water flow back in and generate hydro power.

These power islands can be made arbitrary large. They allow you to have an enormous peak capacity a very short notice.

Mike Nagle

May17-08, 01:29 PM

Mike Nagle

May17-08, 07:41 PM

zero point energy/vacuum energy (same diff) is not dense enough to be of any value.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a simpler type of nuclear energy", but the current technological state of nuclear power is just about where it needs to be to solve most of our energy problems. The barriers to its use are almost entirely political.

Are you saying that waste and proliferation are just politics???

aerospaceut10

May24-08, 11:57 PM

Yes but you then have radio active waste to deal with and the more nuclear plants in the world the more likely some one will have access to weapons grade material.
P.S. did you look at my post?

I believe they have been working on various ways to dispose or deal with the radioactive waste in a safe manner...One idea is to convert the stuff into a ceramic-like material...which makes for safer storage.

paulleonday

May28-08, 07:25 AM

Why would we use our own oil reserves? It only makes sense to use other's. Even if we tapped our supply, do you think we would actually pay a lower price at the pump? Our reserves should be saved for future generations. Take the mythical dependance out of the solution. There may not really be a dependance. Maybe just smoke and mirrors....

engware

May28-08, 11:47 AM

To All:

Even though this ongoing thread was started long time ago, I just noticed it.

Therefore, I would like to share some of my thoughts on this interesting subject matter.

I do believe in the energy mix as a way to move forward. I would start by using proven technologies and then work towards hydrogen and hydrogen based economy as the ultimate goal when dealing with global warming and sustainable energy generation. It is a real tough challenge, but that is where the ultimate solution to the energy problem is ...

In doing so, the emphasis is on using renewable technologies to generate hydrogen and then use hydrogen in a safe and reliable manner as the fuel -- energy carrier.

Here is a twist that would make hydrogen economy viable. Until now, power generation has been primarily done at power plants and, therefore, the cost of electricity is a few cents per kWhr. This makes it difficult to commercialize new environmentally friendly technologies.

Since today we have more and more computer devices used on the move being wirelessly connected to the Internet, hydrogen powered fuel cells could be a way to power such devices. Since these devices would work off the grid, different price structure could be put in place -- it is more of a convenience fee than some energy fee. In my opinion, this is a break for the people commercializing new environmentally friendly technologies. Such generated revenue could be used to fund additional research work and speed up introduction of other promising technologies to the commercial power generation arena.

Again, renewable energy such as solar (thermal and photovoltaic), geothermal, wind, hydro and "nuclear" can be used to generate hydrogen. During the transition period, biomass and other fuels can be used too.

At this point, let me leave it like this.

I would like to hear some feedback from Physics Forum visitors and members and I am always ready to elaborate some more on my initial thoughts.

Thanks,

Gordan

shamrock5585

Jun2-08, 11:49 AM

I wasnt able to look over all of your posts and im hoping nobody else posted a solution like this... This would probably be a very expensive project and I'm not sure if it would be feasible with our current technology but it solves pollution problems and energy needs.

Almost all of our buildings have emissions from heating sources and machinery. Each major city could build systems of piping to a central tube for all the emissions to go into... Ideally this central tube would go to space in order to get rid of all emissions... I am not sure exactly what would happen to the emissions once they reached outside our atmosphere or if we could even build a simple structure strong enough to reach that high. But the main idea is to have turbines in this central system so that the rising emissions would turn the turbine and create power to put back into the grid!

Welcoming input...

engware

Jun2-08, 12:45 PM

shamrock5585:

Thank you very much for your positive and negative feedback to my input.

As long as the concept is self sustainable and generates revenues, I just do not understand what the "expensive project" atribute has to do with the concept and/or idea that solves and/or brings to the table ...

When you get a chance, please check out the US DOE web sites at:
http://www.energy.gov
http://www.fossil.energy.gov

In my opinion, such US DOE web sites should provide you with enough information so that you can find out the status of current technologies is and what the future direction of energy technologies is.

Thanks,

Gordan

iced_maggot

Jun5-08, 09:27 AM

Realistically and without the gift of foresight, I am a firm believer that in the long term the solution will be nuclear whether that is fission or fusion in some way form or another. That is unless someone decides to build a dyson sphere somehow but that probably isn't going to happen.

Also I couldn't read through all the posts here but a few people suggested organic fuels like ethanol and what not. This is a short term and limited solution not a permanent one as whilst it might help solve (keyword help solve, not solve) one problem food prices will skyrocket along with it inflation and this will create another problem. Even if non-food crops are used farmers will have a bigger incentive to not grow food crops and to grow the crops that create fuel as the need for energy will be so great.

Another option would be to use waste biomass however I do remember reading on an article somewhere (cant remember the link) that using waste biomass comes very close to if not crosses the line require in terms of input/output energy, i.e. it comes very close to using up more energy to create than it produces (BTW, this only refers to the use of corn waste as is the case in the US, other waste crops might be better, I'm not sure. Ive heard Elephant grass is quite high yield).

Just food for though, pun absolutely intended.

Iced

h.g.Whiz

Jun21-08, 01:02 AM

I heard lignite was supposed to bring oil down to 30$ a barrel within the next two years

nuby

Jul6-08, 09:09 PM

To save energy..

Why don't cars have a built in waste heat energy recovery systems? i.e., a steam engine type booster that can convert heat into mechanical energy.. Is this really that difficult to implement? Seems like this could improve fuel efficiency by quite a bit.

Next thought.
How about energy recovery system from breaking, with hydrollics, flywheel, or magnetic/generator device.. I know this is in some hybrid vehicles today, but why wasn't it here 20 years ago? Sounds like the start of an energy crisis.

Sam Lee

Jul21-08, 12:41 AM

For immediate short term fix, we should stop driving and start taking public transport like the bus or train. By taking public transport, we will reduce transport energy usage by more than 90%. The demand will drop and price of oil will fall.

That might give us a few more decades to find better solutions.

russ_watters

Jul21-08, 12:54 AM

Unfortunately, that isn't an option for people like me who don't live in cities with good public transportation.

vanesch

Jul21-08, 03:52 AM

Are you saying that waste and proliferation are just politics???

Yes, definitely. The waste is a non-problem, which has been discussed over and over again. Proliferation is not an issue in countries that already have nuclear weapons, or that don't have any desire to make some (take most Western countries that are not nuclear powers). It is only an issue with a very limited set of states. Of course, one has to be careful with sensitive materials. But with sufficient care, the remaining risk of proliferation can be brought below the probability that a country will develop its own nukes, at which point, nuclear power is not the main vector of proliferation (which it has never been, btw).

mheslep

Jul21-08, 11:44 AM

For immediate short term fix, we should stop driving and start taking public transport like the bus or train. By taking public transport, we will reduce transport energy usage by more than 90%. ...Could you show a source that shows public transportation will reduce usage by 90%, if any at all?

mheslep

Jul21-08, 05:58 PM

A mass transit follow up. Energy efficiency of mass transit is not impressive. Cars are more efficient than buses, commuter rail is a little better than cars.

DoE Transportation Energy Data Book
Chapter 2, Energy
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
Table 2.12, pg 2-14

Energy used (BTUs) per passenger per mile
Cars: 3512
Personal Trucks: 3944
Buses: 4235 (20% worse than cars, buses are the most inefficient of all DoE listed means of commuter transportation)
Rail, commuter: 2996 (15% better than cars)

Issues of congestion, pollution, and growth planning are another matter.

Sam Lee

Aug4-08, 04:13 AM

mheslep

Aug4-08, 11:52 AM

From a pure science perspective, a bus is more efficient than a car.
A bus carrying a full load of 40 passengers will use less energy than 10 cars, each car carrying a full load of 4 passengers, when they travel the same distances.

And 4 people in a car will be more efficient than 4 cars with only one driver each, when they travel the same distances.Perhaps, but that doesn't have much to do with a practical assessment of efficiency. Some significant percentage of busses are always driving around with few people on board besides the driver (or no one to/from the bus barn), and they are making many, many more energy burning stops and starts than the four passenger car making the same commute. So given a bus that is already funded and going to be driving around empty or full, it is perhaps justifiable for one to use the bus vs your car, but not to support increasing the number of them on the road, strictly from an energy usage perspective. Congestion, mobility for those w/ out other means, etc are another story.

Sam Lee

Aug5-08, 04:56 AM

So given a bus that is already funded and going to be driving around empty or full, it is perhaps justifiable for one to use the bus vs your car

That is precisely the point. Start using public transport instead of driving whenever feasible. That will save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions.

mheslep

Aug5-08, 12:15 PM

That is precisely the point. Start using public transport instead of driving whenever feasible. That will save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions.No the point is blanket statements like this are not possible. Just saying go go public transport leads to more buses which will not save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions. You'll do more for the energy cause in your (average) car rather than buying another bus. You can say take the train whenever feasible, just barely.

Constructe

Sep2-08, 09:44 AM

Are you including all our exported energy dependence like the fact that we consume so much overseas that we are responsible for like 50% of China's energy useage and pollution? If not, our energy solution will go something like this. A declining population caused by weater related disasters and pollution even if we cut carbon emmisions in the US to 0. Lower consumption due to increasingly scarce goods and the fact that our money is being owned by everyone overseas (all we have is debt). So in the end, conservation or not, we will not be able to afford too much power besides hydroelectric. We basically burn about everything we can get in our country or countries we invade (Canada has lots of wood). Sounds silly grim but I bet your children's kids won't think that when they have kids. They will probably ask, "Why didn't you do something about it back when you could of?"

Af course we could build tons of nuclear power plants willy nilly and set up mass transit all over and encourage people to live close together. That will help alot whit the gas problem. And we won't need air conditioning except on the top of the rocky mountains and in Alaska anymore. That will save loads of electricity if you don't mind no air conditioning. Now onto brighter topics... lol.

Alfi

Sep6-08, 11:38 AM

Late to the party here but a few points:

(1) There are multiple energy markets that are currently only tangentially linked.
(2) There are muliple environmental, cost, supply and safety concerns.

Supply

Multiple Markets

The Non-Transportation Market

The Transportation Market

Air

Rail

Roads

wow.
nice post.
That took time, effort and thought.

thank you

if I may ask.
1) Do you think one presidential candidate or the other is better at understanding what you posted?
2) same question about the running mate for each.

Ivan Seeking

Sep7-08, 04:16 PM

To save energy..

Why don't cars have a built in waste heat energy recovery systems? i.e., a steam engine type booster that can convert heat into mechanical energy..

Carnot efficiency.

wildman

Sep7-08, 11:14 PM

Here is an interesting proposal from the CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration a few years ago:

He proposed building additional power houses on the large dams in the Pacific Northwest to capture the lost energy from the spring runoff (which is a huge amount of water). This power would be then converted into hydrogen which can be shipped to Texas in gas pipelines. Once in Texas, the hydrogen would be piped into the salt domes where natural gas has already been extracted. This hydrogen would then be pumped out when needed. I can't find the link but I recall that he said that all the oil used by cars in the US could be replaced with this hydrogen.

wildman

Sep7-08, 11:19 PM

Here's the link:

http://www.bluefish.org/todrivea.htm

And keep in mind that the article was written by Jack Robertson the deputy CEO of Bonneville Power. This isn't some dreaming hippie freak.

mheslep

Sep8-08, 11:51 AM

Here is an interesting proposal from the CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration a few years ago:Former. He's long retired.

... This power would be then converted into hydrogen which can be shipped to Texas in gas pipelines. ...Robertson does not mention pipelines, nor is it possible to ship H2 around in existing CNG pipelines. Making H2, burning H2 in an ICE - these are not the main problems. Moving H2 around and storing it in today's vehicles are; at the moment nobody has a workable solution.

Ivan Seeking

Sep8-08, 12:09 PM

Robertson does not mention pipelines, nor is it possible to ship H2 around in existing CNG pipelines. Making H2, burning H2 in an ICE - these are not the main problems. Moving H2 around and storing it in today's vehicles are; at the moment nobody has a workable solution.

Huh? The biggest problem is the source of energy - that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen is already in use worldwide.
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

Also, afaik, no one intends to run the hydrogen market like the petro market [pipelines and ships]. There is no reason for it. Part of the advantage of an H2 economy is that energy can be decentralized. It may be that the only real hydrogen pipelines will be carrying water.

mheslep

Sep8-08, 12:57 PM

Huh? The biggest problem is the source of energy - that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen is already in use worldwide.
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf
A handful of state sponsored H2 stations worldwide does not make them common. There are close to 200,000 gas/diesel station in the US. Note that it takes 15-20 tankers of 3k-5k PSI H2 tankers to deliver the energy of one gasoline tanker truck.

Also, afaik, no one intends to run the hydrogen market like the petro market [pipelines and ships]. There is no reason for it. Part of the advantage of an H2 economy is that energy can be decentralized. It may be that the only real hydrogen pipelines will be carrying water.Decentralized helps, still have to get heavy grid multi MW connections or local power generation, and so far nobody has sufficient on vehicle H2 storage (DoE target vehicle range 300miles - nobody is close yet). Anyway Wildman's posted piece from Robertson was about centralized hydro power.

Ivan Seeking

Sep8-08, 01:37 PM

A handful of state sponsored H2 stations worldwide does not make them common. There are close to 200,000 gas/diesel station in the US. Note that it takes 15-20 tankers of 3k-5k PSI H2 tankers to deliver the energy of one gasoline tanker truck.

I didn't say H2 is common. I said it is already being used. There are certainly issues, but you made it sound like the over 15 pages of stations listed couldn't exist.

Decentralized helps, still have to get heavy grid multi MW connections or local power generation

I would debate this point if only because in the end, the practical production of H2 might be done by means other than electric. For example, one facility intends to use solar flux to crack methane, leaving nothing but pure Hyrdrogen and pure carbon-black. But I saw that there has allegedly been a big breakthrough at MIT? I saw that but didn't have time to read it.

and so far nobody has sufficient on vehicle H2 storage (DoE target vehicle range 300miles - nobody is close yet). Anyway Wildman's posted piece from Robertson was about centralized hydro power.

LAWRENCE Livermore employees and visitors last January might have spotted a white Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle driving continuously around the square-mile site. The car was making history by setting a world record for the longest distance driven on one tank of fuel in a vehicle modified to run on hydrogen.

...The Prius, which has a combination electric motor and small internal combustion engine, traveled 1,050 kilometers (653 miles) on a tank containing 150 liters (almost 40 gallons) of liquid hydrogen. The overall fuel economy for the driving conditions used by the Livermore team was about 105 kilometers per kilogram of hydrogen, which is equivalent to about 65 miles per gallon of gasoline. Coincidently, 1 kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline. [continued]
https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

mheslep

Sep8-08, 02:12 PM

I didn't say H2 is common. I said it is already being used. There are certainly issues, but you made it sound like the over 15 pages of stations listed couldn't exist. Sorry, I didn't intend that.

I would debate this point if only because in the end, the practical production of H2 might be done by means other than electric. For example, one facility intends to use solar flux to crack methane, leaving nothing but pure Hyrdrogen and pure carbon-black. But I saw that there has allegedly been a big breakthrough at MIT? I saw that but didn't have time to read it. Yes Nocera's efficient electrolysis. Thats a big deal. With that coming down the pike, and setting storage aside for the moment, for fun I posted up somewhere the numbers to do an onsite solar fueling station. I came up with only ~3-5 acres out behind the station.

EDIT: Yes here's the solar powered fuel station musing.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1850582&postcount=14

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html
Yes liquid H2. The cryo process eats up ~30% of every unit of energy in the H2. IMO, it is compressed H2 at 10K PSI (carbon fiber tanks $$$) and the tanks are still 3-4x the volume of existing gasoline tanks, or some kind of chemical hydride storage, or nothing. Levin et al and their ultralight 'Hypercars' make a plausible case for compressed H2, they get ~300mi, but one has to completely redesign the car and thus the auto industry - no more steel, all carbon fiber, etc.

Some wild speculation now: I wonder if it makes sense at all to use local solar/grid electric/whatever to make methane and not H2? That is, use the Sabatier process or some such - H2 from electrolysis and pull CO2 from the atmosphere. That is still carbon neutral, the storage / transportation of methane is a not a problem, 8 million CNG vehicles on the road already (just not in the US :frown:)

russ_watters

Sep8-08, 07:57 PM

I'd say you guys are talking past each other. mheslp is simply saying that it isn't viable, while Ivan is saying it is being done. But the fact that it is being done doesn't have anything to do with whether it is viable or not. What makes it not viable is that it can't provide anywhere near the same performance (specifically, range) in a car as gasoline. That's a storage problem. And he's right: "there is no workable solution" to the storage problem.

Moreover, energy production is a practical problem, while the storage issue is a technical problem. Practical problems are known to be solvable - we can just build more power plants. Technical problems are not necessarily solvable, but even if they are eventually, there is no answer right now.

mheslep

Sep8-08, 10:51 PM

Yep, what RussW said.

wildman

Sep8-08, 11:29 PM

On an earlier thread, someone said that you can't move H2 by pipeline. Why is that? Why can't we treat it the same as Natural Gas?

russ_watters

Sep9-08, 05:46 AM

That said, there are also the issues of economic and political viability. These issues are somewhat a matter of will: we just have to decide to do it and if we wait, the decision will happen on its own. But the "it" of the capacity issue is big enough that if we wait, the consequences are disastrous. And really, there are two completely separate capacity problems. The first, what has just been discussed is 'where do we get the energy to power our cars when we run out of gas?' But the second is 'how do we stop pollution?' (global warming and otherwise). Answering the first question mandates that we add new capacity. Answering the second mandates that we replace our existing capacity (or augment it with nonexistent technology). These issues are big enough that this decision to go really needs to be made now. We need to decide to do the only viable (economically, politically, technically) thing to solve this two-pronged energy problem: start building nuclear plants at a rate of 20 a year for the next 40 years.

mheslep

Sep9-08, 12:58 PM

On an earlier thread, someone said that you can't move H2 by pipeline. Why is that? Why can't we treat it the same as Natural Gas?

H2 Diffusion. Crudely: A seal that's tight enough for a CH4 molecule looks like a window screen to the smaller H2 molecule.
Embrittlement (http://mechanicalplating.com/hydrogen.htm)
Energy flow/pipe volume. For a given pressure, an H2 pipe needs 3.5X greater cross sectional area to push the same amount of energy down the pipe.

H2 pipes are therefore more elaborate than CNG pipes.

mheslep

Sep9-08, 01:24 PM

...We need to decide to do the only viable (economically, politically, technically) thing to solve this two-pronged energy problem: start building nuclear plants at a rate of 20 a year for the next 40 years.8000GW of nuclear? Why? Did you mean worldwide? Current US electric is 1000GW, transportation/heating/etc another 1000GW equivalent of fuel, and the growth rate is declining w/ increasing end use efficiency (as you've pointed out?).

The missing part of this or Sen. McCain's build nuclear proposal is the fix for the broken approval / regulatory process in the US, or whatever it is that drives the current plant proposal costs skyward. That is the hard part, as attempted remedies are bound to bring out protests. As it is, I wouldn't favor building even plant #1 at a cost of $17B per 2GW plant (http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id=19482). It certainly means taxpayer financing as the private sector won't touch capital that big for 6 to 10 year projects; Moody's has said as much. For the waste issue, Yucca is fine IMO, but McCain needs to say he's going to go ahead and turn it on, now not later. I'd support a fix, but where's the plan?

Count Iblis

Sep9-08, 02:32 PM

The waste problem is not as big a problem if you use fast breeder reactors. And why not use radioactive waste that cannot be reprocessed like caesium-137 as a heat source?

mheslep

Sep9-08, 02:53 PM

... And why not use radioactive waste that cannot be reprocessed like caesium-137 as a heat source?Cs-137 is bad juju. It enters biological pathways easily by chemically pretending to be potassium, stays in the body for a couple of months. We want to minimize hand-offs of Cs-137 and like biologically active radioisotopes, not increase them.

Count Iblis

Sep9-08, 03:51 PM

Cs-137 is bad juju. It enters biological pathways easily by chemically pretending to be potassium, stays in the body for a couple of months. We want to minimize hand-offs of Cs-137 and like biologically active radioisotopes, not increase them.

Cs-137 will be produced anyway in nuclear fission reactions. So, why not design some fully automized factory in which you separate it and make some compound that contains it? This material would then presumably be red hot from all the heat generated by radioactive decay.

You can then make a heat exchanger out of it and use it in a powerplant or to produce warm water for homes. After 30 years the power of the Cs-137 heating element will be halved. You then recycle it in the nuclear waste reprocessing factory. The ability to do this safely depends on what we can do with machines and robots.

Robot technology is predicted to become much more powerful in the near future, so perhaps we should store radiaoactive waste in easy to access places.

mheslep

Sep9-08, 04:28 PM

I know it is a byproduct of U fission. Again, you increase safety by minimizing the number of times its handled after its produced. I suggest: all reactors->truck/train-> single, permanent waste storage. Stop. Not: all reactors->truck/train->waste reprocessing->temporary storage->truck/trains in all directions ->install power plants -> remove from power plants -> temporary storage -> trucks/trains -> permanent waste storage.

russ_watters

Sep9-08, 05:00 PM

8000GW of nuclear? Why? Did you mean worldwide? Current US electric is 1000GW, transportation/heating/etc another 1000GW equivalent of fuel, and the growth rate is declining w/ increasing end use efficiency (as you've pointed out?). I think you slipped a decimal place there: Reactors (I said plants, but close enough) run at 1 GW apiece, so 800 of them is 800 GW. Assuming 2 per plant, that's 1600 GW, which would be enough to cover our electricity and most of our transportation, as well as convert much of our current fossil fuel heat to electric.

It was early, though - currently we have 100 plants, 300 reactors, so my math doesn't quite work out, but you get the idea.

mheslep

Sep9-08, 09:07 PM

I think you slipped a decimal place there: Reactors (I said plants, but close enough) run at 1 GW apiece, so 800 of them is 800 GW. Assuming 2 per plant, that's 1600 GW, which would be enough to cover our electricity and most of our transportation, as well as convert much of our current fossil fuel heat to electric.

It was early, though - currently we have 100 plants, 300 reactors, so my math doesn't quite work out, but you get the idea.Yes, arg, inventing zeros again. :redface:

Astronuc

Oct2-08, 09:57 AM

Google CEO: How to fix U.S. energy problems
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10056099-54.html
SAN FRANCISCO--The United States government has been unable to fix the country's energy problems, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said, but the Internet giant on Wednesday proposed its own 22-year solution.

"We have seen a total and complete failure of leadership in the political parties of the United States," Schmidt said in a speech at the Commonwealth Club here. "We've been working on a plan to help solve this problem."

Earlier in the day, Google unveiled that plan, which doesn't lack for chutzpah: Clean Energy 2030 aims to wean the United States from its dependence on fossil fuels within 22 years.

. . .
Energy efficiency is at the forefront of Google's thoughts: the company operates hundreds of thousands of servers, and the company has warned that energy costs could outpace server hardware costs. So a decline in energy costs makes practical sense, Schmidt said. . . . . Energy independence or at least much less dependence on external resources makes good business sense - not to mention provides for more security.

mheslep

Oct2-08, 03:33 PM

Seems like Google owes more attribution to Pickens or DoE than a 'they also have plans'. Google's electric plan attached. The biggest Google change by 2020 is a big push in wind. Good idea, but it is not their idea, nor do they address the hard parts of making wind work (transmission costs and right of ways, base load power - esp over 20% wind, they propose 28%).
Also, they simply claim geothermal will go from 2.5GW to 80, 33X, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary backup.

Topher925

Oct2-08, 06:40 PM

vanesch

Oct2-08, 11:56 PM

Seems like Google owes more attribution to Pickens or DoE than a 'they also have plans'. Google's electric plan attached. The biggest Google change by 2020 is a big push in wind. Good idea, but it is not their idea, nor do they address the hard parts of making wind work (transmission costs and right of ways, base load power - esp over 20% wind, they propose 28%).

Also note the "savings from effciency", which just stands for "deficit I don't know how to fill in". Triple nuclear, and all the handwaving is gone... so are they going to spend some money on nuclear ? :smile: Or is that not Politically Correct ?

Ivan Seeking

Oct3-08, 01:25 AM

I'd say you guys are talking past each other. mheslp is simply saying that it isn't viable, while Ivan is saying it is being done. But the fact that it is being done doesn't have anything to do with whether it is viable or not.

Closely following a sighting of a Hydrogen-powered 7 series during testing, BMW officially announced the Hydrogen 7 today. The car is touted as the first hydrogen-drive luxury performance automobile for everyday use. The BMW Hydrogen 7 will be built in a limited series, and sold to select customers in the U.S. and overseas in 2007. The engine in the Hydrogen 7, a derivative of the 7 series 12 cylinder engine, is capable of running on gasoline or hydrogen, and produces 260 hp. The car will accelerate from 0 to 62.1 mpg in 9.5 seconds. The ability to run on both gasoline and hydrogen gives the Hydrogen 7 a range of more than 400 miles. The high tech hydrogen storage tank has a capacity of approximately 17.6 lb of liquid hydrogen, giving the Hydrogen 7 a cruising range in hydrogen mode upwards of 125 miles.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

As I said, it is being done today. If it is being used in practical applications, how is it not viable? Yours is a subjective interpretation; just as when mheslp argues that a range of 40 miles makes plug-ins viable. How can a 40 mile range be viable if 125 to 400 miles isn't? And with a 300 miles range on gasoline, they must have a full sized tank. So there is much more room for hydrogen storage.

Also, as posted earlier:
LAWRENCE Livermore employees and visitors last January might have spotted a white Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle driving continuously around the square-mile site. The car was making history by setting a world record for the longest distance driven on one tank of fuel in a vehicle modified to run on hydrogen.

...The Prius, which has a combination electric motor and small internal combustion engine, traveled 1,050 kilometers (653 miles) on a tank containing 150 liters (almost 40 gallons) of liquid hydrogen. The overall fuel economy for the driving conditions used by the Livermore team was about 105 kilometers per kilogram of hydrogen, which is equivalent to about 65 miles per gallon of gasoline. Coincidently, 1 kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline. [continued]
https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

Ivan Seeking

Oct3-08, 01:39 AM

Also note the "savings from effciency", which just stands for "deficit I don't know how to fill in". Triple nuclear, and all the handwaving is gone... so are they going to spend some money on nuclear ? :smile: Or is that not Politically Correct ?

Pretty much everyone is on-board for more nuclear power now. It seems that people have forgotten the ineptitude of our bureaucracy, which is hard to understand given the credit crisis. But, either way, we will have better options before we can build many plants.

vanesch

Oct3-08, 05:29 AM

Pretty much everyone is on-board for more nuclear power now. It seems that people have forgotten the ineptitude of our bureaucracy, which is hard to understand given the credit crisis. But, either way, we will have better options before we can build many plants.

Naaah, it won't take 200 years to build many plants, will it ? :tongue:

mheslep

Oct3-08, 11:27 AM

Google is investing some big money into all types of alternative energy. For example they gave 10 mill to venture capital company Makani Power (my companies competitor) for a high altitude wind generator. Other than throwing money around, I don't really see them doing much of anything.
Yes, same with some PV solar people. So far it appears to me as mostly marketing ala "dont be evil" which is fine, but they are still a search/information/advertising company. If they want to play in energy, spin somebody off and stop the amateur show.

mheslep

Oct3-08, 11:36 AM

Naaah, it won't take 200 years to build many plants, will it ? :tongue:6 to 10 years each, so far. Blame law suits and and red tape if you like, but someone proposing a big push in nuclear ought to fix that first.

mheslep

Oct3-08, 12:07 PM

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

As I said, it is being done today. If it is being used in practical applications, how is it not viable? Yours is a subjective interpretation; just as when mheslp argues that a range of 40 miles makes plug-ins viable. How can a 40 mile range be viable if 125 to 400 miles isn't? And with a 300 miles range on gasoline, they must have a full sized tank. So there is much more room for hydrogen storage.

Also, as posted earlier:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html
The problem with the BMWr is not its range, as we all frequently point out, the issue lies with the energy hit taken in creating the H2. Liquification uses 35% of the energy of the energy contained therein vs 10% for compression. For that reason, the serious players (DoE/EERE, Honda, etc) only consider H2 in compressed form for vehicles, and compression still has tank size problems.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Since we've already discussed the problems with H2 transport, consider the somewhat more plausible scenario of distributed/local H2 production: the cryogenic equipment required for the 'H2 station' would be vastly more expensive than simple compressors.

Regards EV range I agree that the range limitations of pure EVs make them non-viable. However a hybrid plug-in, such as PHEV-40 Chevy Volt has a total range of 360 miles, the forty mile range is the all electric range. After that (or in combination if you like) it runs from gasoline to achieve 360.

russ_watters

Oct3-08, 01:55 PM

As I said, it is being done today. If it is being used in practical applications, how is it not viable? You are a good enough businessman to know that people sometimes do things just to prove they can be done, even if it means losing vast amounts of money on the project. The hope is that someday that loss will turn into a gain. Yours is a subjective interpretation... No, what we have are different opinions/speculations on what kind of performance is necessary for viability. But... ....just as when mheslp argues that a range of 40 miles makes plug-ins viable. How can a 40 mile range be viable if 125 to 400 miles isn't? ....performance is only one piece of the viability equation. There is also cost and target market. There are already perfectly viable small electric vehicles in use all over the world. They are called golf carts. Besides usage on a golf course, they are also used by large corporations for on-campus transportation. But that doesn't mean they are a viable replacement for cars in other applications. So you need to be very specific about what you mean when you say such things. Ie:

-A 40 mi range electric car could be viable as a commuter car. What fraction of passenger cars they could possibly replace, I don't know. Perhaps 20-50%.
-In order to replace regular passenger cars completely, the replacement must equal their performance to be viable. That's 300-400mi.
-That doesn't help us much with light trucks and SUVs, much less larger trucks.

Now having a 40 mi range, of course, is not enough to declare a new electric car "viable". It also needs to have a competitive price and that price needs to be real. Toyota sold the Prius at a loss initially (not sure if they still do) and that is not a business model that is sustainable. A 40 mi range car, to be viable, has to cost, in my estimation, a maximum of $15,000 and yet still be profitable for the car company. That's going to be a tall order for decades to come, unless there is an enormous and unexpected breakthrough in battery technology.

[edit] Oh, and we can't forget that the cost analysis must include the fuel cost, which is a serious source of viability issues for hydrogen and electric cars. For the electrics, people tend to trumpet the low cost of night-time electricity, but neglect the fact that the batteries will need to be replaced periodically. Even if they last for a thousand charges, people will be swapping them out every 40,000 miles. People cringe at paying $200 every couple of years for tires - imagine having to drop $5000+ on a new battery pack for your $15,000 car!

russ_watters

Oct3-08, 01:59 PM

Pretty much everyone is on-board for more nuclear power now. It seems that people have forgotten the ineptitude of our bureaucracy, which is hard to understand given the credit crisis.
Given that the bureaucracy was caused by the opposition, if it really is true that people are onboard, then the bureaucracy will go away and the time from announcement to tape-cutting should drop to 6-10 years.

I won't be holding my breath, but if you are right (and I hope you are), we could double or triple our nuclear output by that 2030 timetable in that Google chart.

mheslep

Oct3-08, 05:05 PM

Also note the "savings from effciency", which just stands for "deficit I don't know how to fill in". Triple nuclear, and all the handwaving is gone... so are they going to spend some money on nuclear ? :smile: Or is that not Politically Correct ?It is not reasonable to call efficiency savings hand waving any more. There is a large body of work now, and data and experience, showing end user efficiency savings in kWh are something one can buy as surely as one can buy kWh from another power plant, up to a point. There's little dispute about the savings available in buildings via thermal management and lighting (California standards / LEEDs buildings in the US) with available and already proven technology. Similarly there's little dispute that 5 passenger vehicles can eventually hit 40+ mpg using advanced combustion engines, forget about EVs for the moment. Its just a matter of buying the savings, and one can buy quite a bit for $17B ( per 2GW nuclear plant.)

mheslep

Oct3-08, 05:54 PM

...So you need to be very specific about what you mean when you say such things. Ie:

-A 40 mi range electric car could be viable as a commuter car. What fraction of passenger cars they could possibly replace, I don't know. Perhaps 20-50%.
-In order to replace regular passenger cars completely, the replacement must equal their performance to be viable. That's 300-400mi.
-That doesn't help us much with light trucks and SUVs, much less larger trucks.

Now having a 40 mi range, of course, is not enough to declare a new electric car "viable". It also needs to have a competitive price and that price needs to be real. Toyota sold the Prius at a loss initially (not sure if they still do) and that is not a business model that is sustainable. A 40 mi range car, to be viable, has to cost, in my estimation, a maximum of $15,000 and yet still be profitable for the car company. That's going to be a tall order for decades to come, unless there is an enormous and unexpected breakthrough in battery technology.russ waters, by commuter car here I assume you a referring to a pure EV here, just a 1-2 passenger ride. This little beast gets close to your specs with old lead acid tech:
http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/xebra-truck
25 miles on a charge, $12,500.
I don't such a thing limited to 25 or even 40 miles, only, would replace much of the fleet even as a commuter play. I do expect a PHEV, that goes 40 mi on batteries and then 400 mi on gasoline has the potential to take a substantial share of the US fleet. I'd also wouldn't mind paying substantially more for such a vehicle with that range and 4 passenger capacity, which I expect we'll see in two years from both GM, Toyota, perhaps others.

[edit] Oh, and we can't forget that the cost analysis must include the fuel cost, which is a serious source of viability issues for hydrogen and electric cars. For the electrics, people tend to trumpet the low cost of night-time electricity, but neglect the fact that the batteries will need to be replaced periodically. Even if they last for a thousand charges, people will be swapping them out every 40,000 miles. People cringe at paying $200 every couple of years for tires - imagine having to drop $5000+ on a new battery pack for your $15,000 car!Its fairly clear that batteries planned for PHEVs should go 10years/life of the vehicle. They do that with a combination of 1)Li battery chemistry tailored for long life not energy density, 2)limiting state of charge to no lower than 30% and no greater than ~80% (http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/), and 3)temperature control. Together, these steps greatly extend the life cycle over what you may be used to with your laptop battery which does non of these things. #1 and especially #2 achieve extended life at the cost of more battery/size to achieve 40mi. So I don't expect the fuel savings of a PHEV to be offset by battery replacement just an initial premium of perhaps $10k over a comparable ICE vehicle. The fuel cost savings would conservatively be $1k/year, optimistically $2k/year. I believe the well laden mortgage bailout bill just guaranteed a $7600 credit for PHEVs.

vanesch

Oct5-08, 02:04 AM

6 to 10 years each, so far. Blame law suits and and red tape if you like, but someone proposing a big push in nuclear ought to fix that first.

That's the pipe-through time maybe (it's long!), but you can fill up the pipe with constructions in parallel. France built 58 plants in 20 years, Belgium (tiny Belgium) built 7 plants in 11 years.

mheslep

Oct5-08, 11:05 PM

That's the pipe-through time maybe (it's long!), but you can fill up the pipe with constructions in parallel. France built 58 plants in 20 years, Belgium (tiny Belgium) built 7 plants in 11 years.Yes, but parallel or no that length of time means they are intrinsically expensive - no ROI for years.

mheslep

Oct17-08, 05:08 PM

...Its fairly clear that batteries planned for PHEVs should go 10years/life of the vehicle. They do that with a combination of 1)Li battery chemistry tailored for long life not energy density, 2)limiting state of charge to no lower than 30% and no greater than ~80% (http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/), and 3)temperature control. Together, these steps greatly extend the life cycle over what you may be used to with your laptop battery which does non of these things. #1 and especially #2 achieve extended life at the cost of more battery/size to achieve 40mi. ....
Here's some data supporting the battery life extension approach:
Limiting the top off voltage:
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/images/parttwo-34-2.jpg
Limiting the discharge/charge rate:
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/images/parttwo-34.jpg
The specifications for the battery GM is buying for its upcoming Volt is 5000 charges / 10 years.

mheslep

Oct28-08, 07:58 PM

A more rigorous data set for Li ion battery characteristics from Linden's Handbook of Batteries (http://books.google.com/books?id=xCxTAAAAMAAJ&q=Linden%27s+Handbook+of+Batteries&dq=Linden%27s+Handbook+of+Batteries&ei=s7UHSYeVOIuWyATI3NXvDQ&pgis=1) (2001):

Table 35.11 General Performance Characteristics of Li-ion Batteries (2001)

Characteristic Performance Range
---------------------------------------------------------
Specific Energy 100 to 158 Wh/kg
Energy Density 245 to 439 Wh/L
Cycle life at 100% DoD Typically 3000
Cycle life at 20 to 40% DoD Over 20000
Self discharge rate 2 to 10%/month
Calendar life Over 5 years
...

Where DoD is Depth of Discharge.
Linden states the performance of Li-ion batteries in energy density steadily improved in the period '96 to '99 at 14% on average. This model (http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2763) for instance is rated at 201 Wh/kg.

Topher925

Oct30-08, 07:29 PM

Given that the bureaucracy was caused by the opposition, if it really is true that people are onboard, then the bureaucracy will go away and the time from announcement to tape-cutting should drop to 6-10 years.

I won't be holding my breath, but if you are right (and I hope you are), we could double or triple our nuclear output by that 2030 timetable in that Google chart.

I'm curious Russ, why the big support for nuclear energy? With major technological advancements in support of solar micro-generation being made in the past few years, and in the years to come why is it we would want our nuclear output tripled by 2030? What will we do with the hundreds millions (if not billions) of tons of hazardous waste? We can't just keep dumping the stuff into Canada, eventually that country is going to fill up.

This wasn't meant to sound like bureaucracy, but a legitimate question.

Count Iblis

Oct30-08, 08:34 PM

Radioactive waste is just a few tons per year. You can store the nuclear waste from a few Gigawatt powerplants from one year's operation safely in your garden. It is only a few cubic meters in volume.

russ_watters

Oct30-08, 08:40 PM

I'm curious Russ, why the big support for nuclear energy?
-It is very inexpensive (intrinsicly).
-It is 100% pollution free.
-It is domestic.
-It has the capability to supply massive amounts of power.
-There is a lot of fuel available.
With major technological advancements in support of solar micro-generation being made in the past few years, and in the years to come.... Solar power has a long way to go to become viable and we don't have time to wait for advances in technology that may never come. We need more power and cleaner power now.

The US's current electric generation capacity is 1100 gigawatts. If solar increases by 25% a year (a goal of solar proponents: http://photovoltaics.sandia.gov/docs/PVRMChapter_4.htm ) by 2030, it'll account for about 7% of today's peak generation capacity, which is essentially pointless since it it won't come close to overcoming increases in demand. And that's not even considering that the load factor of solar power is like 25%, so the with a capacity of 7%, we'll only get 2% of our electrical energy from it. In other words, if the best wish of solar advocates comes true, we'll still need much more of our conventional power sources for at least another 20 years and in 20 years, solar power will still be basically irrelevant as a player in our national electric grid. We'd need about 7 new nuclear plants to generate that much power.

That's not a solution, it's a 20 year delay in even starting to deal with the problems we face.

Other issues:
-Night/rain.
-Cost. What will we do with the hundreds millions (if not billions) of tons of hazardous waste? We can't just keep dumping the stuff into Canada, eventually that country is going to fill up. The nuclear waste problem is quite simply nonexistent. More than 98% of the fuel is recyclable, but for political reasons, reprocessing was banned by Carter in the '70s. It'll be back, though, as the political situation improves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

And that's not even considering Count Iblis's point. Even if you wanted to store it, it isn't a big deal.

mheslep

Oct30-08, 10:53 PM

mheslep

Oct30-08, 10:58 PM

-It is very inexpensive (intrinsicly).
-It is 100% pollution free.
-It is domestic.
-It has the capability to supply massive amounts of power.
-There is a lot of fuel available.
Solar power has a long way to go to become viable and we don't have time to wait for advances in technology that may never come. We need more power and cleaner power now.

The US's current electric generation capacity is 1100 gigawatts. If solar increases by 25% a year (a goal of solar proponents: http://photovoltaics.sandia.gov/docs/PVRMChapter_4.htm ) by 2030, it'll account for about 7% of today's peak generation capacity, which is essentially pointless since it it won't come close to overcoming increases in demand. And that's not even considering that the load factor of solar power is like 25%, so the with a capacity of 7%, we'll only get 2% of our electrical energy from it. In other words, if the best wish of solar advocates comes true, we'll still need much more of our conventional power sources for at least another 20 years and in 20 years, solar power will still be basically irrelevant as a player in our national electric grid. We'd need about 7 new nuclear plants to generate that much power.

That's not a solution, it's a 20 year delay in even starting to deal with the problems we face. ...That's 2020 in the Sandia report, or 10 years out; the figures there are of course for PV only which doesn't include solar thermal. And note wind jumped 45% 2005-2006. Still, point taken, we'll need some more nuclear.

russ_watters

Oct30-08, 11:08 PM

The MIT report assumes a growth from the existing 336 plants worldwide to 1500 plants by 2050, generating 1500GWe. That assumption requires per year, depending on the fuel cycle:

Once through cycle:
306,000 tons of Uranium ore.
29,864 tons UOX waste (or 19T per plant/year)

Recycle:
257,000 tons U ore.
4764 tons MOX waste + processing waste (or ~3T per plant/year)
plus 167 tons of separated Plutonium accumulating per year

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Table 4.2 Just as a basis of comparison, coal fired electricity produces about 3.7 million tons of CO2 per plant per year, dumped straight into the atmosphere. And even if one doesn't buy into global warming, there is plenty of other nastiness there: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

russ_watters

Oct30-08, 11:09 PM

That's 2020 in the Sandia report, or 10 years out No, I extrapolated an extra ten years to make the timeframes match.

mheslep

Oct30-08, 11:28 PM

Just as a basis of comparison, coal fired electricity produces about 3.7 million tons of CO2 per plant per year, dumped straight into the atmosphere. And even if one doesn't buy into global warming, there is plenty of other nastiness there: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htmlYes, if its not captured and stored back underground.

russ_watters

Oct31-08, 05:17 AM

Yes, if its not captured and stored back underground. What do you mean "if it is not captured"? It isn't captured. We don't know how too do that yet!

Again, you cannot base a national energy policy on maybes. You have to do what works.

gmax137

Oct31-08, 06:42 AM

Yes, if its not captured and stored back underground.

Is this "capture & store undergound" explained and discussed anywhere? I have to admit I don't understand just how this would work. What would keep the CO2 from bubbling back up? What if it leaks into my basement? What keeps me from suffocating to death down there?

Really, what structure will prevent the CO2 from migrating back to the surface? What's the design life of that structure? If Yucca Mtn has to demonstrate confinement for ten thousand or one million years (based on > ten half lives), how long does the CO2 storage have to be designed for (actually forever?)

I really would like to find out more about this idea.

Topher925

Oct31-08, 10:14 AM

What do you mean "if it is not captured"? It isn't captured. We don't know how too do that yet!

I thought CO2 scrubbers were already being employed in many coal plants?

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-06.asp

I guess we have some conflicting information about nuclear power. I believe that most of the waste which can not be recycled is from high-level waste such as cooling rods which can only be stored. However, I wouldn't call their storage a "non-existent" issue.

[crackpot link deleted]

I know for a fact that nuclear waste storage in France is a major issue that no one has yet to resolve. I believe they are currently just storing their high-level waste on site. This is stuff that can kill you with in minutes and is not something you can keep in your garden.

mheslep

Oct31-08, 10:29 AM

What do you mean "if it is not captured"? It isn't captured. We don't know how too do that yet!
Of course we know how chemically, and there's a little bit of early practical experience, just not enough to provide confidence in the economics. Storage is trickier still.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565676
...The “capture” part is not that hard. Carbon dioxide reacts with a group of chemicals called amines. At low temperatures CO2 and amines combine. At higher temperatures they separate. Power-station exhaust can thus be purged of its CO2 by running it through an amine bath before it is vented, and the amine can be warmed to release the gas where it will do no harm. ...

All this processing is expensive, but there is no reason why it should not work. An experimental plant in Denmark that uses monoethanolamine as the captor has been running for two years. Alstom, a French firm, has almost finished building one in Wisconsin that uses ammonia....

Again, you cannot base a national energy policy on maybes. You have to do what works.Ok, but the economics of nuclear in this country are still a maybe. I agree that 'intrinsically', as you say above, nuclear can be cheap, but in reality it is not, at least not here. Again, I'm all for anyone who can put forward a plan to reduce the cost of all the red tape. Sen. Obama for instance specifically said he's against turning on Yucca, that's going in wrong direction, making nuclear more expensive.

mheslep

Oct31-08, 10:33 AM

Is this "capture & store undergound" explained and discussed anywhere? I have to admit I don't understand just how this would work. What would keep the CO2 from bubbling back up? What if it leaks into my basement? What keeps me from suffocating to death down there?

Really, what structure will prevent the CO2 from migrating back to the surface? What's the design life of that structure? If Yucca Mtn has to demonstrate confinement for ten thousand or one million years (based on > ten half lives), how long does the CO2 storage have to be designed for (actually forever?)

I really would like to find out more about this idea.

Storage...
...It is what comes next that is the problem. The disposal of carbon dioxide needs to be permanent, so a lot of conditions have to be met. To be a successful burial site, a body of rock needs to be more than 1km underground. That depth provides enough pressure to turn CO2 into what is known as a supercritical fluid, a form in which the stuff is more likely to stay put. The rock in question also has to have enough pores and cracks in it to accommodate the CO2. Lastly, it needs to be covered with a layer of non-porous, non-cracked rock to provide a leakproof cap.

So far, only three successful CCS projects are under way. The Weyburn-Midale CO2 project is burying carbon dioxide from a coal gasification plant in North Dakota in a depleted oil field in Saskatchewan. The Salah gasfield project in Algeria, run by BP, strips CO2 from local natural gas and injects it back into the ground. And Statoil, a large Norwegian oil and gas company, performs a similar trick at two places in the North Sea. None of these projects is actually linked to generating electricity. Still, a few years ago they were touted proudly. But the touting has become more nervous, and no new projects have come on stream.

The scale of the problem is awesome. The three showcase projects each dump about a million tonnes of CO2 a year. But America’s electricity industry alone produces 1.5 billion tonnes, which would mean finding 1,500 appropriate sites, and nobody knows whether the country’s geology can oblige. Even transporting that amount of gas would be a huge task.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565676
Apparently all of the major US coal power providers have looked into this. Its known that some large areas of the country are geographically unsuitable - the Southeast in particular.

gmax137

Oct31-08, 02:02 PM

mheslep

Oct31-08, 03:09 PM

"The scale of the problem is awesome. The three showcase projects each dump about a million tonnes of CO2 a year. But America’s electricity industry alone produces 1.5 billion tonnes, which would mean finding 1,500 appropriate sites, and nobody knows whether the country’s geology can oblige. Even transporting that amount of gas would be a huge task."

So, does anyone believe it is possible to put the CO2 back underground?

(soory, I couldn't figure out how to 'quote' your quote...)
It certainly doesn't look like CCS will happen universally. But then, nothing in the centralized energy business is small or particularly cheap. For comparison:
The approximately 144,000 Class II wells in operation in the United States inject over 2 billion gallons of brine every day.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_class2.html

russ_watters

Oct31-08, 05:23 PM

I thought CO2 scrubbers were already being employed in many coal plants?

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-06.asp Read the title and the first three sentences of your link! I guess we have some conflicting information about nuclear power. I believe that most of the waste which can not be recycled is from high-level waste such as cooling rods which can only be stored. However, I wouldn't call their storage a "non-existent" issue.

[crackpot link deleted] And on that link, you should have known after reading the first sentence that it was outright crackpottery. Racist?? C'mon. You need to have at least a little ability to judge the quality of your sources. I read most of the link, and everything I saw was an outright lie or intentional mischaracterization. I saw not a single valid point. [edit] Correction: after reading the whole thing, I found one (see your pm): nuclear power uses a lot of water. I know for a fact that nuclear waste storage in France is a major issue that no one has yet to resolve. I believe they are currently just storing their high-level waste on site. This is stuff that can kill you with in minutes and is not something you can keep in your garden. France's reprocessing was halted for the same political reasons ours was never started.

Regardless - even if you do want to store the waste, it still isn't a big deal. Air pollution kills somwhere on the order of 100,000 people a year worldwide. The fact that nuclear waste is 100% contained makes it vastly easier to deal with, even if we do decide to store it in a cave in New Mexico (which is the current choice). Again, what is making that expensive is pure politics. There is nothing inherrently expensive about storing a small volume of trash in a cave.

russ_watters

Oct31-08, 05:30 PM

Of course we know how chemically, and there's a little bit of early practical experience, just not enough to provide confidence in the economics. Storage is trickier still.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565676 Just to be clear: when I talk about feasibility of solutions, I always mean both technical and economic. Often the two are intertwined and like you say, we don't even know if those issues are surmountable. Ok, but the economics of nuclear in this country are still a maybe. I agree that 'intrinsically', as you say above, nuclear can be cheap, but in reality it is not, at least not here. Again, I'm all for anyone who can put forward a plan to reduce the cost of all the red tape. Yes, I think you understand, but just to be clear: when I talk about economic viability and I use the word "intrinsic", I am talking about the cost of the technology, materials, design, etc. itself. Nuclear, by comparison, has very little in the way of these real economic problems: virtually all of nuclear's economic problems are simply created by the political problems. That means that as energy prices rise (and get ready: if you're an American and you don't know about the deregulation coming in 2 years, watch out!), political opposition will drop, and the price (and time to construct a plant) of nuclear will drop substantially.

Astronuc

Nov2-08, 12:33 PM

Reseachers derive 'green gasoline' from plant sugars - Sept. 18, 2008
http://www.news.wisc.edu/15627
Alternative energy doesn't always mean solar or wind power. In fact, the alternative fuels developed by University of Wisconsin-Madison chemical and biological engineering professor James Dumesic look a lot like the gasoline and diesel fuel used in vehicles today.

That's because the new fuels are identical at the molecular level to their petroleum-based counterparts. The only difference is where they come from.

Funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy, Dumesic and his team have developed a process that creates transportation fuels from plant material. The paper, published in the Sept. 18 online version of the journal Science, explains how they convert sugar into molecules that can be efficiently "upgraded" into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

"Domestically, there are large amounts of lignocellulose available that are not being used effectively for energy," says Dumesic. "This work is a step along the way to making it practical to use biomass as fuel."

Lignocellulose refers to nonedible sources of biomass, which is biological material that can be converted into fuel. Instead of relying on corn as a source of energy, Dumesic notes that the goal of researchers in the field of "cellulosic ethanol" is to turn the carbohydrates, or sugars, from agricultural waste, corn stovers (leaves and stalks), switchgrass and forest residue into ethanol. Dumesic now suggests that instead of converting the water-soluble sugars derived from cellulose to ethanol, it may be better to convert these sugars to gasoline, diesel and jet fuels via this process.

. . . . In the fall, when I see piles of leaves, I have to wonder if there isn't a way to turn them into fuel. Similarly, when I see piles of grass.

We shred the leaves and grass and put the matter in a compost pile with the kitchen scraps (without meat and dairy products). The compost is used in our gardens.

Count Iblis

Nov9-08, 11:58 AM

vanesch

Nov9-08, 01:22 PM

For renewable and nuclear energy, a major problem is how to store energy. This is obvious for wind and solar energy. But it is also an issue for nuclear energy, because nuclear powerplants cannot be started up fast enough to deal with peak demand unlike coal fired powerplants.

This is a common misconception about nuclear power plants.

The French (but there's no reason that this cannot be implemented on other plants) can do this:

Between 100% and 30% of their nominal power, they can accept *immediately* a 10% power change, and they can accept a *slew rate* of 5% of the nominal power per minute. That's largely enough to follow more than 99% of all consumption profiles.
In fact, coal fired plants are usually slower than nuclear plants.

But where does this misconception come from ? From two things. First of all, nuclear power plants are expensive in investment, and very cheap in fuel. As such, you have interest in using them at full load. So as long (and in most countries, this is the case) nuclear power is a minority part of the energy offer, you want to use them only in base load. And then you only need a slow steering mechanism, and that was the solution of boron in the primary water, a very slow process, that just needed to compensate the gradual burn up of the fuel. That's what gave nukes the reputation of slow machines.

But in France, where 78% is nuclear, you cannot use all of the nukes in base load, they also have to follow load. That has been implemented with special grey control bars, which makes the above slew rate possible. And that works fine. There's no big secret. Almost any npp could be equipped with such a control system that allows for flexible steering. But most npp don't need it, as they are only supposed to work in base load.

mheslep

Nov9-08, 02:36 PM

misgfool

Nov10-08, 10:51 AM

Regards the Olkiluoto EPR, any word from the industry on a) the expected final cost of the plant and b) the primary reasons for the cost overruns and schedule delays? Pop press now says 4.5B Euro / $5.7B for the 1,600MW plant, won't come online until 2012 (permit granted in early 2005)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/18/nuclearpower

Expected final costs probably are > 4.5B€, which is already 50% more than originally planned. Since it is a fixed price deal (at 3 B€) Areva is expecting quite heavy losses already not to mention the penalty fines they have to pay to TVO for production delays. Areva doubled the work force this year in hope of catching up a bit.

http://www.tvo.fi/www/page/ajankohtaista_en/

First problems were with steel welds in the base concrete, which had to be remade as they did not fulfill the safety regulations. That delayed the project with about a year. Then there was inspections, problems with subcontractors, planning was apparently unrealisticly scheduled etc. Second news came that the reactor unit had design flaws and before they were fixed it could not be built which brought another six months delay. Originally it was supposed to be running in 2009 so three years is probably a result of some kind of cumulative delay. However, it is still a prototype reactor and from recent decades there is not much experience of building nuclear plants.

misgfool

Nov10-08, 11:13 AM

And additionally Areva/Siemens really needs a PR specialist and more open information distribution strategy. So far it has just been saying we are in perfectly in schedule. The next day there is suddenly a years delay, National Radiation Safety Center is investigating possible safety violations and employees are going to press claiming gross negligence in construction works. This is obviously not encouraging news.

There is massive amounts of speculation, rumors circulating and misinformation everywhere. Naturally Greenpeace and other similar organizations are on a full campaign creating more fear, uncertainty and doubt among the general population trying make things worse.

vanesch

Nov10-08, 12:43 PM

mheslep

Nov10-08, 02:22 PM

My uneducated guess is that it will take time and money to build up again the nuclear industry knowhow we had 20-30 years ago, and that this may have been seriously underestimated.
If people would stop making computers for 30 years, I guess suddenly the first new PC of a rather ordinary kind will turn out to be way way more expensive than it is right now. Of course, no knowledge is really lost, but the entire network of companies, activities and so on which was running smoothly is to be set up all over again.That illustrates part of the problem: nuclear is centralised and large scale so its inherently going to be done in big, halting bites, as are most such projects of that size; computers, wind, CCGT not so.

This EPR is also paying that bill. The genuine cost of an EPR will be correctly estimated when 50 or so will have been build.i.e. after the fact? I don't know why any private entity would make such an investment.

Topher925

Nov10-08, 02:38 PM

My uneducated guess is that it will take time and money to build up again the nuclear industry knowhow we had 20-30 years ago, and that this may have been seriously underestimated.

Who says the nuclear industry needs to be rebuilt? The US isn't the only country that has ever built a nuclear power plant. I believe the infrastructure is still there, however its now a global infrastructure instead of a national one.

mheslep

Nov10-08, 02:51 PM

Who says the nuclear industry needs to be rebuilt? The US isn't the only country that has ever built a nuclear power plant. I believe the infrastructure is still there, however its now a global infrastructure instead of a national one.Yes World Nuclear shows 35 reactors currently under construction in 11 countries - mainly Russia, India, China.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html?terms=russia. I'd like to see pricing on a few of those plants.

gmax137

Nov10-08, 07:36 PM

Yes World Nuclear shows 35 reactors currently under construction in 11 countries - mainly Russia, India, China.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html?terms=russia. I'd like to see pricing on a few of those plants.

Plus the South Koreans have been building plants since the 1980's following "tech transfer" from ABB/Combustion Engineering.

Back to the load following capability, the 10% step change and 5% per minute ramp have been design specs for the US design PWRs (Westinghouse & CE units anyway, I'm not familiar with the B&W units or the GE BWRs) since the mid 1960s. As Vanesch points out, their owners do not run them this way because uranium remains cheap. But the capability to run this way has always been part of the plant design.

And if that's still to slow a maneuvering capability, consider the capabilities of the naval designs. There's nothing inherently slow moving about fission plants. Its all about designing the plant for the mission.

vanesch

Nov11-08, 03:47 AM

That illustrates part of the problem: nuclear is centralised and large scale so its inherently going to be done in big, halting bites, as are most such projects of that size; computers, wind, CCGT not so.

It is IMO the real drawback of nuclear power: it isn't compatible with a totally liberalised energy market. It finds more its place with state driven power policies.

i.e. after the fact? I don't know why any private entity would make such an investment.

Not really after the fact. In Europe alone, there is room for 300-400 EPRs and we need to build 100 of them (or similar ones) by 2030 just to keep the current level of nuclear power in Europe (33%) according to estimates I've seen.

But, as you pointed out, this is not really something that is easily done with private capital on which one wants short-term benefits. So it is not very compatible with the way we view business currently. It was much more compatible with the way things were run in the 60ies - 80ies.

Astronuc

Nov11-08, 01:20 PM

Astronuc

Dec6-08, 08:54 PM

Trash - or more accurately biomass - to gasoline.
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1963
Byogy Renewables licenses technology
The system is relatively inexpensive and focuses on using biomass waste streams and non-food energy crops rather than food products such as corn.

Biomass includes garbage, biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, green waste such as lawn clippings, food waste and any type of livestock manure. And using biomass instead of crops such as corn won't strain food supplies.

From the university.
http://www.che.tamu.edu/department/gasoline-produced-from-biomass-could-be-in-fuel-tanks-by-2010-with-new-tech

From Byogy
http://www.byogy.com/about/whatwedo/better.html

OmCheeto

Dec7-08, 09:26 AM

Is this "capture & store undergound" explained and discussed anywhere? I have to admit I don't understand just how this would work. What would keep the CO2 from bubbling back up? What if it leaks into my basement? What keeps me from suffocating to death down there?

Really, what structure will prevent the CO2 from migrating back to the surface? What's the design life of that structure? If Yucca Mtn has to demonstrate confinement for ten thousand or one million years (based on > ten half lives), how long does the CO2 storage have to be designed for (actually forever?)

I really would like to find out more about this idea.

Nature often has the answer.
Are you familiar with Ivan's algae-oil idea?
Do you know where the oil and coal that are generating all this extra CO2came from in the first place?
Do you know how long that oil and coal kept that carbon locked up?

Ivan thinks of the oil as a new fuel, which it is.
But I also see it as a solution to carbon sequestration.
I did the calculations a while back on how long it would take us to remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere by using corn as the storage medium.(most any plant will do)
I came up with something like 90 years.
You get to eat the corn, but the cob and rest of the plant have to be chopped up, mixed with a bit of water, and pumped into all of our old oil wells and coal mines.
Algae has the advantage of locking up the carbon at a much higher, and much cheaper rate.
And since it is already water borne and small, you don't have to waste any energy chopping it up. You just pour it back into the ground. And it stays there, for millions and millions of years. Eventually, it will turn into oil and coal.

Somewhere, in this 4 year long thread, I read that the coal plants should be shut down.
Feeding the CO2 that the coal plants produce to algae farms, pumping the algae into the ground would effectively create a zero CO2 energy source.

This is already being done, although I don't think they are sequestering the algae, yet.

If you are worried that pumping lots of water into the ground would be wasteful, you should also recall that for every gallon of gas you burn, roughly a gallon of water is generated. So we would just be pumping back in what we took out in the first place.

russ_watters

Dec7-08, 09:38 AM

I did the calculations a while back on how long it would take us to remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere by using corn as the storage medium.(most any plant will do)
I came up with something like 90 years.
You get to eat the corn, but the cob and rest of the plant have to be chopped up, mixed with a bit of water, and pumped into all of our old oil wells and coal mines.
Algae has the advantage of locking up the carbon at a much higher, and much cheaper rate.
And since it is already water borne and small, you don't have to waste any energy chopping it up. You just pour it back into the ground. And it stays there, for millions and millions of years. Eventually, it will turn into oil and coal. How much corn and how much algae are we talking about?

OmCheeto

Dec7-08, 10:27 AM

How much corn and how much algae are we talking about?
I only used corn because I was able to determine it's yield per acre.
I used all of the arable land on the planet used for harvestable crops and inserted the numbers for corn.
Everyone still gets to eat their food, but they have to sequester all of the remaining plant fiber.

It was a simple plug and chug math problem.
I believe that I also determined that plant fiber was about 50% carbon.

Let's see if I can recreate it real fast:
the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3e15 kg
approximately 19,824,000 km² are arable
corn averages about 250 bu/acre
70lbs/bushel corn
247 acres/km²
1 harvest per year
assuming 1/3 the mass of the plant is edible(sequester the other 2/3)
lb=.4536 kg
50% carbon per pound

77.2 years

Algae supposedly has a much higher yield than any land based plants, so with a world wide concerted effort, we could probably do it in under 20 years.

I haven't done the calculations for algae, as I just thought of it this morning.

But with people hacking rain forests down like mad, the above solutions are somewhat moot. Why try and put out a fire when someone else keeps throwing in gasoline and firewood.

Ivan Seeking

Dec7-08, 03:50 PM

Are you familiar with Ivan's algae-oil idea?

Thanks for the credit, but I am just promoting the ideas of others.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

gmax137

Dec7-08, 08:08 PM

OmCheeto

Dec7-08, 11:26 PM

I have a couple of questions - mostly I'm trying to understand how this (pumping the "non food" portion of the plants underground) compares to what happens now.

First, how much of the carbon in a plant comes from the air, and how much comes from the soil? Is it really all from the air?

I'm not a biologist, but my guess is yes.

If/when a plant stalk & roots are turned under, does the carbon return to the air? How exactly does this occur? What's the time scale? I know that for some crops, the farmers burn the fields after harvest (I have seen this in sugarcane fields). In that case I guess the carbon goes right back to the air. But I really don't know about just turning the stalks into the fields.

My understanding is that carbon will stay in the plant until a critical temperature and conditions are reached.

Effect of temperature (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7381j025827h0n8/) on production of CH4 and CO2 from Peat in a Natural and Flooded Boreal Forest Wetland
CH4 and CO2 production rates approximately tripled for every 10 °C temperature increase and may have been linked to to the metabolic rate of the methanogens or the fermentors independent of the substrate quality.

I've not found any numbers for corn stalk carbon release in Kansas though.

I think alot of the "non food" part of the plants is now used to feed livestock (Im pretty sure thats where the corn cobs go now). What happens to that carbon now? For that matter, what happens to the carbon in the 1/3 you figure we eat?

I would imagine it goes to the sewage treatment plant. Are you suggesting we flush our toilets into the sequestration caverns? Hmmm..... Good Idea. That would cut the time down by a third.

I doubt that it would be possible to produce the yield we see for a crop like corn on every acre of arable land. What's the current production compared to the value you are assuming?

You know, the first time I calculated this, I spent about 15 minutes finding the numbers. I hope you don't think I'm an expert.
But you can expand on my idea on an international level by determining the caloric intake and food composition of the various parts of the world.

I don't believe that corn stalks are 50% (by weight) carbon. I think they are mostly water (because, when you dry them out they are nearly weightless).

You caught me there. And if you look closely, you will also see that my calculations are based on all of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Not just the 30-40% excess. But the numbers are a bit confusing. Some sources say that much of the excess carbon is being absorbed by our oceans. So it's really difficult to determine how much excess carbon we need to get rid of.

Please dont take these questions as an attack on your idea. I like the general idea (which really boils down to using solar energy to close the carbon cycle). Burning coal releases the energy in the carbon - hydrogen - oxygen bonds, while growing plants use the incoming solar energy to re-create those bonds. What concerns me is whether this can really work - can we grow new plants faster than we burn the plants that grew millions of years ago?

That's actually a very good question. The algae needs sunlight to absorb the carbon. We may want to build any new coal burning plants to the southwest. I've not done the calculations on how large an algae farm would be required to clean up a large coal burning plant.

I believe MIT is studying the process though.

Ivan Seeking

Dec8-08, 12:08 AM

I didn't review to see if this had been mentioned, but fyi

...The idea behind the venture is to create plankton "blooms," or large-scale growth, by seeding the ocean with iron, which stimulates plankton growth. As the plankton grows, it consumes carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and removes it from the atmosphere.

Planktos is not the first to come up with the idea of capturing or sequestering carbon through plankton blooms. But the Foster City, Calif.-based company appears to be the first trying to commercialize ongoing research on the topic.

During the trip, the crew of about 16 will seed thousands of miles of the Pacific Ocean with iron. After the growth phase, a percentage of that plankton will die and sink. Once the plankton are below 500 meters, they sequester the consumed carbon for centuries, said David Kubiak, director of communications for Planktos...
http://news.cnet.com/Seeding-the-ocean-to-capture-carbon/2100-11395_3-6182861.html

I read that either this or another group was not able to keep their bloom alive. I think another group was working the same idea with algae.

Astronuc

Dec13-08, 12:11 PM

Could coffee be the alternative fuel of the future?
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=could-coffee-be-the-alternative-fue-2008-12-10
Researchers from the University of Nevada, Reno, have discovered that coffee can be turned into an alternative fuel other than caffeine: biodiesel. And you can have your coffee and drink it too. No need to use the fresh stuff, old grounds are more than up to the task, according to material scientist Mano Misra and his colleagues.

Even after being subjected to the rigors of brewing, roughly 15 percent of the weight of dried coffee grounds is oil, which, much like palm and soybean oil, can be converted into biodiesel. The coffee has the added benefit of not being a food source, like palm oil and soybeans.

Nevertheless, more than 16 billion pounds of coffee are produced globally every year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Misra estimates that the grounds from that haul could be used to make as much as 340 million gallons of biodiesel. For their part, the researchers turned grounds donated by Starbucks into biodiesel that had the added advantage of smelling like a fresh cup o' Joe.
. . . . It should be done after the coffee is made. Coffee grounds to fuel is a great idea. We compost ours.

Extracting the oil, and then converting grounds to fuel would be even better. A group at Texas A&M have invented a process that apparently converts biomass to fuel.

See post #246

russ_watters

Feb5-09, 05:15 PM

Off topic posts moved here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=290131

Topher925

Feb9-09, 12:17 PM

I doubt biomass has the capability of solving our energy problems. We may be able to produce a considerable amount of power from it but there just isn't enough energy there for it to be a significant source. Compared to that of a modern solar panel or solar thermal plant, how efficient is a plant leaf or algae anyway? I think I remember seeing numbers for a corn stalk leaf only being able to convert less than 1% of sunlight into usable chemical energy. Compare that to the ~15% of your modern solar panel and its pretty easy to see whats better.

I see that energy storage is starting to become more popular and I think is key to developing a stable power infrastructure based on micro-generation. With out it, most sources of alternative energy like wind, solar, and tidal can never reach their full potential.

http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/index.htm

brewnog

Feb9-09, 01:47 PM

I doubt biomass has the capability of solving our energy problems. We may be able to produce a considerable amount of power from it but there just isn't enough energy there for it to be a significant source. Compared to that of a modern solar panel or solar thermal plant, how efficient is a plant leaf or algae anyway? I think I remember seeing numbers for a corn stalk leaf only being able to convert less than 1% of sunlight into usable chemical energy. Compare that to the ~15% of your modern solar panel and its pretty easy to see whats better.

Find me a solar panel which can cover 1 acre of land for less than fifteen times the cost of plants.

My firm belief is that biomass (either first or second generation) has an important role in our future energy supplies.

Ivan Seeking

Feb9-09, 03:23 PM

Find me a solar panel which can cover 1 acre of land for less than fifteen times the cost of plants.

My firm belief is that biomass (either first or second generation) has an important role in our future energy supplies.

Indeed! And the lifetime cost ratio is probably much greater than 15:1. There is also the issue that, at least for the foreseeable future, we will not be flying solar powered airplanes, or running solar powered ships, tractor trailers, busses, or heavy trains.

Count Iblis

Feb9-09, 06:15 PM

The Dutch have solved the problem (http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/corporate/2007/Q3/energie-eiland.asp) :approve:

Ivan Seeking

Feb9-09, 06:33 PM

The Dutch have solved the problem (http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/corporate/2007/Q3/energie-eiland.asp) :approve:

They have solved a Dutch problem - they don't have any hills or mountains. We've been pumping water uphill for energy storage for a better part of a century.

Topher925

Feb10-09, 09:05 AM

Ivan Seeking

Feb10-09, 02:43 PM

Its not about cost for every acre you cover, its cost per kw generated. I came across an article not to long ago that compared the cradle to grave costs of solar cells, solar thermal, and a couple biofuel energy sources. I'll try and find it again.

Note that most people now understand that corn-ethanol is a loser, so comparisons to that option would be useless.

Astronuc

Feb24-09, 12:27 PM

NRG teams with ESolar for 500 mw of solar thermal

NRG Energy signed a deal with ESolar to build 500 mw of solar thermal at sites in California and the Southwest . .
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN2334679020090223
LOS ANGELES, Feb 23 (Reuters) - NRG Energy (NRG.N) stepped in the solar power arena for the first time with an agreement with solar developer eSolar to create up to 500 megawatts of solar thermal plants in the U.S. Southwest, the two companies announced on Monday.

Independent power producer NRG will invest $10 million in the venture, which is designed to develop a series of solar thermal power plants with Pasadena, California-based eSolar.

An eSolar spokeswoman said, "This is the first fully funded utility scale renewable energy deal since global markets went south last year."

NRG said it will gain equity and associated development rights for three projects, and a portfolio of power purchase agreements to develop, build, own and operate up to 11 eSolar solar plants. The first plant is due to come on-line in 2011.

Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG has 48 power plants generating 24,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to serve 20,000 households.

. . . .

NRG's eSolar Investment Has Tax, Green Benefits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123543749926554727.html
NRG Energy Inc. will invest $10 million in closely held eSolar Inc., a company that designs modular power plants using solar-tower technology.

The deal stands to give eSolar the resources it needs to expand, while allowing NRG to accelerate the greening of its own energy portfolio.

More arrangements like the one between NRG and eSolar are expected, as cash-strapped renewable-energy companies join with larger, profitable energy companies looking for tax shelters to offset profits and to increase the renewable component of their energy businesses. Such "tax-equity investors" have been harder for renewable-energy companies to find since the stock market's collapse, which left fewer companies worried about paying income taxes.

Under the arrangement, NRG, a Princeton, N.J., company with conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants generating 24,000 megawatts of electricity, is garnering the right to invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in coming years to build, own and operate solar plants using eSolar's technology.

The agreement covers development of as much as 500 megawatts of solar-power plants, including a 240-megawatt development that eSolar intends to build for Edison International's Southern California Edison unit.
. . . .

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/12/121544/0223eSolarFinal.pdf

http://www.nrgenergy.com/

mheslep

Feb24-09, 09:41 PM

Ug, thats a fairly poor Reuters article. 'Tower of mirrors'? Nothing on cost, nothing on transmission issues, though that may simply not be available yet.

Astronuc

Feb24-09, 10:46 PM

Press releases often do not go into technical details. In the electrical industry, transmission is a major issue. Ostensibly, such plants can be build relatively close to existing transmission lines.

mheslep

Feb24-09, 11:39 PM

Press releases often do not go into technical details. In the electrical industry, transmission is a major issue. Ostensibly, such plants can be build relatively close to existing transmission lines.True, but I didn't consider general cost of plant, or whether additional line would be needed a technical detail; they're fundamental. In the renewable electrical industry, transmission is a huge issue because solar and wind are specifically often not close to transmission lines, they're in the boonies - hence the big fuss about the 120mi Sunrise Powerlink (http://www.sdge.com/sunrisepowerlink/SPL_NL1.pdf) from Imperial County concentrated solar to San Diego, and the forthcoming Federal play to seize control (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aMW40OlXEzhU&refer=us) from the states of transmission line regulation and right of way.

OmCheeto

Feb25-09, 10:00 AM

FYI -

The National Academies Summit on America's Energy Future:
Summary of a Meeting

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12450 (Free downloadable pdf available)

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/energy/index.htm

You can also read it online (http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12450#toc).

11
Pathways to a Sustainable Future (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12450&page=85)

Achieving an energy regime that meets human demands while protecting the global environment will require changing the relationship between energy use and economic activity. As several speakers at the summit pointed out, these two measures are correlated (Figure 11.1 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12450&page=86#p200160219960086001)). However, the correlation is not invariant.

From 1977 to 1985, the U.S. economy grew 27 percent while the nation’s use of oil fell 17 percent. Oil imports fell by half, and imports from the Persian Gulf dropped by 87 percent. “It broke OPEC’s pricing power for a decade, because we customers, especially in America, … found that we could save oil faster than OPEC could conveniently sell less oil,” said Amory Lovins.

As Lovins pointed out, economic theorists have assumed that energy intensity in the world will fall by about 1 percent a year because of increasing efficiency. “If we could make that about 2 percent a year, it would stabilize carbon emissions with economic projections. If we could make that more like 3 percent per year, carbon emissions would fall and stabilize the climate fairly quickly.”

from commentary regarding Figure 11.1
To solve the energy problem, the United States must increase its energy efficiency four- to fivefold, while the developing world grows in such a way that its energy intensity does not increase dramatically, said Steven Chu (Figure 11.2). “The real question is whether the developing countries will follow in the footsteps of the United States, Australia, and Canada,” said Chu. Or will they “leapfrog past the mistakes of the developed world”? The developed world has an obligation to lead the way and to help other nations follow, Chu said. “It is not our birthright to say that we should enjoy a high standard of living and the developing countries should not.”

Doesn't sound too difficult.

Astronuc

Feb25-09, 03:03 PM

Former EPA Chief Whitman on Nuclear Power, Energy Jobs, and the New EPA
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/24/former-epa-chief-whitman-on-nuclear-power-energy-jobs-and-the-new-epa/

WSJ: Nuclear power seems to be gathering momentum—now Italy’s trying to jump on board. Does that change the debate here?

WHITMAN: The nuclear revival is happening all across Europe. A lot of the countries who’ve signed onto Kyoto, find they can’t meet their emissions budgets. The biggest difference is that for the first time, environmentalists are willing to engage. Climate change is such an important deal, we’ve gotten boxed in—what form of base power can meet our needs?
If electricity demand is going to grow 20% by 2030, and you’re not going to get there with energy efficiency and renewables alone, if you care about climate change, you have to look at nuclear power as part of the solution.

WSJ: But one of the big question marks is the ability of the nuclear industry to really gear up, with concerns over supplies of key components and even technicians.

WHITMAN: There probably won’t be too many problems from a personnel point of view, because there is more and more technical training going on, and there’s always the U.S. Navy.

In terms of components, there are more issues, like forging the reactor core vessel. Eventually, that is going to be a problem. But that is something that we could do in the U.S., and it would bring back manufacturing jobs.

WSJ: Green jobs are all the rage, especially after the stimulus bill. In the past, CASE has touted the job-creation potential of the nuclear industry, but how realistic is that given the sector’s upstream challenges?

WHITMAN: Look, peak employment during the construction of a nuclear reactor can reach 4,000 jobs. Once built, you’re looking at 400-700 full-time jobs. Now, if all the 26 reactors in the pipeline were built in the US, you’d be talking about 12,000 to 21,000 jobs.
Things are speeding up. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined the permitting process, so the timeline [for a new nuclear plant] is more like 8-10 years, rather than 15 years as in the past. And that’s only going to get faster—we’re talking about 4 technologies for new reactors instead of the 95 or so for the current 104 reactors.
And that will help the economics—you’ll finally see economies of scale. That will be better on the jobs side, too, because people can move around from one reactor to another. In the past, they always had to retrain. Standardization will bring a lot of benefits.

WSJ: But there’s still the question of nuclear-waste storage, and the decades-long debate over Yucca Mountain.

WHITMAN: The storage question is not a nuclear science issue, it’s a political science issue. It’s all [Senate majority leader] Harry Reid. The spent fuel rods are safely stored for now.
Now, France and Japan are reprocessing their spent fuel, bringing that waste from 95% useable fuel down to about 3%. If we get that going, then that will reduce the amount of waste to be stored, and Yucca will be in fine shape.

. . . .

brewnog

Feb25-09, 03:32 PM

mheslep

Feb25-09, 04:50 PM

Former EPA Chief Whitman on Nuclear Power, Energy Jobs, and the New EPA
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/24/former-epa-chief-whitman-on-nuclear-power-energy-jobs-and-the-new-epa/Note that the President omitted all reference to nuclear power in yesterday's speech, despite some lengthy energy passages and 15 references to 'energy', with the exception of a single reference to 'terrorism and nuclear proliferation'. That's a disappointing lack of balance, and I'm afraid represents a denial of the facts on the ground that this and other threads have explored in seeking a secure energy future.

mheslep

Feb25-09, 05:09 PM

WHITMAN: Look, peak employment during the construction of a nuclear reactor can reach 4,000 jobs. Once built, you’re looking at 400-700 full-time jobs. Now, if all the 26 reactors in the pipeline were built in the US, you’d be talking about 12,000 to 21,000 jobs.The jobs argument strikes me as a poor one. In down economies its increasingly thrown around to justify most anything, almost replacing 'it will help the children' for top rationalization. I expect a 1 GW power source of any type is going create some thousands of jobs. To the extent nuclear requires more people than other sources it reflects the cost premium inherent in nuclear. That is, the jobs might be for say 20 security people that don't produce anything, and throw in some jobs created for lawyers and professional anti-nuclear activists. I think the better argument is that to the extent nuclear creates jobs they are more highly skilled, good jobs.

russ_watters

Feb25-09, 05:37 PM

Ug, thats a fairly poor Reuters article. 'Tower of mirrors'? Nothing on cost, nothing on transmission issues, though that may simply not be available yet. A quick look at the company website shows that there are no details because there are no details.

Utility companies need to spend money on such things (not sure if this one was spending required money or just a way to cash in on a tax incentive) and investing in start-ups with nonexistent products is an easy way to accomplish that.

The idea of solar-thermodynamic plants is not new and does hold some promise, but it isn't past the prototype stage, so advertising that they will have a large, functioning plant in 2 years is just silly.

russ_watters

Feb25-09, 05:40 PM

Note that the President omitted all reference to nuclear power in yesterday's speech, despite some lengthy energy passages and 15 references to 'energy', with the exception of a single reference to 'terrorism and nuclear proliferation'. That's a disappointing lack of balance, and I'm afraid represents a denial of the facts on the ground that this and other threads have explored in seeking a secure energy future. Some people knew that his tiptoing around the nuclear issue during the campaign was just for show. There won't be any progress on nuclear power regulations unless it is forced on him and since we have a Democrat Congress, that's not going to happen. I am so unsurprised, I wouldn't consider "dissapointment" a relevant reaction.

We're not going to be making any relevant progress on this issue any time soon.

russ_watters

Feb25-09, 05:43 PM

The jobs argument strikes me as a poor one. In down economies its increasingly thrown around to justify most anything, almost replacing 'it will help the children' for top rationalization. I expect a 1 GW power source of any type is going create some thousands of jobs. To the extent nuclear requires more people than other sources it reflects the cost premium inherent in nuclear. That is, the jobs might be for say 20 security people that don't produce anything, and throw in some jobs created for lawyers and professional anti-nuclear activists. I think the better argument is that to the extent nuclear creates jobs they are more highly skilled, good jobs. Agreed. When the government spends money on just about anything, it creates jobs, at least temporarily. There are plenty of good/relevant reasons to support nuclear power, but that really isn't one of them.

mheslep

Feb26-09, 09:52 AM

Some people knew that his tiptoing around the nuclear issue during the campaign was just for show. There won't be any progress on nuclear power regulations unless it is forced on him and since we have a Democrat Congress, that's not going to happen. I am so unsurprised, I wouldn't consider "dissapointment" a relevant reaction.

We're not going to be making any relevant progress on this issue any time soon.I had thought Obama was smart enough to know that even best case w/ alternatives he would need some nuclear, at the very least to get busy w/ replacing aging existing US plants, and that the tiptoing was in part plotting a political course, and maybe looking for some better 'reach' technology (i.e. gen4) that would help w/ proliferation, cost, etc. The present course, to include no more drilling and the slashing the Yucca mountain budget (http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/8375101.xml?src=Nuclearrssheadlines1), is just stupid.

From the budget today released by the White House:
The yucca Mountain program will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear regulatory Commission, while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/budgetblueprint02262009.pdf

aerospaceut10

Feb26-09, 10:23 AM

mheslep

Feb26-09, 10:45 AM

Well, I have been disappointed ever since probably his run against McCain since during his Democratic primaries he was actually among the biggest proponents of nuclear power.

Russ's 'tiptoeing' description is more accurate than 'proponent':
At a debate in January 2008, Obama said he would support more nuclear power if it could be made cost-efficient and safe, and the waste stored effectively. He noted, if that can be done, "then we should pursue it because what we don't want is to produce more greenhouse gases."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14755/

russ_watters

Feb26-09, 05:15 PM

To be a little more complete, he took some flak for being against nuclear power so he created that position (in the quote) as a response to it. It's a pointless position because compromise is an inherrent part of putting together policy and he's simply acknowledging the potential need to compromise on the issue.....but that doesn't at all imply his actual position changed.

So far he has not made any moves to block nuclear power, and I hope, at least, that that will continue. Nuclear power could use help, but it is starting to come back on its own.

mheslep

Feb26-09, 05:24 PM

...So far he has not made any moves to block nuclear power, and I hope, at least, that that will continue. Nuclear power could use help, but it is starting to come back on its own.There I disagree, I think nuclear is dead in the US under the current policy, unfortunately. Nuclear is expensive but it had some hope with a government that agreed to a) help out with waste policy and b) at least do no harm with baseless law suits and delaying actions. Without that much help, nobody is ever going to float billion dollar bonds for a nuclear plant.

Edit: the most direct way to remedy this policy error IMO is to force energy secretary Chu to discuss the matter. Unlike a purely political appointee, with his background he should not be allowed to delay and obfuscate on the subject by deferring to the experts.

.:Endeavour:.

Mar1-09, 12:31 AM

There I disagree, I think nuclear is dead in the US under the current policy, unfortunately. Nuclear is expensive but it had some hope with a government that agreed to a) help out with waste policy and b) at least do no harm with baseless law suits and delaying actions. Without that much help, nobody is ever going to float billion dollar bonds for a nuclear plant.

Edit: the most direct way to remedy this policy error IMO is to force energy secretary Chu to discuss the matter. Unlike a purely political appointee, with his background he should not be allowed to delay and obfuscate on the subject by deferring to the experts.

For nuclear power plants, most of them where made in the late 20th century. Instead of making new plants, most existing plants should be up-dated to the 21th century. Obama isn't the one that makes the public policy to the nation, but only Congress with an exception of the executive order w. Most of the policy about energy comes from Congress and not from the President. The way that the President influences policy is by the OMB, State of the Union Address, his approval rating, vetoing legislation, signing statements, and some others. Congress spends more than half on entitlement and the rest on discretion and funded programs. One way that you can change this is by writing to your representative of Congress which are the ones that makes the policy that affects our lives.

The other form of nuclear energy will be from fusion until it becomes available to us to use. It isn't the government agreeing on nuclear power is the interest groups that lobby Congress for it and against it, so Congress has to compromise somewhere with both groups.

OmCheeto

Mar1-09, 01:16 AM

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with nuclear power. :rolleyes:

Nuclear Naval Fleets (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf34.html)
The US Navy has accumulated over 5500 reactor years of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships (with 103 reactors as of early 2005).

As long as they are built and operated well.

mheslep

Mar6-09, 01:59 PM

...
Edit: the most direct way to remedy this policy error IMO is to force energy secretary Chu to discuss the matter. Unlike a purely political appointee, with his background he should not be allowed to delay and obfuscate on the subject by deferring to the experts.
Go Senator McCain:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/06/yucca-mountain-mccain-goes-nuclear-on-chu/
“What’s wrong with Yucca Mountain, Mr. Chu?” Mr. McCain asked at the hearing.

“I think we can do a better job,” Mr. Chu replied.

“We’re going to have spent fuel sitting around in pools all over America,” Mr. McCain said. “To say after 20 years and $9 billion dollars spent on Yucca Mountain that it’s not an option is a remarkable statement . . . It’s clear industry isn’t interested in the construction of nuclear power plants because we have no place to store” nuclear waste.

Mr. Chu said the administration plans to come up with a new plan for storing spent nuclear fuel later this year. “I want to seek the best advice of deeply knowledgeable people,” he said. He cited assurances from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that interim storage of waste at nuclear plants is safe, but was vague about what options the administration sees for long-term storage.
"Better job ... seek best advice"
What an utterly lame, completely political, response from Chu. I was expecting much better.

Complete transcript
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-mccain-and-steven-chu-on-yucca.html

Topher925

Mar6-09, 02:43 PM

Ever find that article, Topher?

No, I haven't. I'm not to sure about its accuracy anyway since the economics of biofuels can only be roughly estimated. Lots of pointless articles about land requirements though. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1454/

On a side note, First Solar broke the $1 barrier last week. w00t!, I own FS stock.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2237250/first-solar-reaches-dollar-per

mheslep

Mar6-09, 03:05 PM

On a side note, First Solar broke the $1 barrier last week. w00t!, I own FS stock.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2237250/first-solar-reaches-dollar-per :confused: 52 Week High $317.00, today: $107.80

Topher925

Mar6-09, 03:14 PM

I know, its a great stock! I also bought it when it was only ~70 a share.

Its doing a hell of a lot better than most.

GE: 52-Week High = 38.52, Today = 7.14

russ_watters

Mar6-09, 03:47 PM

What an utterly lame, completely political, response from Chu. I was expecting much better. I heard about this (surprisingly, it got almost no press :confused: ). So it would appear I was wrong: the Obama administration has already fired their first shot against nuclear power, and it was a big one. This is very, very bad.

.:Endeavour:.

Mar7-09, 10:45 AM

The Obama administration wants to end the recession as fast as possible, even though from the stimulus pack, we are more into debt than ever before. The shots where already fired here in California where both, I think, propositions for research and to start creating renewable resourses didn't pass, but what did pass was a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles on the worse time were the state is going bankrupt. This is what a private industry should be making not the government. The first shots against nuclear power aren't going to be the last ones.

Astronuc

Mar7-09, 03:05 PM

"Better job ... seek best advice"
What an utterly lame, completely political, response from Chu. I was expecting much better.
I agree. Chu's statement is disappointing to say the least.

No new plants will be built until there is a final disposition on spent fuel. It cannot stay at reactor sites indefinitely, unless each site is expected to develop a final respository. The government should then just refund the money that has been collected on the premise that a final solution was being developed.

I thought the middle of Wyoming would be a great place. There's a natural bowl surrounded by mountain ranges.

I'd like to see reprocessing with recycle of the U, Pu and vitrification of fission products which can then be buried in a geologically stable formation like Yucca mountain.

Clearly Reid does not want any spent fuel in Nevada, and many in the Clinton administration has no inclination to support nuclear energy, if they weren't opposed to it.

signerror

Mar7-09, 04:07 PM

I'd like to see a fully closed fuel cycle with reprocessing and breeder reactors. Some mixture of fast breeders like IFR (sodium cooled) and GFR (helium), and thermal breeders based on Th232/U233 (the fluoride-salt MSR for instance). I think, by simultaneously investing in both conventional light-water reactors (and CANDUs), plus breeder reactors, nuclear power could satisfy a majority (or all) of the world's energy demand. It is symbiotic: the conventional reactors produce tons of fissile plutonium + minor actinide fuel, which is needed in large amounts to start up the breeder reactors. Conversely, excess plutonium from breeders would return to the light-water reactors as MOX fuel.

Topher925

Mar7-09, 04:45 PM

I thought the middle of Wyoming would be a great place. There's a natural bowl surrounded by mountain ranges.

I think you need a very specific type of clay soil for the storage of nuclear waste. Something about very dense, stable, and relatively impermeable to water, so you can't just pick any mountain range or stable region to bury the stuff at.

I always thought the original A-bomb testing grounds would be good. The place is already contaminated and off limits.

I'd like to see a fully closed fuel cycle with reprocessing and breeder reactors.

I think we all would.

Astronuc

Mar8-09, 08:54 AM

I think you need a very specific type of clay soil for the storage of nuclear waste. Something about very dense, stable, and relatively impermeable to water, so you can't just pick any mountain range or stable region to bury the stuff at. Soil? Soil is permeable.

The ideal site is rock that has been geologically stable for millions of years and likely to remain so, e.g. basalt or granite.

I always thought the original A-bomb testing grounds would be good. The place is already contaminated and off limits. Yucca Mountain is on the western side of the Nevada Test Site, and that's one reason it was selected. It's already Federal land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Wfm_area51_map_en.png

.:Endeavour:.

Mar12-09, 07:44 PM

I always thought the original A-bomb testing grounds would be good. The place is already contaminated and off limits.

Even though the area is off limits, the nuclear test sites are under federal land which are under the Military sovereignty unless Congress allows nuclear waste to be stored there. Its off limits to the public, not to the Military or to federal government.

boab

Mar27-09, 07:15 AM

I think the original concept of this thread was "how you" would fix the U.S. energy crises", and was not intended to be some political energy rag site that abounds everywhere, while the problem(s) continue. I my view, political interference into some issue usually occurs to cloud and issue, and protect the status quo.
It does little to cure a problem, and only makes the lobbyist, attorney's, politicians, and the media wealthy. In the end, the issue dies on the vine of boredom, and we still have the problem.

I retired after 35 years from generating electrical power by steam, (oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear), jet engine peaking units, and hydro electric.
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro. Geo thermal is pretty good, and Hawaii is currently getting about 40% of it's electrical energy from it. And there is no fuel cost.
Fossil fired boilers are about 35% efficient, very reliable, but are not only damaging from green house gases they produce, but in sucking up "vast" quantities of resources. How vast this consumption is, is seldom realized by the public.
A quick example is coal. To fire a coal fired steam plant producing 650 MW's requires 10,000 tons of coal per 24 hours. 5,000,000 lbs. of air "an hour".
Of all that heat energy generated, 1/3 of it up the smoke stack, and about another 1/3 goes out the cooling towers, and 1/3 is converted to electrical power.
After burning all that coal you are left with about 5,000 tons a day of very acidic, sterile bottom ash and fly ash waste, that needs to be reburied someplace, where it can not get into the water supply.
True, coal is relatively cheap in relation to other fuels, but it is cheap only in a certain context, i.e.; BTU's. Environmental damage factors are not factored into its BTU cost advantage.
There are approximately 300, 650 MW + sized steam plants in the U.S. alone. From that, one begins to literally "see" the environmental problems they cause.
Oil and natural gas, being slightly less environmentally damaging, but are "much" more expensive fuel wise to operate. And both fuels are becoming more expensive and hard to find with time. And, as we all know, they continue to fuel the energy crisis.
Nuclear power is cheap. That's a laugh! Nuclear steam plants are not that efficient when compared to fossil fueled plants that run 2300 to 3200 psi throttle pressure and a steam temperature of 1010*F. (Higher pressure = higher efficiency)
Nuclear plants run in the neighborhood of 800 to a 900 psi on the newer ones, and much less on the older ones. The reason is their heat exchanger is located between the reactor and the steam processor that feeds the steam turbine. It becomes almost impossible above a 900 psi to design a high efficiency heat exchanger that can handle 800*F temperatures, and "NOT EVER" develop a leak caused from reactor coolant fluid flow erosion, corrosion, or the varying of thermal cycling.
Most people also forget, that cheap nuclear power is subsidized by the tax payer. "ALL" nuclear mining, processing, and sale is controlled and supervised by the government(s). Who then sells the pellets to the utility industry at "an agreed on cost". Usually 55% of the true cost in producing the pellet to make it competitive most other fuel costs. The taxpayer is picking up the difference.
Maintaining the radioactive waste is also controlled and paid for by the government, (taxpayer) "FOREVER". True, no green house gases are produced by nukes, but huge amounts of radioactive waste is.
Nuclear power has its place. In the ocean, powering submarines in my book.
Radioactive waste is bad stuff. Given time, there are very few of natures elements it will not turn literally, to dust.
And if it is compressed to save store space for example, it gets hotter, both in temperature and radioactivity. It is also very corrosive. This is why there is a BIG, BIG problem of its disposal and longterm storage.
I have found it interesting, that at the beginning of my career, the solution to "the nuclear waste problem" was just over the hill. At the end of my career, 35 years later, it was still, just over the hill. Almost no "practical" solution has yet been found. That kind of sums up how difficult this problem really is, and why the Earth's core is still molten from radioactive decay 4.5 billion years later.
Solar energy. Solar energy is expensive to produce, and only works when the sun shines. But let's take a closer look at it. Even though the current generation of solar cells are only 15% or so efficient, and expensive to produce. Solar, like hydro and wind power, has no fuel cost. Thus saving hundreds of millions in fuel bills, lost resources, and producing no green house gases over the life of that generating source.
Also plant maintenance is practically eliminated in comparison to a normal fossil fuel steam, or nuke plant. Consequently, though more expensive per MW to build, it pays for itself much-much quicker through reduced operating costs and becomes a cheap source.
Solar also, along with wind and hydro, does not increase the temperature of the Earths environment, beyond what the natural shinning of the sunlight on the Earth would cause. If global warming is a consideration, this is a major advantage.
Wind is extremely practical, and is springing up everywhere the wind blows enough to justify its use. But again, it only works when the wind blows.
Wave power. I don't consider wave power a viable power source, beyond servicing small isolated areas, or islands. The robustness of their design to deal with storms, tides, problems with marine growth, makes them extremely expensive for the little power they produce.

If I were to have my way in fixing the energy crises, I would do four things.
#1 Increase the intertie distribution network throughout the U.S. to take more advantage of the cyclic nature of electrical power use across the nation as the time of the day and usage moves across the country.
#2 Eliminate much of the unnecessary lighting of highways, roads, as well as advertising. The amount of electrical power wasted for these items is absolutely staggering!! In reality much of this waste produces little safety or practical benefit. Much of it is for just "psychological security and safety", and prevents little crime or accidents. The advertising illumination could still be done of course, but with much lower and practical intensity.
One only has to look at the night sky on an overcast night to see all the energy going to waste, lighting up the clouds. Or look at the satellite photographs of the Earth at night and see the huge amounts of energy being wasted.....world wide. Keeping in mind of course, that a majority of this light is reflected off the ground, (a very poor reflector) and was not originally intended in its designed use, to be beamed into space. But to light the area around it.
#3 Future good hydro location sites are almost gone now. Geothermal sites are very limited in the U.S. Though Iceland gets by fine with them, as does Hawaii.
However solar energy is world wide. True the conversion of solar cells are not very efficient, and takes a very large area to produce large amounts of power. However, there are many vacant south facing roof tops in the U.S. The tax incentive for installing an entire solar cell covered south facing roof, plus a percentage cut of the power the roof produced, would not only be extremely practical from the homeowners prospective, but also supply his needs, as well as any excess into the grid.
A large utility solar array farm, could be devoted to converting solar power into heat, and used to melt salt, where the heat stored in the molten salt is used to run turbine generators during the night, or during cloudy days.
The key here is using what's available, and practical in a particular region, and being able to ship any excess to a need elsewhere with a minimum of loss.
There will still be a need for nukes, and fossil fuel plants, but much-much less so than we are lead to believe.
The electrical industry is extremely conservative, and in many ways this is good. It makes for reliable service. But the industry also wants control, and also wants tax write off's on their generating equipment. Plus the investors want a maximum return on their investment. So efficiency and environmental damage sometimes become secondary.
I think we are at the beginning of a new way of looking at energy. Just as a point is now being realized where increasing the miles per gallon of fuel in a vehicle, has got to the point that the vehicles accessories power use are suddenly becoming a major offender to increasing that MPG of the vehicle. Ten years ago a vehicles accessories were never a real consideration. Now with the development of hybrid cars, it is becoming a real concern.
In the same aspect, smaller distribution areas, supplying their own power needs for that moment by using the best environmental resources available in that area are becoming very viable as the population density increases, and they become practical.
This concept has several advantages. It is more efficient, more reliable, cheaper to construct, less targetable, and less vulnerable to storm, or other natural disaster damage affects.
#4 Finally, I would make research into a practical means of storing electrical energy an extremely high priority. It is "The Key" to any future system.
Unfortunately, certain industries do not want others meddling in their market nitch, and consequently suppress alternative research, (unless they thought of it) and control patent use, to maximize their products.
In some ways, when such improvements could affect the welfare of the entire country, or the health of the Earth, I view such greed as a crime against humanity.
Industry view it as improving business.

boab

mheslep

Mar27-09, 09:37 AM

The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro. No, overstated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_the_Three_Gorges_Dam
And although hydro is predictable, it is unreliable due to flow variation.

...There are approximately 300, 650 MW + sized steam plants in the U.S. alone.Very accurate guess. There were 266 plants 650MWe or greater as of 2005 (EIA data). :biggrin:

misgfool

Mar27-09, 12:49 PM

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=after-20-years-new-life-for-cold-fu-2009-03-23

Hope is a good friend. Maybe it's coming.

vanesch

Mar27-09, 01:20 PM

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=after-20-years-new-life-for-cold-fu-2009-03-23

Hope is a good friend. Maybe it's coming.

My my. There's one sure way to find out whether fusion is happening, and that is the detection of tons of fast neutrons coming out, say, by experimenters vomiting and dropping dead to the floor from the moment some substantial amount of power is produced.

I really, really don't see how you could have D + something without having also fast neutron production. There is simply no known exclusive reaction channel that does so.

mheslep

Mar27-09, 05:10 PM

My my. There's one sure way to find out whether fusion is happening, and that is the detection of tons of fast neutrons coming out, say, by experimenters vomiting and dropping dead to the floor from the moment some substantial amount of power is produced.

I really, really don't see how you could have D + something without having also fast neutron production. There is simply no known exclusive reaction channel that does so.That seems to be one reason why this is interesting: no neutrons, yet people keep finding He and gamma products. Is it all poor technique, simply background? I don't think that's a reasonable answer any more.

Topher925

Mar28-09, 12:32 PM

My my. There's one sure way to find out whether fusion is happening, and that is the detection of tons of fast neutrons coming out, say, by experimenters vomiting and dropping dead to the floor from the moment some substantial amount of power is produced.

I think cold "fusion" releases such small amounts of energy that there wouldn't be enough energy to kill the scientists or even boil the water it supposedly occurs in.

Here's a link to a seminar by George Crabtree that I unfortunately had to miss last week. It's basically just a brief overview of current and future sustainably.
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/miteiseminars/videos/1599-george-crabtree---the-sustainable-energy-challenge

boab

Mar28-09, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by boab
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro.

---------------------------------------------------------

No, overstated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...ree_Gorges_Dam
And although hydro is predictable, it is unreliable due to flow variation.

------------------------------------

Maybe overstated, but it depends on your prospective. The Three Gorges Dam is a ecological nightmare. It was designed not only with power generation in mind, but with national prestige in mind. The old "Mine is bigger than yours" bit. So it wasn't stair stepped, with smaller dams along the river, as is the norm for hydro efficiency. Consequently it caused more major environmental and cultural problems, than stair stepping would have.
BUT, it also will have a generation capacity of something on the order of 21,000 MW's. Which is about 3 times that of Coolee Dam, which is the largest in the U.S. Also I think that it should also be considered that that 21,000 MW's produces no greenhouse gases, and does not add heat to the Earth's environment than would normally occur from the Sun.
Now if we take that 21,000 MW capability, and divide that by a typical 650 MW coal fired steam plant using 10,000 tons of coal per day, (24 hrs) we see that Three Gorges Dam replaces 32.3 coal fired steam plants. Or the burning of 323,077 tons of coal "a day", to say nothing of all the greenhouse gases and pollution produced.
China has huge stocks of coal, and as far as air quality goes as a nation, it is about the worst in the world by far. L.A. doesn't have a clue how bad, bad air can get!!

So yes, I agree Three Gorges is a bad thing. But it is much better at doing what it does as far as producing hydro electrical power, than the effects of 323,077 tons of coal being burned a day to fill the gap, and the environmental mining fallout to produce that much coal and get rid of the ash.
As has been mentioned several times by some of the writers here, WE are the actual problem that caused/(s) all the pollution, and the energy crises. We want to control everything in Nature......but ourselves, and our greed.

boab

mheslep

Mar28-09, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by boab
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro.

....So yes, I agree Three Gorges is a bad thing. But it is much better at doing what it does as far as producing hydro electrical power, than the effects of 323,077 tons of coal being burned a day to fill the gap, and the environmental mining fallout to produce that much coal and get rid of the ash.
As has been mentioned several times by some of the writers here, WE are the actual problem that caused/(s) all the pollution, and the energy crises. We want to control everything in Nature......but ourselves, and our greed.

boabSure, compared to coal, but you said environmentally 'safest'. I'd place nuclear and any of the the renewables (others) in front of hydro.

boab

Mar28-09, 11:17 PM

"Sure, compared to coal, but you said environmentally 'safest'. I'd place nuclear and any of the the renewables (others) in front of hydro."

Okay......if you want to split hairs, solar, wind and hydro. Or wind, solar and hydro.
One thing "I sure as Hell would not agree", is that nuclear reactors are safer than fossil fuel plants, or hydro!! My God! To many examples in history of things going wrong in the nuclear industry. And when they do, it is BAD, to REALLY BAD!
Here is an example or two, your not told. In Idaho there is a small model design of the San Orofre #1 power generator reactor inside a mountain. During design testing in 1952 it had the control rods swell and stick open and it couldn't SCAM. In seconds it melted down.
The radiation inside the mountain was so intense that the shielded TV camera on a remote controlled vehicle from Los Alamos failed from the radiation exposure 7 minutes after it entered the control room area. Everbody was dead naturally. No bodies were removed, or the remote vehicle. The radiation counters on the vehicle were beyond max'd out. And that is on a vehicle was brought in because it was made to handle highly radioactive waste! The access tunnel was simply blownup, then imediately sealed with concrete.
Until about 15 years ago it was highly classified, and I only found out about it when I was in the service in the nuclear weapons program.
It was felt at the time, if it became known publicily, nuclear generation of power would have been dead before it started. It only started the de-classification process after the 3 Mile Island incident.
Then if you'll Goggle around, (it's kind of hard to find naturally) there is a report on a Russian radiative dump site that blew up in 1954. Seems they buried to much hot stuff together, it melted, and sank down into the ground water caused by the heat melting the permafrost. Caused a huge steam explosion that killed over a hundred people outright.
That was another highly classified nuclear accident that was classified by "both sides". And why reactor rods are now stored in cooling ponds for 20 years before being moved off site.
Japan and England also have had there share. France is the only nuclear country I'm aware of that is so far, a virgin.
Notice, this skips the more publized accidents. But like I said, I'm not against nuclear subs, or its use in space. I live on the ground.
Personally I believe the only "safe" long term storage of nuclear waste canisters is to put them in front of the Earths plates, thousands of feet down in the ocean, and let those plates movements at 2" a year, carry the waste back down to the Earth's core were it belongs.

boab

vanesch

Mar29-09, 02:30 AM

That seems to be one reason why this is interesting: no neutrons, yet people keep finding He and gamma products. Is it all poor technique, simply background? I don't think that's a reasonable answer any more.

I don't know the most recent results, and in how much they are reproducible. However, from the moment that you have a *noticable* amount of power with the release of penetrating radiation (gamma or neutron), then the flux is really strong and usually deadly. If you have a release of the order of the MeV per reaction, then in order to have 1 Watt of power from that, you need something of the order of 10^13 reactions per second, and if a noticable fraction of that reaction rate branches into such penetrating radiation, you see that the observed fluxes are huge, and not difficult to detect, AT ALL, and in most cases, even dangerous.

Now, D + D branches normally 50% in a p + T and 50% in a He-3+n
and this is a property of the nuclear reaction, so it is hard to see how this can be significantly influenced by solid-state effects, but even if it is, it would mean that the channel D + D -> He-3 + n is suppressed by a factor of something like 10^9 or so to make the neutrons not appear in huge quantities. Even if the branching ratio is suppressed to 1 ppm, you'd still have a million neutrons per second, something that is easily detectable (even in the room nearby!).

So unless very very weird physics is going on (suppression of nuclear branching ratios with huge factors), I don't see how you cannot bathe in deadly fluxes of easily detected radiation if you are capable of detecting thermal effects, and hence, how there can even be the slightest bit of ambiguity of its reproducibility. The effects should be easily visible.

Rade2

Mar30-09, 09:52 PM

Re: Cold Fusion: US Navy makes breakthrough?

Here is the link to the Navy publication where they claim "evidence" of LENR--fusion at low activation energy input.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

Edit: and see here news release of American Chemical Society presentation:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0323110450.htm

====

Now, I would like to begin here a detailed analysis in this forum of the peer reviewed publication by the Navy. I would like to know the following:

(1) Exactly what are the 'possible' hypothesis now on the table that explain how the Coulomb barrier was overcome to allow for any fusion to begin ?

(2) The Navy explanation of the 3-pit patterns they show in Fig.1 is that Carbon-12 was split into three alpha ? Does this not mean Navy then suggests Carbon-12 isotope has preexisting within it three alpha ready to split ? Is this an accepted hypothesis for how nucleons arranged within nuclear shells for carbon-12 ?

(3) What other explanations come to mind to explain the 3-pit pattern shown by Navy in Fig. 1 ? I think it good possibility each pit is a nucleon, either a P or N. So, why would my hypothesis be false ?

intrepid_nerd

Mar30-09, 11:12 PM

problem: source of power

solution: modify technology so no conventional electricity is necessary. there is no reason that we should be using electrons flowing through wires to power our electronics, it's like selling a product through a middle-man, making the system inefficient and costly. For the source? The sun! not at all as we're using it today, but rather technology that directly uses photons.

example: if a satellite-looking thinger were put on a rooftop that would be able to concentrate sunlight it could be sent down optical fibers. Couldn't light then be split to create a desired image on a television? problems: no idea how to store photon power without converting it to electrons, no idea how we would send signals from the cable company to the television without using conventional electricity (but then again I'm not sure how the signal is sent today).

example 2: in designing our technologies on the molecular level we tend to create stable materials. why? lets start creating materials that are strained. initially creating them would require lots of extra energy but I really think that this could prove beneficial. Extreme example: if we designed a car that had a bottom comprising of strained bonds, and roads that were actually chemical "trails," they could interact where the road could, in a way, power the car.

conclusion: we need to stop with our conventional methods of using power. it has always been hugely beneficial to look at nature and mimic aspects of it, but we must begin to understand we are not limited to this and move onto more abstract ideas. I believe the future of these technologies lies in materials science and that in today's world bulk technologies must be engineered from the molecular level.

mheslep

Mar31-09, 12:25 PM

Re: Cold Fusion: US Navy makes breakthrough?

Here is the link to the Navy publication where they claim "evidence" of LENR--fusion at low activation energy input.

...I'd suggest dropping the '--fusion' trailer as long the active researchers continue to make statements like "The mechanism by which DD and DT fusion reactions can occur in Pd is not yet understood; nevertheless, theories are currently under development"

vanesch

Mar31-09, 12:46 PM

To many examples in history of things going wrong in the nuclear industry. And when they do, it is BAD, to REALLY BAD!

Bad in the sense of objective damage, in the sense of numbers of death ? Or bad in the sense "it really freaked me out" ?

Almost all large industrial endeavors lead sooner or later to some kind of damage. One would like to avoid it, but it is in the nature of things. Now, the question is: is the damage done by the nuclear industry so terribly worse than other activities for which we take such things for granted ?

Here is an example or two, your not told. In Idaho there is a small model design of the San Orofre #1 power generator reactor inside a mountain. During design testing in 1952 it had the control rods swell and stick open and it couldn't SCAM. In seconds it melted down.
The radiation inside the mountain was so intense that the shielded TV camera on a remote controlled vehicle from Los Alamos failed from the radiation exposure 7 minutes after it entered the control room area. Everbody was dead naturally. No bodies were removed, or the remote vehicle. The radiation counters on the vehicle were beyond max'd out. And that is on a vehicle was brought in because it was made to handle highly radioactive waste! The access tunnel was simply blownup, then imediately sealed with concrete.
Until about 15 years ago it was highly classified, and I only found out about it when I was in the service in the nuclear weapons program.

I haven't heard about that one. Now, assuming this seems to be a military test program, and this is more than 50 years ago (at the very beginning of the nuclear era, where still a lot about safety was to be learned), tell me, how many dead do we talk about here, and is there not one single other military testing program that had a similar amount of casualties in the 50 years of its existence ? Say, aeronautics or so ?

Then if you'll Goggle around, (it's kind of hard to find naturally) there is a report on a Russian radiative dump site that blew up in 1954. Seems they buried to much hot stuff together, it melted, and sank down into the ground water caused by the heat melting the permafrost. Caused a huge steam explosion that killed over a hundred people outright.

Yes, again this was in the 50ies and in a military installation: the Mayak accident. It is in fact the second largest disaster after Chernobyl (the only one I know on INES 6 level). The former Soviets are not particularly well known to be careful with anything.

If you want to have an overview of the military nuclear accidents, there's a list on Wiki about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

A list of civilian nuclear accidents is there too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Now, be honest with yourself, and think of any other major military activity, or civilian activity, and then try to get an estimation of the real damage and the victims caused.

For instance, compare to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents

or have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll

(ok, I don't know the accuracy of those articles, but they give an idea).

Tell me then, does nuclear stand out so badly ?

gmax137

Mar31-09, 08:36 PM

Nuclear power is cheap. That's a laugh! Nuclear steam plants are not that efficient when compared to fossil fueled plants that run 2300 to 3200 psi throttle pressure and a steam temperature of 1010*F. (Higher pressure = higher efficiency)
Nuclear plants run in the neighborhood of 800 to a 900 psi on the newer ones, and much less on the older ones. The reason is their heat exchanger is located between the reactor and the steam processor that feeds the steam turbine.

Close enough (though the bigger units run do run over 1000 psi), but thermodynamic efficiency is not an issue in itself, when the fuel cost is almost zero (ie, nuclear). Plus, there's not much else uranium is good for.

Most people also forget, that cheap nuclear power is subsidized by the tax payer. "ALL" nuclear mining, processing, and sale is controlled and supervised by the government(s). Who then sells the pellets to the utility industry at "an agreed on cost". Usually 55% of the true cost in producing the pellet to make it competitive most other fuel costs. The taxpayer is picking up the difference.

Please provide a reference for that 55%. I think that is totally false. Also, a good portion of the U235 currently being used as reactor fuel came from the soviet weapons. Please dont tell me you think it would be better to leave it there. Also, the feds do the enrichment, but the fuel vendors (Westinghouse, GE, Areva) make the pellets.

Maintaining the radioactive waste is also controlled and paid for by the government, (taxpayer) "FOREVER". True, no green house gases are produced by nukes, but huge amounts of radioactive waste is.
boab

False again. If your power company is operating a nuke, you're bill includes paying 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour, which your power company 'gives' to the feds to pay for this. This is completely different from the fossil power generators, who we allow to use our air as their 'waste dump' for no charge.

Here is an example or two, your not told. In Idaho there is a small model design of the San Orofre #1 power generator reactor inside a mountain. During design testing in 1952 it had the control rods swell and stick open and it couldn't SCAM. In seconds it melted down.
The radiation inside the mountain was so intense that the shielded TV camera on a remote controlled vehicle from Los Alamos failed from the radiation exposure 7 minutes after it entered the control room area. Everbody was dead naturally. No bodies were removed, or the remote vehicle. The radiation counters on the vehicle were beyond max'd out. And that is on a vehicle was brought in because it was made to handle highly radioactive waste! The access tunnel was simply blownup, then imediately sealed with concrete.
Until about 15 years ago it was highly classified, and I only found out about it when I was in the service in the nuclear weapons program.

I would really like to see more about this one. I have never heard this story before. The Chalk River (NRX) accident was in 1952, maybe thats mixed up in here. Also, I'm pretty sure the san onofre reactor wasn't even a gleam in G Westinghouse's eye in 1952. And why it would be inside a mountain I dont know. And the Idaho Lab site is pretty flat & bleak. But if you have *anything* - links, articals, even more "I heards" I would appreciate your sharing them.

vanesch

Apr1-09, 01:27 AM

russ_watters

Apr1-09, 06:20 AM

Bad in the sense of objective damage, in the sense of numbers of death ? Or bad in the sense "it really freaked me out" ?

Almost all large industrial endeavors lead sooner or later to some kind of damage. One would like to avoid it, but it is in the nature of things. Now, the question is: is the damage done by the nuclear industry so terribly worse than other activities for which we take such things for granted ?

I haven't heard about that one. Now, assuming this seems to be a military test program, and this is more than 50 years ago (at the very beginning of the nuclear era, where still a lot about safety was to be learned), tell me, how many dead do we talk about here, and is there not one single other military testing program that had a similar amount of casualties in the 50 years of its existence ? Say, aeronautics or so ? I have a whole lot to say about the safety issue, but for now, here are two quick examples for your consideration:

The V-22 Osprey is a revolutionary airplane that has been in development since the 1980s. Because of the major design challanges, there were four crashes during development, which killed a total of 30 people. That's a lot for the development of a new airplane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey The crashes did not cause the cancellation of the program and the plane is in service today.

One of the first big machines used in the industrial revolution was the steam engine. As with any new technology, people didn't fully understand the dangers and there were a lot of boiler explosions. One I just heard about recently, which was actually worse than the Titanic was the SS Sultana, which exploded on the Mississippi river in 1865 and killed an estimated 1800 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana_(steamboat) The cause was simply a faulty boiler repair, combined with some procedural violations. This accident did not stop the development of the steam engine, but did help lead to improved safety. With nuclear, safety has improved substantially since the 1950s as the technology matured.

Because of the nature of the risk, I tend to draw a clear line between these two examples. Those who are members of the military or are civilian contractors working on military projects assume a certain risk when they sign up for the job and the most important aspect of the risk is largely in their control: they can always quit and make the risk zero. The death rate for military pilots, in particular navy pilots and test pilots is very high, but it is ok because people go in with their eyes completely open. This is not the case for civilians and the risk from nuclear plants or even airplane crashes. Most people don't understand the risk enough to make informed decisions and even if they do, practicality sometimes gets in the way. As a result, even though airplanes are extremely safe relative to other modes of travel, we require the actual risk to be extremely low, partly due to the fear factor, but partly due to the innocence of the victims. This is why that one critical fact about nuclear power is so important: despite all the fearmongering from the anti-nuclear crowd, nuclear power has never killed a single person in the US who was not involved in its production or research.

gmax137

Apr1-09, 06:50 AM

russ & vanesch - I do not disagree with your contention, that nuclear power was developed with comparatively few fatalities, but still I question the anecdote related by boab above in post 301. I know about the three killed in the SL-1 accident in 1961, and I believe three more were killed at Los Alamos and one more in Argentina (Ref INPO 91-008, "In-reactor Fuel-damaging Events."

Unless boab can support his story, I would classify it as ********. And it is damaging ********, because people hear stuff like this and they believe it (after all we know how the gummint likes to cover up their mistakes). Stories like this should not go unchallenged. All most people take away from these stories is "nuclear is dangerous..."

russ_watters

Apr1-09, 12:24 PM

gmax, you're right - I'm discussing it based on the assumption that the incident was real or similar ones happened, but that doesn't really meet our standards of reporting facts. I'm going to look into that incident, but Boab, you really need to provide citations for such examples. I'll let that one go since the discussion has already incorporated it, but for the future, examples that aren't common knowledge or easily found with a google (and I checked - this one can't be) need backup.

Topher925

Apr1-09, 01:17 PM

Sorry to break away from the main topic of current discussion, but I recently heard at a conference that China is currently adding 1GW A WEEK (two plants per week) to their power infrastructure. Although, currently most of these are coal fired plants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm

I've been watching nuclear rather closely lately and it seems that China is having a huge affect on the price of nuclear fuel now that they are looking to start building 30 high output plants within a decade.
Higher worldwide demand and a fear of future shortages have driven the price of processed uranium ore from $10 a pound in 2003 to $120 this month.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801051.html (Old article, I know)

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities? Whats are going to do with all of the nuclear waste when the worlds demand for power increases from 15TW today to the estimated 30TW in the next few decades, assuming this energy increase is solely supplied by nuclear power? Breeder reactors and reprocessing are still said to be 25+ years away (source a few pages back). What will the world do with all of the radioactive waste when its produced 10+ fold from its current production rate?

Back to the topic of safety, everyone knows China is well know for their unmatched value of human life. With the rate at which nuclear power plants are going to be built in that country and with China's legendary safety standards, I bet in a few years you will be seeing that nuclear fatality list on wikipedia to get a little bit longer.

russ_watters

Apr1-09, 04:15 PM

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities? Whats are going to do with all of the nuclear waste when the worlds demand for power increases from 15TW today to the estimated 30TW in the next few decades, assuming this energy increase is solely supplied by nuclear power? Breeder reactors and reprocessing are still said to be 25+ years away (source a few pages back). What will the world do with all of the radioactive waste when its produced 10+ fold from its current production rate? I'll have to go back and look, but both technologies have been used sucessfully in the past and reprocessing is in use now in some places, so I'm not clear on why they would be 25 years away...

In any case, serious efforts to drive down CO2 usage are going to drive up prices. That's just an economic reality. But we have to compare technologies against each other, not just say one is expensive. In addition to (currently) being cheaper than solar, nuclear doesn't have the scaleability issues of either solar or wind. As a result, even if the price goes up substantially, it still may be the only real viable alternative.

Also, $120 a pound doesn't sound like much to me. Currently, by far the biggest economic impediment to nuclear power is the plant construction cost, not the fuel cost. Fuel cost is rarely ever mentioned as being a relevant issue. Back to the topic of safety, everyone knows China is well know for their unmatched value of human life. With the rate at which nuclear power plants are going to be built in that country and with China's legendary safety standards, I bet in a few years you will be seeing that nuclear fatality list on wikipedia to get a little bit longer. True, that is a serious concern. The only real solution to that is global standardization and technology sharing, as was done with the phase-out of CFC's. It is in our interest to help them, so we will - and we can even profit from it if we do it right.

vanesch

Apr1-09, 09:39 PM

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities? Whats are going to do with all of the nuclear waste when the worlds demand for power increases from 15TW today to the estimated 30TW in the next few decades, assuming this energy increase is solely supplied by nuclear power? Breeder reactors and reprocessing are still said to be 25+ years away (source a few pages back). What will the world do with all of the radioactive waste when its produced 10+ fold from its current production rate?

The only "sustainable" large scale solution for nuclear are breeders, and as you say, they are still two or three decades away (the decades we lost with their stopping in the 80/90ies). I recently had a talk from a guy from Areva concerning mining and so on, and their predictions are that until 2030, there are no real concerns, afterwards, things will depend on new discoveries of ores, the speed of expansion of (thermal) nuclear and so on. So there will be some tension on the market around that period, which might finally stimulate to get real with breeders.

The waste is really not a problem, there simply has to be a policy that becomes efficient: reprocessing already, which reduces the waste to its essential part (and anyhow necessary to switch to breeders). The best middle term solution to the waste (once it is re-processed) is dry cask temporary storage at the surface, because in any case these things have to cool 50+ years before final geological storage. And become serious with geological storage.

Back to the topic of safety, everyone knows China is well know for their unmatched value of human life. With the rate at which nuclear power plants are going to be built in that country and with China's legendary safety standards, I bet in a few years you will be seeing that nuclear fatality list on wikipedia to get a little bit longer.

I'm afraid so too. This might have two effects: people might panic at the first "serious" China Syndrome (haha) and this might be the end of nuclear worldwide (for no good reason), or, we might have an accumulation of serious accidents in China, which finally give us enough statistics of what is a serious nuclear accident, and people might then just get used to it and become less ticklish about it.

Astronuc

Apr1-09, 10:23 PM

Well ultimately, we'll use up the coal, oil and natural gas, and that will leave nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Industries might be able to use solar power to produce liquid fuels, and perhaps biofuels will become a major source of liquid fuels.

As for nuclear, the current inventory of spent fuel contains some unused U-235 and some amount of Pu-239, which could be recovered into MOX. At the same time, Thorium could be introduced. When Shippingport was burning thorium the fuel was actually U-235 mixed into Thoria, and some of the Th-232 was converted to U-233.

Thorium is relatively abundant, but it would have to be used in breeders to produced fissile U-233, to supplement U-235 and Pu-239.

Of course, this doesn't address the proliferation issue.

In our neck of the woods, there is rumor of a pending announcement of a company that produces solar cells moving into an abandoned IBM facility. Further north, a biofuels company is expanding.

vanesch

Apr1-09, 10:32 PM

Well ultimately, we'll use up the coal

There's still a lot of coal around. Many decades, even a century or so.

russ_watters

Apr1-09, 11:57 PM

Agreed - with oil, we can say 'well, it'll be gone soon, so we won't have to worry about pollution from it anymore', but there is no clear time horizon for coal going away. All of us will certainly be dead long before coal supply becomes an issue. That means that pressure to get off coal needs to be artificial: it needs to be a politically/scientifically driven choice, not an economic necessity driven choice like oil will be shortly.

Topher925

Apr2-09, 09:24 AM

There's still a lot of coal around. Many decades, even a century or so.

I believe about 160 years. And the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal as well.

That means that pressure to get off coal needs to be artificial: it needs to be a politically/scientifically driven choice, not an economic necessity driven choice like oil will be shortly.

Global Warming?

mheslep

Apr2-09, 03:46 PM

Higher worldwide demand and a fear of future shortages have driven the price of processed uranium ore from $10 a pound in 2003 to $120 this month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801051.html (Old article, I know)

More to the point, most nuclear power studies I have read use numbers from TODAY, with only 17% of the world's power (~15 TW) being supplied by nuclear fuels. What's going to happen in the not to distant future to the cost of nuclear created electricity when materials such as Uranium and Thorium become highly valued commodities?
I'm not inclined at the moment to run the fuel cost to kwh implications, but I venture the answer for some time yet is that it doesn't matter, that fuel costs are not a large consideration in the overall costs of nuclear power, especially when comparing nuclear fuel cost to fossil fuel costs in conventional plants. The spike we're seeing at the moment is demand driven, and not because the planet is running low on U. The higher costs will spur more production shortly, I venture.

...The waste is really not a problem, there simply has to be a policy that becomes efficient: reprocessing already, which reduces the waste to its essential part (and anyhow necessary to switch to breeders). The best middle term solution to the waste (once it is re-processed) is dry cask temporary storage at the surface, because in any case these things have to cool 50+ years before final geological storage. And become serious with geological storage.
.It is certainly a political problem (unfortunately) as the US long term storage plan is completely dead in the water with the Obama administration, and US reprocessing is no where in sight.

signerror

Apr2-09, 03:52 PM

problem: source of power

solution: modify technology so no conventional electricity is necessary. there is no reason that we should be using electrons flowing through wires to power our electronics, it's like selling a product through a middle-man, making the system inefficient and costly. For the source? The sun! not at all as we're using it today, but rather technology that directly uses photons.

This is a no-go. Energy is central to industrialized society - it is everywhere, moving thousand-ton cargo ships, flying airplanes, heating buildings, refining commodity metals like aluminum, powering city lights at night, and on, and on. It's a fundamental commodity of human activity, going back to ancient times. It was farm animals and slaves; now it's electric motors. It was fire; now it's ohmic heating. It was horseback; now it's the horseless carriage.

Electricity is merely one convenient medium; it is not the central issue.

example 2: in designing our technologies on the molecular level we tend to create stable materials. why? lets start creating materials that are strained. initially creating them would require lots of extra energy but I really think that this could prove beneficial. Extreme example: if we designed a car that had a bottom comprising of strained bonds, and roads that were actually chemical "trails," they could interact where the road could, in a way, power the car.

That does nothing. You're just moving the usage of energy from one place - engines - to another - roads. It would be pointless even if it weren't incredibly inefficient and wasteful.

conclusion: we need to stop with our conventional methods of using power.

That's not your conclusion, that's your starting premise! You're begging the question.

signerror

Apr2-09, 03:59 PM

I haven't heard about that one. Now, assuming this seems to be a military test program, and this is more than 50 years ago (at the very beginning of the nuclear era, where still a lot about safety was to be learned), tell me, how many dead do we talk about here, and is there not one single other military testing program that had a similar amount of casualties in the 50 years of its existence ? Say, aeronautics or so ?

He's probably thinking of SL-1 (what else?), although he's mixed up all the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

Experimental military reactor, LWR, went prompt-critical in 1961, three deaths. Only reactor-related fatalities in the US (although there were several nuclear-power related deaths in reprocessing - criticality accidents).

Somewhat horrific, actually:
The third man was not discovered for several days because he was pinned to the ceiling above the reactor by a control rod.

:eek:

signerror

Apr2-09, 04:03 PM

"Sure, compared to coal, but you said environmentally 'safest'. I'd place nuclear and any of the the renewables (others) in front of hydro."

Okay......if you want to split hairs, solar, wind and hydro. Or wind, solar and hydro.

Hydropower is extremely dangerous when badly engineered. A single hydroelectric dam collapse was responsible for a quarter of a million deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
The resulting flood waters caused a large wave, which was 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) wide, 3–7 meters (9.8–23 ft) high in Suiping (遂平), to rush downwards into the plains below at nearly 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph), almost wiped out an area 55 kilometers (34 mi) long, 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) wide, and created temporary lakes as large as 12,000 square kilometers (4,600 sq mi). Seven county seats, namely Suiping, Xiping(西平), Ru'nan (汝南), Pingyu (平舆), Xincai (新蔡), Luohe (漯河), Linquan (临泉), were inundated, as were thousands of square kilometers of countryside and countless communities. Evacuation orders had not been fully delivered because of weather conditions and poor communications. Telegraphs failed, signal flares fired by Unit 34450 were misunderstood, telephones were rare, and some messengers were caught by the flood. While only 827 out of 6,000 people died in the evacuated community of Shahedian just below Banqiao Dam, half of a total of 36,000 people died in the unevacuated Wencheng commune of Suipin County next to Shahedian, and the Daowencheng Commune was wiped from the map, killing all 9,600 citizens[1]. Although a large number of people were reported lost at first, many of them returned home later. Tens of thousands of them were carried by the water to downriver provinces and many others fled from their homes. It has been reported that around 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

It's also pretty invasive, when you consider the huge reservoir created behind a dam.

vanesch

Apr2-09, 11:32 PM

Global Warming?

Yes (even if one can argue that it is not 100% sure, one cannot deny that the possibility is there, so "better safe than sorry" - if it turns out not to be there, the coal is still around to be used).

But there are other reasons: ocean acidity, and, mostly: toxic exhausts like mercury vapor and other heavy metals, and also tiny particles. This last part might eventually be solved with better technology. In other words, coal, apart from an eventual CO2 problem, is still pretty dirty.

OmCheeto

Apr3-09, 10:24 AM

Hydropower is extremely dangerous when badly engineered. A single hydroelectric dam collapse was responsible for a quarter of a million deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

It's also pretty invasive, when you consider the huge reservoir created behind a dam.

Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

http://www.bpa.gov/power/pl/columbia/2-flood.htm
The disastrous flood of 1948 accelerated the demand for multipurpose dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The 20-day flood was the greatest single disaster in the history of Columbia River Basin.

...

During the flood of 1996 we had an example of how the dams could help. As the Willamette River overflowed its banks, BPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked together to control the flow of the Columbia River, allowing the Willamette to runoff, which helped avert flooding in downtown Portland.

I'm sure if the population density were as ridiculous here as in China or elsewhere, the death tolls would have been in the millions also. What was the story I heard the other day? Bus tips over in India and 2000 people are killed?

Personally, I like the dams. Too bad we can't do the same with the mighty Red River. But I've heard it's just a stream running through a big lake bed. Might be a fun and interesting project though. Where's the nearest low point outside of Fargo?

Ivan Seeking

Apr3-09, 10:26 AM

Yes (even if one can argue that it is not 100% sure, one cannot deny that the possibility is there, so "better safe than sorry" - if it turns out not to be there, the coal is still around to be used).

But there are other reasons: ocean acidity, and, mostly: toxic exhausts like mercury vapor and other heavy metals, and also tiny particles. This last part might eventually be solved with better technology. In other words, coal, apart from an eventual CO2 problem, is still pretty dirty.

This is one point on which Obama and I do not agree. It seems to me that we are a long way from having viable clean coal technology. On the other hand, it is hard to ignore the vast reserves of coal had by the US. It may be that technologies that make fuel from coal will be the best option.

But if Obama likes coal, in his honor, I am all ears.

Topher925

Apr20-09, 10:20 AM

But if Obama likes coal, in his honor, I am all ears.

I think Obama just wants to rely on coal until other renewable energy resources are established. I don't believe his administration is looking to use coal for any long term energy source.

mheslep

Apr20-09, 11:01 AM

60 minutes piece on - what should have been called LENR - last night.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml
Inteviews:
-LENR investigator, SRI's McKubre
-'debunker' physicist Richard Garwin
-Rob Duncan, Univ. Missouri researcher hired by CBS to examine recent claims.
-even Fleischmann agreed to an rare interview from France.

CBS claims they have a DARPA memo making positive claims about PdD reactions. Google shows nothing on it. Anyone have a line on this?

Topher925

Apr20-09, 01:59 PM

mheslep

Apr20-09, 02:16 PM

I haven't heard anything but that article states that at least 20 independent labs are able to create this nuclear reaction. Could it really be a nuclear reaction though without emitting any atomic particles?Well all those labs claim to have created:
-excess heat, the heat is more than can be explained from 1.2eV per molecule chemical reactions, and they can only do this about 70% of the time.
-He

The 'what' behind this is still very much in question.

gmax137

Apr20-09, 09:06 PM

I dont know anything beyond what the 60 minutes piece reported, but... They quoted the report as saying something like "production of anomalous excess heat." And 60 minutes went on to focus on the "excess". What about the "anomalous"? Does that simply mean "unexplained" or does it also mean something like: intermittent, or not reproducible?

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but if you have a hard time proving something produces heat, it seems to me unlikely that you can design a real power plant around it. Remember the title of this thread - "Fix the energy crisis."

mheslep

Apr21-09, 01:02 PM

I dont know anything beyond what the 60 minutes piece reported, but... They quoted the report as saying something like "production of anomalous excess heat." And 60 minutes went on to focus on the "excess". What about the "anomalous"? Does that simply mean "unexplained" or does it also mean something like: intermittent, or not reproducible?In that context, I think it means 'unexpected' based on current scientific understanding.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but if you have a hard time proving something produces heat, it seems to me unlikely that you can design a real power plant around it. Remember the title of this thread - "Fix the energy crisis."Agreed, because the process, whatever it is, is not understood.

mheslep

May6-09, 09:42 PM

Shai Aggassi has a recent radio interview (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SANFRANCISCO-CA/KKGN-AM/Gavin%20Newsom%2005-02-09.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=SANFRANCISCO-CA&NG_FORMAT=progressivetalk&SITE_ID=5257&STATION_ID=KKGN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Green_960&PCAST_CAT=Podcasts&PCAST_TITLE=Gavin_Newsom_Show) explaining his company Better Place's EV car 'enabler' business plan. We've spoken about Agassi in this thread earlier.

Quick recap:
Agassi doesn't propose to make EVs, he's rolling out a) 3kw to 6kw/plug charge stations, b) fast plug and play battery switch out stations, and c) a financial plan where he charges the user per mile traveled, like a cell plan, and instead his company pays for / subsidizes the battery, just like the phone carriers pay for / subsidize the cell phone. An EV can be pretty cheap if it can be separated from the cost of the battery.

Progress:
Agassi/Better Place is rolling out their first demonstration battery change station in Japan this or next month. They signed up Israel a year or two ago, and there they have / will have
1,000 charge spots now
10,000 entire country end of 2009
100,000 end of 2010.
50/100 switch stations planned.
For an applicable EV, Renaut-Nissan is making this compatible this (http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/electric-car)pure EV, 100km range, 5 passenger car coming out '10.

All very nice, but it is the cost that caught my attention as announced in the audio clip. Agassi claims he can charge people the same per mile now for batteries and energy combined, as they can get driving around on $50/bbl oil based gasoline. That seems suspicious, and I plan to run it down here in future posts, hopefully with others joining in.

Other questions:
-Is temperature control of vehicle size battery packs practical with plug and play mechanicals?

Topher925

May7-09, 08:43 AM

I found this pretty interesting from that Better Place website.

These Better Place battery exchange stations are even more efficient and convenient than conventional gas stations. Each is roughly the size of your average living room. Like the charging spots, they are fully automated. A driver pulls in, puts the car in the neutral gear, and sits back. The battery exchange station does all the work. The depleted battery is removed, and a fully-charged replacement is installed. In under three minutes, the car is back on the road. It’s just like an automatic car wash, a quick, effortless, drive-through experience.

Automated battery exchange stations? This sounds like its starting to get expensive. How can you be sure that each station has enough batteries charged up to keep up with demand?

EDIT: recharging -> exchange

mheslep

May7-09, 11:29 AM

I found this pretty interesting from that Better Place website.

Automated battery recharging stations?exchange stations.
This sounds like its starting to get expensive. How can you be sure that each station has enough batteries charged up to keep up with demand?In the same way one insures refueling gas tanker comes often enough to a gas station to keep up with demand. The driver is cost. There's also the issue of making all EV's compatible with Better Place exchange mechanisms. So far they have only the one Renault-Nissan model. Then I expect there must be some compromises in battery performance to enable the fast swap mechanism vs a permanent installation.

Astronuc

May14-09, 02:36 PM

The next big thing in wind: Slow wind, huge turbines
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10233108-54.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9885177-54.html

http://v112.vestas.com/ - 3 MW Wind turbine

http://v112.vestas.com/Vestas_V_112_web.pdf

mheslep

May15-09, 12:35 AM

Following up on my post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2188288&postcount=332)on the Project Better Place scheme of buy-the-car-not-the-battery: they claim that they can operate at the same cost per mile as petro power cars at $50/bbl.

Again, Better Place stated vehicle range is 100mi (161km) and they propose battery exchange stations that the car owner can use anytime, all paid for on a subscription per mile plan (ala cell phones). Tesla and other EVs use about 17kWh/100km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_Evolution_of_Tesla_Roadster_Efficiency. PNG) at about $600/kWh of Li-Ion battery capacity that should last 100k miles. Better Place's exchange stations must maintain some battery stock, assume 30% stock beyond the batteries on the road. The battery cost per vehicle is then: 161km x 17kwh/100km x 1.3 x $600/kWh-LiIon = $21.2k/vehicle or $0.21/mile. The electric energy cost at $0.09/kWh is $0.025/mile. Total battery and energy cost: $0.23 / mile.

Fuel cost for petroleum vehicles assuming 25mpg and $2.20/gal is $0.09/mile.

Thus just considering batteries and energy, Better Place EVs have a $0.15/mile higher cost than petro vehicles. This is based on the assumptions on vehicle battery capacity, exchange station stock, battery unit price, and battery lifetime - all of which may substantially change.

Another factor is the drive train cost difference. The planned Rennault-Nissan 5-seat sedan EV drive train may eventually cost, say, $5k-$7k less than a comparable petro vehicle drive train. Given that Better Place is tightly connected to the vehicle 'alliance', this cost savings could be factored into the per-mile plan. For a vehicle road life of 120k miles, that is $0.04 to $0.06 per mile added to the petro vehicle side of the comparison.

Summary:
Even accounting for a less expensive drive train, the Better Place EV still costs at least ~55% more per mile. Break even with petrol. cars then requires a similar reduction in the price of batteries (to ~$300/kWh), or an increase in their lifetimes (to 160k miles), or an increase in the price per gallon of gasoline (to ~$3.5/gal or more if fuel efficiencies increase in mpg), or some combination of these.

Here's a video of a demonstration at an BP exchange station, ~2minute exchange time:
http://www.betterplace.com/company/video-detail/better-place-battery-switch-technology-demonstration/

russ_watters

May15-09, 08:08 PM

Fuel cost for petroleum vehicles assuming 25mpg and $2.20/gal is $0.09/mile. My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35.

The technological, consumer, and economic landscapes 20 or 30 years from now will be so different from today that I don't think it is useful to try to figure out how/if this business model might work then: it has to be considered in terms of how/if it might work in the next 5-10. Thus just considering batteries and energy, Better Place EVs have a $0.15/mile higher cost than petro vehicles. This is based on the assumptions on vehicle battery capacity, exchange station stock, battery unit price, and battery lifetime - all of which may substantially change. For pure electric, otherwise normal passenger cars to have any hope of near-term viability, the batteries must be cheaper. For now, though, achieving that may simply be a matter of rolling them out with nimh batteries and a 50 km range as city-only commuter vehicles.
Summary:
Even accounting for a less expensive drive train, the Better Place EV still costs at least ~55% more per mile. Break even with petrol. cars then requires a similar reduction in the price of batteries (to ~$300/kWh), or an increase in their lifetimes (to 160k miles), or an increase in the price per gallon of gasoline (to ~$3.5/gal or more if fuel efficiencies increase in mpg), or some combination of these.
Well that's what I mean about the landscape changing: 5 years from now, we'll probably be back to $3.50 gas as the world economy goes back into boom mode. But electric costs will rise as well. Electric will probably not rise slowly enough for elecric to become viable by that business model you have outlined above.

mheslep

May15-09, 09:31 PM

Thanks for the response.

My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35. That last is a fair point, certainly the early mass buyers would be those that are very cost conscious.

The technological, consumer, and economic landscapes 20 or 30 years from now will be so different from today that I don't think it is useful to try to figure out how/if this business model might work then: it has to be considered in terms of how/if it might work in the next 5-10. For pure electric, otherwise normal passenger cars to have any hope of near-term viability, the batteries must be cheaper.Or, under this exchange plan, last much longer for the same price.
For now, though, achieving that may simply be a matter of rolling them out with nimh batteries and a 50 km range as city-only commuter vehicles.Yes Nimh is much less at ~$300/kWh, though the Ni mass hit is large ( Li Ion 117Wh/kg, Nimh 80Wh/kg, 46% heavier). The 50km range is harder to play since it breaks the 'just as good as petro' model offered by battery exchange. The Better Place plan offers something never done before by an EV. Ostensibly, the vehicle can do the same thing as its petro based cousin: take you on long range trips with no long charge times in route. Prior to this no EV has had cause to fully cost compare w/ a petro car of equivalent size. Once you break that 'just as good' model w/ a 50km range, then people would expect to pay much, much less for a vehicle that's niche, thus has a lower production quantity, and the economics fail without a much higher price of fuel.

Well that's what I mean about the landscape changing: 5 years from now, we'll probably be back to $3.50 gas as the world economy goes back into boom mode. But electric costs will rise as well. Electric will probably not rise slowly enough for electric to become viable by that business model you have outlined above.Mmm I doubt electric costs will rise very fast with a rebound in oil prices, absent Cap and Trade. Given Secretary Chu's no-nuclear blinders Cap and Trade would do it, and regional costs may jump because of legislative changes in utility law (e.g. Pa). But, electric demand growth continues to taper, a great deal of natural gas reserves have been discovered in the US in the last few years, and we will see several more gigawatts of wind power installed in the US that is immune to oil prices.

signerror

May16-09, 05:16 AM

Given Secretary Chu's no-nuclear blinders...

TR: I know you've come out in favor of nuclear power. It's been decades since any new plants have been constructed. What progress has been made so far in getting some new plants built?

SC: We're now going to a two-step licensing. You license the generic plant, and then there's a separate license for the site. And this helps speed along the process. Before, the way we did it is every plant was a new one.

A lot of this depends on some loan guarantee money, which will help.

TR: When might those loan guarantees become available?

SC: Well, sooner rather than later. I'm hoping within a year, but that's just a wild guess. We're pushing ahead. As you know, we've become very aggressive about trying to accelerate the loan process by a considerable amount. A factor of 5 to 10 is about the right amount. When I first came, I was told that the first loans would go out mid-2010. So they've now gone out, and there's going to be another tranche of them that we'll be vetting.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

You were saying?

russ_watters

May16-09, 07:56 AM

That last is a fair point, certainly the early mass buyers would be those that are very cost conscious. I didn't say cost conscious, I said fuel economy conscious. I would bet money that 99% of Prius buyers have not done any calculations like the ones you just did, to determine if the cost of their Prius is worth the extra mpg they get over a Civic.

russ_watters

May16-09, 08:11 AM

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

You were saying? The interviewer says Chu "has come out in favor of nuclear power". I'd like to see somewhere where he actually has, since joining the administration. That the administration hasn't yet put up barriers to nuclear power* is encouraging (when they first made the Yucca announcement with no explanation at all, I was very worried), but they also have done little of substance to actually promote it. For other forms of power, they have actually invested a huge sum of money into it - why didn't he put together a "blue ribbon panel" to study alternate energy before pouring money into it?

His stance on Yucca is puzzling to say the least: he says he wants a "blue ribbon pannel" to study the issue, yet he is dictating one of the conclusions to the panel. That is illogical. *And violating this obligation the federal government had to nuclear plant operators, at least in the short term, will have a negative impact on the industry. The government promised to take the waste and for now, anyway, they won't. This uncertainty would give a new nuclear plant operator pause.

It is good to see that reprocessing is on the table, though. Also, while he says he wants to streamline the application process, I'm googling looking for action that has been taken and not finding any.

Bottom line is that Chu's talk has at best been neutral (as far as I've seen) while Obama's talk has been negative and the only action they have taken together has been negative and relative to the money thrown out there for other forms of energy, very negative.

[edit] If you google "Chu nuclear", you can find quotes of his from before joining the administration where he has said very positive things about nuclear power. Now, perhaps, he is being handcuffed by the administration - I don't really know that, though, all I do know wrt the current administration is that the one policy change implimented so far was negative.

russ_watters

May16-09, 11:25 AM

An unusually good article from mass media on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html

Topher925

May16-09, 11:52 AM

The message has been hinted at before, but the federal government is now serious about shifting the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. In an important statement yesterday, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that hydrogen vehicles are still 10 to 20 years away from practicality and that millions in federal government funding for hydrogen programs will be cut from the 2010 federal budget. Chu said, "We asked ourselves, 'Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was 'no'"

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/08/obama-doe-slash-hydrogen-fuel-cell-funding-in-new-budget/

The Obama administration is really confusing me. First they say that they highly support a hydrogen economy, then they slash its funding and change their policy. I don't necessarily disagree with their reasoning but it would be nice if they would pick a direction and stick with it.

OmCheeto

May17-09, 10:17 AM

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/08/obama-doe-slash-hydrogen-fuel-cell-funding-in-new-budget/

The Obama administration is really confusing me. First they say that they highly support a hydrogen economy, then they slash its funding and change their policy. I don't necessarily disagree with their reasoning but it would be nice if they would pick a direction and stick with it.

Perhaps they read Russ's posted article.

Commentary: Let's get real about alternative energy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html)
Editor's note: David MacKay is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. His book, "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air," is published by UIT Cambridge and is also available in electronic form for free from http://www.withouthotair.com/.

Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo.

There may be some virtue in consistency, but when a ship is headed towards a certain grounding, a smart captain will usually change course.

mheslep

May18-09, 11:08 AM

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

You were saying?

SC: We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue...
He's killed Yucca Mountain with no scientific explanation, just declared it 'off the table'. He's a physicist with years of background on the topic, calling for a 'blue-ribbon panel' to study what's been done successfully elsewhere in the world for decades. This appears to be nothing but a stall.

Before Chu was nominated, he travelled around doing an energy briefing roadshow - covering all the various renewables, AWG, etc. Nuclear power was barely mentioned at all.

mheslep

May18-09, 11:19 AM

I didn't say cost conscious, I said fuel economy conscious. I would bet money that 99% of Prius buyers have not done any calculations like the ones you just did, to determine if the cost of their Prius is worth the extra mpg they get over a Civic.
Well take care before putting your money on the table. Though its a different phrasing of the above, there's wide circulation of 'payback time' information on hybrids such as this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm which compares the hybrid up front costs to a similar gasoline-only powered model, the exact same model w/out hybrid in some cases. Dealers w/ hybrids on the lot had this info up as wall paper when gas/gallon was high.
Edmunds, Consumer Reports do the same.

mheslep

May18-09, 11:25 AM

An unusually good article from mass media on the issue: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html

Perhaps they read Russ's posted article.

Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo.
....
Mackay's tome was my source for my post on the eight-dedicated-nuclear-reactors equivalent required to replace the jetfuel at a single air port.

signerror

May19-09, 07:53 AM

Mackay's tome was my source for my post on the eight-dedicated-nuclear-reactors equivalent required to replace the jetfuel at a single air port.

I remember that. Here?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2114857

signerror

May19-09, 08:14 AM

He's killed Yucca Mountain with no scientific explanation, just declared it 'off the table'.
Well that was Obama's decision, not Chu's. He'd already decided early on in the campaign - his reasoning is here @3:11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw
I didn't rule out a central location, what I ruled out was Yucca Mountain, because it turns it is built on a fault line. And the way that this was shoved down the throats of Nevada ended up souring the politics in such a way where it's almost impossible to get it done now.
An article from two months before the video discusses the fault line:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/25/nation/na-yucca25

I have no way of evaluating this. Can anyone else?

He's a physicist with years of background on the topic, calling for a 'blue-ribbon panel' to study what's been done successfully elsewhere in the world for decades.
I don't think there any operating repositories which can take unreprocessed spent fuel, like Yucca. I understand what currently exists is only acceptable for intermediate-level waste (repositories which can't handle the heat of HLW), or above-ground storage for HLW (which is only temporary), but nothing is operating which accepts high-level waste for long term storage.

This appears to be nothing but a stall.
Or a strategic shift to a closed fuel cycle. The recent interview strongly suggests that:

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

Before Chu was nominated, he travelled around doing an energy briefing roadshow - covering all the various renewables, AWG, etc. Nuclear power was barely mentioned at all.
AWG?

mheslep

May19-09, 11:48 AM

I remember that. Here?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2114857
Yes that is the post I recalled, but I blundered on the reference - it was Bossel, not Mackay.

mheslep

May19-09, 11:51 AM

...
AWG?er AGW. Chu spend some time in his road show briefing on global warming.

mheslep

May19-09, 01:01 PM

Well that was Obama's decision, not Chu's. He'd already decided early on in the campaign - his reasoning is here @3:11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw
I didn't rule out a central location, what I ruled out was Yucca Mountain, because it turns it is built on a fault line. And the way that this was shoved down the throats of Nevada ended up souring the politics in such a way where it's almost impossible to get it done now.
There lies my complaint. Obama has made a great deal of noise that only the science would rule the day in his administration. So far, based on comments like the above and Chu's non-responsive comments in hearings (http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-mccain-and-steven-chu-on-yucca.html), it is fair to say that the only-the-science claims are stuff and nonsense.

mheslep

May19-09, 04:46 PM

The Top Gear guys, who savage every vehicle flaw unmercifully, took the Tesla out and put it on the line against a its cousin the Lotus Elise. Good clip.
12.5 thousand RPM, I can not believe this! That's biblically quick!
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/top-gear-reviews-the-tesla-roadster/4052367588
They blow a fuse or some such at the end.

russ_watters

May19-09, 07:29 PM

Well that was Obama's decision, not Chu's.
I guess at this point it is tough to separate the two, as Chu is now necessarily a mouthpiece for Obama. Is that better or worse than if this was Chu's true view? He'd already decided early on in the campaign - his reasoning is here @3:11:
I didn't rule out a central location, what I ruled out was Yucca Mountain, because it turns it is built on a fault line. And the way that this was shoved down the throats of Nevada ended up souring the politics in such a way where it's almost impossible to get it done now.
Perhaps the fault is a legitimate reason, perhaps it isn't - as far as I know, there have been no official reports on the subject, so it doesn't seem responsible to make what looks like a snap decision.

The other reason - that it had been shoved down the throats of New Mexicans - is pure election year politics. It is the job of the federal government to shove projects like this down someone's throat, otherwise, no one will ever accept one in their state. But New Mexico, small as it was, was a battleground state and as such, it was very important to make them feel important. Besides which - it had already happened! The tough part is getting through all the court challenges and pushing it through - Obama was conceding defeat after the federal government already won!

And the two reasons don't have anything to do with each other, of course.

His comment at the end of the youtube clip is especially Hippie-ish. Perhaps he accidentally let his true feeling slip there.

mheslep

May19-09, 08:24 PM

I doubt the executive branch could actually activate Yucca with some kind of kind of agreement with Harry Reid, senior Senator form Nevada.

Astronuc

May26-09, 04:43 PM

US wants to paint the world white to save energy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu
LONDON(AFP) (AFP) – US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.

The Nobel laureate in physics called for a "new revolution" in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white.

Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said.

It was a geo-engineering scheme that was "completely benign" and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth.

For people who found white hard on the eye, scientists had also developed "cool colours" which looked to the human eye like normal ones, but reflect heat like pale colours even if they are darker shades.

And painting cars in cool or light colours could deliver considerable savings on energy use for air conditioning units, he said.

. . . . :uhh:

Except for the light scattered at angles. And why not direct the light into buildings and use visible sunlight to illuminate interiors rather than electric lights?

Also, on a cold winter's day, I like having a house that absorbs sunlight. So maybe we can cover all buildings with giant venetian blinds that are white on one side and dark/black on the other.

mheslep

May26-09, 04:56 PM

US wants to paint the world white to save energy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu
:uhh:

Except for the light scattered at angles. And why not direct the light into buildings and use visible sunlight to illuminate interiors rather than electric lights?

Also, on a cold winter's day, I like having a house that absorbs sunlight. So maybe we can cover all buildings with giant venetian blinds that are white on one side and dark/black on the other.Doesn't sound like this in intended to have anything much to do with energy efficiency, except in that car reference. It must be about increasing surface albedo to counter AGW. I doubt you count on absorbing much heat through your home's roof on those cold winter days.

russ_watters

May26-09, 05:08 PM

Unless your house lacks an attic, there is little benefit to a black roof in the winter in most climates - and a huge penalty for a black roof in the summer. In addition, even the top floor of most commercial office buildings requires air conditioning year-round. So white roofs would certinly improve energy efficiency in most cases.

Btw, the venetian blinds thing - something better already exists: a step pattern with white on the horizontal surface (for when the sun is higher) and black on the vertical one (for when the sun is lower).

Astronuc

May26-09, 07:12 PM

I think the back side (north) of my house roof would reflect light into the backyard. On the front side (S), rather than white, I would think a solar panel or solar water heater might be better.

My office overlooks the roof top of a two story building. If that was white (reflective), I'd probably get glare through the window. As it is, the roof was painted with a silvery grey coating, and that may already reflect some light. I'll have to look the next sunny day.

My office building uses heat pumps to transfer heat out of the building, and during fall, winter and spring we open the windows to let cool air in, and minimize the use of A/C.

russ_watters

May26-09, 09:45 PM

I think the back side (north) of my house roof would reflect light into the backyard. On the front side (S), rather than white, I would think a solar panel or solar water heater might be better. Might be, but you'd have to calculate the cost-benefit ratio. Having it white would be a lot cheaper. My office overlooks the roof top of a two story building. If that was white (reflective), I'd probably get glare through the window. As it is, the roof was painted with a silvery grey coating, and that may already reflect some light. I'll have to look the next sunny day. Well Obama said white, but the silver is really the more common - same idea. My office building uses heat pumps to transfer heat out of the building... AKA "air conditioning".... A "heat pump" is what it does in the heating mode. In air condiitoning mode, it is just a normal air conditioner (though perhaps it uses water for heat rejection...?). ...and during fall, winter and spring we open the windows to let cool air in, and minimize the use of A/C. AKA, "economizer mode". It is now essentially required that HVAC systems take advantage of it being cold outside to use that cold instead of mechanical cooling. But you'd still save on mechanical cooling in the summer and fan energy in the rest of the year if the roof were reflective.

HempForPres

Jun1-09, 06:57 PM

I have to disagree with you on the topic of nuclear energy. In the process of finding, digging up, refining, delivering and then disposing of the waste, we use so much carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) that it takes fully 20 years of running to make up for it before you produce a single watt of "clean" power. Furthermore, there is only a finite amount of uranium in the earth, which means we'll hit "peak uranium" very fast.

Then comes the most important question: where do we store the spent uranium?? Spent uranium is still radioactive for over 20,000 years. If the pyramids were used to store waste back in the days of the Pharoahs of Egypt, we'd still to this day be guarding them, and have another 10,000 years left of having to send our military to guard it from terrorists.

Do you want trucks filled to the brim with radioactive material driving next to you on the highway, or past your children's schools? What if a terrorist lowjacked a rig and drove it into a school?!

What if a terrorist flies a plane into the radioactive waste pools that currently hold our waste? Did you know that we store this horribly dangerous stuff in open pools that have only a chain link fence surrounding them?

This is all very dangerous stuff, and we need to realize that if we spill this into an area of pristine wilderness, we cannot undo it. We cannot clean up Uranium water. The area will be ruined forever. The harm to the genetic makeup of the animals and people in the area would be horrible.

Imagine 100 million gallons of Uranium water suddenly flooding into the Mississippi River... how many hundreds of thousands... millions.... of people would get sick and die?

Is it worth it?

If nuclear is so safe, why won't ANY insurance company cover them? Not one. Guess who insures these behemoths of destruction? The U.S. Government. That's right, your and my tax dollars.

Is nuclear cheap? On an average of $20 Billion dollars for a nuclear plant and the amount of time it takes to build, a nuclear plant is extremely expensive. Give me $20 Billion dollars and I can build a dozen Solar Thermal Plants, produce more electricity and then have money left over to take an early retirement.

So think twice before you give the thumbs up to nuclear. It's not worth the price, it's not worth the pollution, it's not worth the risk.

Go green!

http://www.bluechipearth.com - A Green Industry Future Forum. Come join the conversation!

mheslep

Jun2-09, 10:09 AM

mheslep

Jun2-09, 08:31 PM

The Economist just hosted one of its online debates between a biofueled vehicle and an electric vehicle advocate titled:
This house believes that biofuels, not electricity, will power the car of the future.
in whiche the EV advocate heavily carried the day.
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/321

This comes right on top of the paper [1] in Science this month arguing that it is more efficient to burn biofuels to make electricity rather than directly in a vehicle. Taken together I'd say that EV's definitely have the advantage in momentum, making ethanol cars just a stepping stone.

[1] Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol, JE Cambell, DB Lobell, CB Field. Vol 324, no 5930, pp 1055-1057.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;324/5930/1055?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=biofuels&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT

mheslep

Jun3-09, 01:12 AM

... Tesla and other EVs use about 17kWh/100km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_Evolution_of_Tesla_Roadster_Efficiency. PNG) at about $600/kWh of Li-Ion battery capacity that should last 100k miles. Better Place's exchange stations must maintain some battery stock, assume 30% stock beyond the batteries on the road. The battery cost per vehicle is then: 161km x 17kwh/100km x 1.3 x $600/kWh-LiIon = $21.2k/vehicle or $0.21/mile. The electric energy cost at $0.09/kWh is $0.025/mile. Total battery and energy cost: $0.23 / mile. ...

The battery swap CEO, Agassi, did an interview with Wired a couple months ago. At 11:15 (http://vodpod.com/watch/1217704-agassis-electric-car-grid-interview-with-wired-science) he says his battery total lifetime cost with no help from subsidies, nothing, is $0.04 to $0.05 / mile! With the assumptions I made above, 100 mi range, 100000 mile battery lifetime, that means he's claiming he can buy Li-Ion batteries at $141/kWh i.e. $0.05 x 100,000 mi/vehicle-battery x (100km/17kWh/vehicle-battery) / 161 km x (1/1.3). I'm skeptical, as that's more than 3x better than Li-Ion prices I see elsewhere. Part of that might be cost of scale, as he also states his battery demand would be 5x total current world wide Li-ion battery supply. But, if he can deliver, given gasoline costs today are $0.09/mi and can only go up over the long term while batteries are sure to get cheaper, then EV's are bound to take off fast.

vanesch

Jun3-09, 01:53 AM

I have to disagree with you on the topic of nuclear energy.

[ ... ]

So think twice before you give the thumbs up to nuclear. It's not worth the price, it's not worth the pollution, it's not worth the risk.

Go green!

http://www.bluechipearth.com - A Green Industry Future Forum. Come join the conversation!

You know, I've been in a long discussion in my country with people who think like you. I've even written a book about it (but it is in Dutch). Probably you're somebody honest and believe what you say, but there is not much rationality in it. Here at PF we try to stick to a more rational and scientifically inspired discourse, not to an appeal to emotion ("do you want a terrorist to high-jack a truck of radioactive waste and run it in your kid's school ?"). These are very transparant argument tricks which won't work with most of the public on PF.

I won't say that there aren't any problems with nuclear energy, but when you compare the numbers, and not the emotional statements, then the picture changes.

mheslep

Jun3-09, 08:45 AM

You know, I've been in a long discussion in my country with people who think like you. ...Long? You have a great deal of patience vanesch. :wink:

drewk79

Jun3-09, 03:01 PM

Eventually we will have to use renewable resources to power the planet. All others (nuclear, fossil fuels etc.) will run out.

Large solar and wind plants will be needed to power the more dense population areas.

In the areas where people live in single family homes though these people could obviously live on energy they harness on their property.

going nuclear may be the easiest thing to do but is it the best.

I guess eventually we will all be dead so maybe nuclear will last til then

vanesch

Jun4-09, 12:17 AM

Eventually we will have to use renewable resources to power the planet. All others (nuclear, fossil fuels etc.) will run out.

A friend of mine once had a stupid car accident. I was in the car (nothing serious, but the car was damaged) It happened as follows: there was a very long, straight road with many successive crossings, and at each crossing, there were traffic lights. He was fixing the traffic light "at the horizon", some 6 or 7 crossings further, and it was green. But at the nearest crossing, the light was red and he didn't see it, because he stared at the remote traffic light, and BONK.

The Romans didn't have to solve our energy problems. People from the 18th century didn't make plans (or relevant plans) for our current energy provision.

Let's solve things for the next few decades, let's maybe try to think 50 years ahead. And beyond that, anybody's guess is good enough, I'd say. It is not because nuclear might meet a fuel problem in 5000 years or so, that we can't use it to solve a problem in the coming 50 years, no ? 200 years from now, society will be different, technology will be different, the problems will be different, and our thinking about that now is going to be utterly irrelevant.

mheslep

Jun4-09, 12:28 PM

A friend of mine once had a stupid car accident. I was in the car (nothing serious, but the car was damaged) It happened as follows: there was a very long, straight road with many successive crossings, and at each crossing, there were traffic lights. He was fixing the traffic light "at the horizon", some 6 or 7 crossings further, and it was green. But at the nearest crossing, the light was red and he didn't see it, because he stared at the remote traffic light, and BONK.

The Romans didn't have to solve our energy problems. People from the 18th century didn't make plans (or relevant plans) for our current energy provision.

Let's solve things for the next few decades, let's maybe try to think 50 years ahead. And beyond that, anybody's guess is good enough, I'd say. It is not because nuclear might meet a fuel problem in 5000 years or so, that we can't use it to solve a problem in the coming 50 years, no ? 200 years from now, society will be different, technology will be different, the problems will be different, and our thinking about that now is going to be utterly irrelevant.
Tons and tons of common sense in this post.

drewk79

Jun4-09, 04:33 PM

I recently read a great book by David Mackay. Energy without the hot air.http://www.withouthotair.com/

He says if we wanted to stop using fossil fuels we would need to build 5 times the current level of nuclear plants plus cover California in windmills plus each person would have to install 80 sq meters of photovoltaic cells plus cut our energy consumption in half.

So it is a big problem. But, we currently spend trillions in oil. So as oil becomes more expensive, people will move to the a new source. The question for today is what will the new energy source be for now and ten to fifty years.

I think it is important though to know in the end we will have to be 100% renewable. So hopefully we can take the shortest path between there and here.

I personally think nuclear is a little out of the way.

mheslep

Jun4-09, 04:36 PM

gmax137

Jun4-09, 06:12 PM

I think it is important though to know in the end we will have to be 100% renewable. So hopefully we can take the shortest path between there and here.

So many people take this idea and turn it into a recipe for paralysis, resulting in no change to what is really done. That means, continued burning of coal & nat gas. If you care about solving that problem, really - read the post by Vanesch (the stupid car accident) that mheslep quoted above. Then think about it. Really really think about it. This isn't a problem solved by wishing, or by hoping.

drewk79

Jun4-09, 07:53 PM

Here is a portion of David Mackay's article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.

I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can't discuss all the technology options.

I thought this was in the book but it was in fact in a CNN article.

I feel we need to as a country begin to develop small scale ways for each home to harness energy. There are 125 million homes in America. Each home spends hundreds of dollars on energy a month. If there was a cost effective way for us to make our own energy we will be on the way to becoming energy independent.

I for one am excited every day gas jumps up. I know it causes millions of dollars to be invested in developing the next energy source for us.

I am also working on a system and I will be coming out with it in the next few days.

OmCheeto

Jun4-09, 08:54 PM

I am also working on a system and I will be coming out with it in the next few days.

Me too. Though it'll be a bit longer.

I should be off the grid by the end of summer, as I promised sometime last year. If not, I hope the forum has a sense of humour and doesn't kick-ban me.... :wink:

------------------------
Please don't ban me, please don't ban me, please don't ban me. Even though I asked. :)

russ_watters

Jun4-09, 09:40 PM

Here is a portion of David Mackay's article from CNN...

I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. I don't see how such thought experiments are useful. The only part of it that comes anywhere close to realism is the 5-fold increase in nuclear power. Everything else is just daydreaming:

-Halving our energy usage is not an option - it isn't even desirable
-Completely eliminating coal hydrocarbon, and hydroelectric(!?) energy usage is not an option - it isn't even desirable.
-Solar power has no viability so it cannot be a part of an energy solution at this time
What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can't discuss all the technology options. None of those have any potential:
-Tidal power is expensive and there isn't much of it available
-Geothermal energy is not available
-Biofuels are not available
-hydroelectricity is essentially fully utilized already
I feel we need to as a country begin to develop small scale ways for each home to harness energy. There is no realistic generation potential there. Heck, the energy usage of the average home isn't even that big a factor in the thought experiment. It is only something like 1/10th of our energy use. Most people use as much energy driving to and from work every day than their house uses during the day! (a gallon of gas is 45 kWh) There are 125 million homes in America. Each home spends hundreds of dollars on energy a month. If there was a cost effective way for us to make our own energy we will be on the way to becoming energy independent. If my poop smelled like cinnamon apple crisp, I could sell it as an air freshener! This just isn't reality.

gmax137

Jun5-09, 10:59 AM

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person.

Well this may provide some perspective on the scale of the energy use, and as such it may be useful for people who are less quantitatively aware than most of the readers on this forum. But really, mixing various forms of energy use (e.g., direct combustion for home heating along with electrical power used for lighting, refrigeration & TVs) just leads to confusion. It misses the differences in efficiency etc. Read back thru this thread and others to see endless debates & misunderstandings due to this lack of specificity.

More important, mgb_phys is quite correct in pointing out the difference between average usage, and usage in the average home. Check into the amount used in office space, retail, and industrial facilities.

mheslep

Jun5-09, 11:44 AM

Here is a portion of David Mackay's article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/

A[B]s a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels....That's more like it - no summing them altogether with the "plus"s used above.

mheslep

Jun5-09, 12:22 PM

Astronuc

Jun5-09, 09:13 PM

This might be of interest to some

Handbook of photovoltaic science and engineering (http://books.google.com/books?id=u-bCMhl_JjQC&pg=PT3&lpg=PT3#PPT10,M1) By Antonio Luque, Steven Hegedus

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471491969

Cutting energy consumption in half would seem to be a good thing. We could eliminate a lot of garbage by not producing so much junk in the first place. :biggrin:

russ_watters

Jun5-09, 09:30 PM

Cutting energy consumption in half would seem to be a good thing. Sure, so would money rain. But that doesn't make it realistic. Thermodynamics puts pretty hard limits on what efficiency gains can be had. There are some gains to be had with improved insulation, but modern homes are already pretty good. And they aren't the big energy users anyway: business are and they also have hard constraints on energy consumption (ventilation and equipment loads).

mheslep

Jun5-09, 11:51 PM

There's also Jevon's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) to contend with

vanesch

Jun6-09, 12:46 AM

I would like to "defend" MacKay's book (which is really, really worth the read): you can buy it, but it is also freely available for download at http://www.withouthotair.com

However, one should read it *completely*. MacKay is NOT proposing a specific energy plan, or he's not proposing *how* one is going to live "sustainably".
He's just writing a catalog of "numbers" which are guesstimates, and rough indications of tendencies en dependences, just to "get realistic" about renewables.

In fact, his book is important, not to find out how a plan might work, but to find out which plans are NOT going to work - have no chance of working. His point is that even before you are going to look at things such as economic viability, or even if you are going to look at reliable electricity from wind or the likes, he "wants the numbers to add up". It is not because the numbers add up that you have a workable plan, but if they don't already add up, for sure you'll never have a workable plan!

If they add up, you've passed the first test, and now you have to get into more detail. But if they don't add up, no point in looking further.

That's also why he puts coefficients "1" before all the energies. He's well aware (and discusses this) that not all energies are the same, and that conversions can be lossy. In fact, he goes "maximally electrical", because he demonstrates that this can give rise to energy economies. And first of all, "total energy" has to be found. We *then* still have to take into account conversion efficiencies, but that can only worsen the problem. If at a start, the power isn't even there, no point in calculating efficiencies of conversion, your plan won't work.

The "250 KWhr/day per person" in the US is divided by 2, simply because his argument is based upon the UK, and there, energy consumption is about half of it, 125 KWhr/day per person, and he has all his numbers ready for this quantity.

Now, living standards are higher in the US than in Europe, but one is nevertheless left with the sentiment that there must be more potential for simple economies of energy in the US without affecting lifestyle, as energy-saving measures which are already in place since long in Europe are not so much applied in the US as far as I understand. Now, as living standards in the US are higher, it will probably not be possible to bring US consumption down to Europe's consumption (halving), but some diminishing must surely be feasible.

So his book is not "to show the way", his book is more "a first realistic test for any energy plan before we look into the details". If the plan doesn't work at his level, no point in looking further.

vanesch

Jun6-09, 12:48 AM

mheslep

Jun6-09, 12:57 AM

....The "250 KWhr/day per person" in the US is divided by 2, simply because his argument is based upon the UK, and there, energy consumption is about half of it, 125 KWhr/day per person, and he has all his numbers ready for this quantity.

Now, living standards are higher in the US than in Europe, but one is nevertheless left with the sentiment that there must be more potential for simple economies of energy in the US without affecting lifestyle, as energy-saving measures which are already in place since long in Europe are not so much applied in the US as far as I understand. Now, as living standards in the US are higher, it will probably not be possible to bring US consumption down to Europe's consumption (halving), but some diminishing must surely be feasible....A good part of the difference in per person energy usage between US and the UK must be attributed to the population distribution over a large country and consequent transportation needs, and not so much to lifestyle differences. For further evidence see Canada, which covers a vast land area and has a higher per person energy usage than the US but with a slightly lower standard of living.

signerror

Jun6-09, 03:53 AM

More important, mgb_phys is quite correct in pointing out the difference between average usage, and usage in the average home. Check into the amount used in office space, retail, and industrial facilities.

I third this. Check it out:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2a9blso.jpg (https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg)

From LLNL. Units are quads. It's a bit messy - it doesn't distinguish between electric energy and heat, so you have to figure that out from context - e.g., the 'hydro' bar is high-grade electric energy, whereas the 'coal' bar is low-grade heat, of which only 1/3 is converted to electricity, and the rest flows into the gray "electricity generation losses" bar. Bad design choice in my view.

At any rate, US households consume 4.64 quads of electricity out of the 12.46 total. And electric generation consumes 38 quads of primary energy (mostly thermal) out of 98 in total. So by my count, 14 quads - 14% of primary energy - goes towards residential electricity. Add in 5 quads of natural gas heating, and that's 19% of primary energy which is used by houses.

signerror

Jun6-09, 04:10 AM

A good part of the difference in per person energy usage between US and the UK must be attributed to the population distribution over a large country and consequent transportation needs, and not so much to lifestyle differences. For further evidence see Canada, which covers a vast land area and has a higher per person energy usage than the US but with a slightly lower standard of living.

I question that. I suspect a large part of it is the climate difference, which result in much larger heating needs. For example, the Scandinavian countries also have anomalously high energy demand, but are comparatively tiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

power per capita:

Iceland - 15.6 kW
Canada - 11.0 kW
USA - 10.4 kW
Finland - 9.6 kW
Norway - 7.9 kW
Sweden - 7.7 kW
...
France - 6.0 kW
Germany - 5.6 kW
UK - 5.2 kW

signerror

Jun6-09, 04:18 AM

Mackay's 125kWh/d breaks down as follows (major parts):

Car: 40kWh/d
Jet travel: 30kWh/d
Heating/Cooling: 37 kWh/d
Food/fertilizer: 14 kWh/d
plus misc.

Cars, heating/cooling could be improved, but as a whole there's no cutting this in half.
Also, the 125 figure doesn't include energy spent on creating imported goods (47kWh/d).

Here are his demand and supply graphs:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/figure125.png (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml) http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/figure233.png (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_212.shtml)

Astronuc

Jun6-09, 07:18 AM

$316 !! That book is made out of photovoltaic cells or what ?? There are a number of specialty texts in the range of $300-$500. That's certainly daunting to an undergrad or lay person.

Articles at ScienceDirect are $31.50 now. The journal subscriptions are $$$$$$.

Meanwhile - here is an interesting assessment of the prospects of nuclear energy in 1966.
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY REVOLUTION—1966
Alvin Weinberg (Physicist and Dir. of Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and Gale Young.
pdf download available.

Very optimistic were folks back then.

drewk79

Jun6-09, 08:14 AM

I am truly impressed by all the discussion going on in this one single thread. I feel a a little wiser after reading the responses every day.

If you take Mackay"s general numbers into account it is obvious our domestic energy policy is a large animal. I would think the best way to tame such a large beast would be to give the tools to the billions of people around the world.

I think technology will advance and bring us new exciting ways to harness large amounts of energy in a more cost effective way.

I am more interested in technology scaling down the tech we have today into systems that individual people could implement.

Boyle's Law says (I am paraphrasing I apologize) gas will spread out and take up the entire volume of a container and then begin to pressurize.

I think residential energy consumption is similar to that. I know in my house electricity is so cheap(?) I just use what ever I feel necessary at that point in time. It seems plausible to me the rest of the country works on a similar process.

We will continue to use energy in this willy nilly manner until we reach a level that puts pressure on the system.

I would like to see a test program that puts a cap on energy usage. Maybe not a hard cap but maybe just a beeper on your meter that beeps once you reach a set number of kwh each day. I think some people would see their usage and make more of an effort to reduce consumption.

I may be wrong and people may already be living without wasting energy but, maybe not.

If we could start budgeting our energy throughout the day we may be able to slow the growth of energy consumption. This may be slim in its ability to solve our needs but with a beast this big every shot helps.

vanesch

Jun6-09, 08:28 AM

I am more interested in technology scaling down the tech we have today into systems that individual people could implement.

Well, all bits help, but as MacKay says, if everybody does a little, we'll achieve... little.

There's nothing wrong with individual ways of gathering energy and saving energy. However, don't forget: effective solar energy: 20 W per square meter (depends on location), effective wind energy density: 2 W per square meter. This is not very "compact", so unless you have a large property, your distributed techniques will only contribute a certain part.

Also, energy technologies often have economies of scale, so large scale systems are very often more cost-effective (and effective overall) than distributed systems. Large windmills are more cost-effective than small individual turbines, for instance.

One should be careful, in finding a realistic energy policy, that one doesn't put extra ideological constraints on the "solution" such that no workable scheme for the near future comes out.

We will continue to use energy in this willy nilly manner until we reach a level that puts pressure on the system.

Very simple: multiply energy prices by, say, 50. You'll see an effect. Maybe not the effect hoped for.

drewk79

Jun6-09, 08:46 AM

The 20 watt per sq meter effective solar number. Is that what solar cells can produce? Or is that the total energy the sun puts out? thanks?

drewk79

Jun6-09, 09:02 AM

Very simple: multiply energy prices by, say, 50. You'll see an effect. Maybe not the effect hoped for.

Over the past few years we saw gas prices soar. What happened i think was, people did not stop driving because it has become a necessity. Instead people stopped doing everything else.

I would imagine electricity prices rising dramatically would do the same.

Also the energy prices do not have to be the ones to go up to cause pressure. If people have less money due to a smaller paycheck or higher costs for other products this would cause the same pressure as energy prices jumping.

If we implement all the small ideas today we will have a big result tomorrow.

There are so many pages to this thread. Is there a summary post somewhere with all the ideas in one place? Or should I write one?

Astronuc

Jun6-09, 09:36 AM

The 20 watt per sq meter effective solar number. Is that what solar cells can produce? Or is that the total energy the sun puts out? thanks?

See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant

PV's use part of the spectrum, and then there is a conversion efficiency.

So if PV's are 10% efficient and the flux is 1000 W/m2, then a PV would produce 100 W/m2 of useful electrical energy. There maybe further losses depending on resistance (dependent on distance between supply and load) and other conversion losses.

With respect to conservation and utilization of energy, Rocky Mountain Institute has many interesting articles.
http://www.rmi.org/

http://move.rmi.org/features/oilmap.html

russ_watters

Jun6-09, 10:36 AM

The "250 KWhr/day per person" in the US is divided by 2, simply because his argument is based upon the UK, and there, energy consumption is about half of it, 125 KWhr/day per person, and he has all his numbers ready for this quantity.

Now, living standards are higher in the US than in Europe, but one is nevertheless left with the sentiment that there must be more potential for simple economies of energy in the US without affecting lifestyle, as energy-saving measures which are already in place since long in Europe are not so much applied in the US as far as I understand. Now, as living standards in the US are higher, it will probably not be possible to bring US consumption down to Europe's consumption (halving), but some diminishing must surely be feasible.
There are two major reasons that [much of] Europe uses less energy per capita than the US, besides living standard:

1. Population distribution/density results in substantailly lower transportation energy usage.
2. The weather in Europe is far more stable than the US. England has roughly the same annual heating degree days as Philadelphia, but only a tiny fraction of the cooling degree days.

The first reason will probably change a little as people start living closer to where they work as transportation costs continue to rise, the second won't change much (if anything, global warming will improve it for Europe).

signerror

Jun6-09, 11:55 AM

So if PV's are 10% efficient and the flux is 1000 W/m2, then a PV would produce 100 W/m2 of useful electrical energy. There maybe further losses depending on resistance (dependent on distance between supply and load) and other conversion losses.

1000 W/m2 is the peak flux. If you average over time, you have a much lower "effective" power which is what is meaningful for counting total energy contributions. Over the continental US, the solar irradiation ranges from 4-7 kWh/day, which is about 170-290 W/m^2 average. So take 10% of that, and you get 17-29 W/m^2 of electricity, which is what vanesch is quoting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg/773px-Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation)

vanesch

Jun6-09, 01:19 PM

The 20 watt per sq meter effective solar number. Is that what solar cells can produce? Or is that the total energy the sun puts out? thanks?

signerror already gave the answer. Of course, this is dependent on the region and so on. It is what MacKay quotes for photovoltaic
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_39.shtml
in the UK, and also what he quotes for thermal solar in the North-African desert:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c25/page_182.shtml

These are ballpark numbers of course.

mheslep

Jun6-09, 01:35 PM

signerror already gave the answer. Of course, this is dependent on the region and so on. It is what MacKay quotes for photovoltaic
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_39.shtml
in the UK, and also what he quotes for thermal solar in the North-African desert:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c25/page_182.shtml

These are ballpark numbers of course.
Hey, page by page online references now. Great way to access a book.

OmCheeto

Jun7-09, 11:54 AM

My oh my. Reading some of the excerpts attributed to Professor MacKay made him sound like a bit of a kook. And that after I complemented him:

......
Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo.
....

I think I read half his book online yesterday. I found his personal opinions and actions very much in line with both mine and some people at the forum:

1. He cut his own home energy use to one quarter over a 14 year period(50kwh/day --> 13kwh/day). http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c21/page_143.shtml
I only cut mine in half. But I just started a year ago.

2. Sometimes it's difficult to tell when he's being sarcastic. Which would he prefer: Trams, bicycles, or electric cars?
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_127.shtml
I’ve looked up the performance figures for lots of electric vehicles –
they’re listed in this chapter’s end-notes – and they seem to be consistent
with this summary: electric vehicles can deliver transport at an energy cost
of roughly 15 kWh per 100 km. That’s five times better than our baseline
fossil-car, and significantly better than any hybrid cars. Hurray! To achieve
economical transport, we don’t have to huddle together in public transport
– we can still hurtle around, enjoying all the pleasures and freedoms of solo
travel, thanks to electric vehicles.

3. Regenerative braking on hybrid vehicles. (Not the marketed ones on the road right now, but the improved prototypes):
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_126.shtml
Regenerative systems using flywheels and hydraulics seem to work a
little better than battery-based systems, salvaging at least 70% of the brak-
ing energy.

4. Carrying around solar panels on your car? I've never seen this advocated except by kooks.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_131.shtml
Q: I live in a hot place. How could I drive an electric car? I demand
power-hungry air-conditioning!

A: There’s an elegant fix for this demand: fit 4 m2 of photovoltaic panels
in the upward-facing surfaces of the electric car. If the air-conditioning is
needed, the sun must surely be shining. 20%-efficient panels will generate
up to 800 W, which is enough to power a car’s air-conditioning. The
panels might even make a useful contribution to charging the car when
it’s parked, too. Solar-powered vehicle cooling was included in a Mazda
in 1993; the solar cells were embedded in the glass sunroof.
I actually did something like that when my serpentine belt tensioner broke off one day. I was too cheap to have the car towed home so I installed the 3 panels to replace the alternator for the 15 mile drive home. Worked fine.
http://home.europa.com/~garry/pf%20solar%20powered%20car.jpg
And no. You can't permanently replace your alternator with solar panels. It only works during the day, and when the sun is shining, and you're not sitting at a red light in the shade of a big old oak tree. kooks.......

drewk79

Jun7-09, 01:06 PM

mheslep

Jun7-09, 05:34 PM

2. Sometimes it's difficult to tell when he's being sarcastic. Which would he prefer: Trams, bicycles, or electric cars?

I’ve looked up the performance figures for lots of electric vehicles –
they’re listed in this chapter’s end-notes – and they seem to be consistent
with this summary: electric vehicles can deliver transport at an energy cost
of roughly 15 kWh per 100 km. That’s five times better than our baseline
fossil-car, and significantly better than any hybrid cars. Hurray! To achieve
economical transport, we don’t have to huddle together in public transport
– we can still hurtle around, enjoying all the pleasures and freedoms of solo
travel, thanks to electric vehicles.
He's serious here. The drama is in keeping with his frustrated search for answers where the figures on the physics actually work out, and EVs are one place where they do.

OmCheeto

Jun8-09, 10:31 AM

I was searching my Electric bill yesterday and found they off Real Time Pricing for electricity.

I found a few articles on the subject and they say a 10% drop in peak consumption is common when this is implemented.

I looked back at some of the past high cost days and during the day prices would get to .20kWh but that night they would drop to just about $.02 kWh.

Wow. That's a big difference. We pay $0.118/kWh peak and $0.037/kWh off peak. Though I'm not on metered service. But I would cut my bill at least in half if I were. At least 90% of my electric bill in devoted to heating. But I guess this is where Jevons paradox jumps in. Why get more efficient with your usage if you can get what you need for a third of the price by working the system. Up here in the northern latitudes, there are maybe 5 days a years when cooling your house is necessary.

I have a large chest freezer maybe 30 cubic ft. We dont use it currently. I am thinking I could fill it full of water jugs and freeze the water at night then open it during the day to keep the house cool. Maybe install a fan.

I know there are systems that I can buy to do this but I have these parts what do you think?

I've seen that on TV before. It does make sense.

Also being able to adjust our energy usage to low cost times of day is an immediate way to reduce peak demand immediately.

In my area it is $2.50 a month to be in the program they are using the old grid and they just change out your meter for free.( i guess thats what the $2.50 is for)

I am a home builder in the area and I live in a town with 700 people. I dont know anyone else in town using this and I talk to a lot of people. I guess the power company should get some credit for making it available but they get an F for putting it into effect.
If the utilities around here had a 10 to 1 difference between peak and non-peak and everyone were to utilize it, I think they'd go broke. I just don't see any logical reason to leave the heat on in my house when I'm not there. I suppose some people might want to come home after a long day at work to a cozy house. But watching that electric meter spin makes me go through all manner of hoops to get it to stop. A 6 m2 solar thermal collector is first on my list of projects. I built a prototype 2 weeks ago out of 3 garden hoses, one solar panel, one 12vdc 500 gph bilge pump, and a 32 gallon rubbermaid trash can. It generated around 750 watts of thermal power with the pump consuming about 20 watts of power. The garden hoses were simply tossed onto a sunny spot on the roof. Away from the street of course. I don't want the neighbors thinking I'm some kind of mad scientist.

mheslep

Jun8-09, 11:12 AM

... I don't want the neighbors thinking I'm some kind of mad scientist.Too late, that horse has left the barn I expect. :wink:

Re your solar panels, may I ask: who's the manufacturer, when did you buy them, and how much?

OmCheeto

Jun8-09, 08:13 PM

Too late, that horse has left the barn I expect. :wink:

Re your solar panels, may I ask: who's the manufacturer, when did you buy them, and how much?

They are made by Kyocera. My dad bought them, and they are date stamped 1991 thru 1993. When I researched their cost, they were $250. Though they may have cost more when originally purchased.

I found them to be so much fun to play with that I decided that if I hadn't inherited them, I should have bought at least one or two. Mobile energy is quite the convenience; see gasoline. :wink:

mheslep

Jun8-09, 09:33 PM

MacKay his a nice video up that parallels his book. He has the gift for clear explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRQB2YXUxvY

Peddling past Sizewell nuclear plant:
If you don't like nuclear, for every Sizewell you want to get rid of you need an extra 2000 wind turbines
Sizewell is 1.1GW(e). Replace w/ 1.5MW turbines at 35% capacity factor, yep. And they'd still have to address storage / base load.

mheslep

Jun9-09, 06:28 PM

I have revisited the battery and energy cost per mile claims for the EV / battery exchange proposal from the company Project Better Place (http://www.betterplace.com). The CEO stated a life cycle cost of 4-6 cents per mile for the battery. Now I believe that appears plausible, even likely. My calculations/assumptions:

\begin{array}{l|rrrr}
\mbox{} & \mbox{EV sedan}\\
\mbox{} & \mbox{5-seat}\\
\hline
\mbox{Vehicle Parameters}\\
\mbox{range(miles)}&100\\
\mbox{efficiency battery-to-wheel (kWh/mile)}&0.22\\
\hline
\mbox{Battery parameters: }\\
\mbox{lifetime charge cycles}&3000\\
\mbox{lifetime range of pack}\\
\mbox{ 70 percent capacity (miles)}&210000\\
\mbox{pack capacity (kWh)}&22\\
\hline
\mbox{Costs:}\\
\mbox{battery per kWh (dollars)}&400\\
\mbox{battery per pack (dollars 1000)}&8.8\\
\mbox{battery pack + spares (dollars 1000)}&11.5\\
\hline
\mbox{Summary:}\\
\mbox{battery lifetime cost (cents/mi)}&5.5\\
\mbox{energy cost @9cents/kWh}&2.3\\
\mbox{total battery + energy cost (cents/mi)}&7.8\\
\hline
\mbox{ICE vehicle fuel cost}\\
\mbox{@25MPG, @2.6 dollars /gal (dollars) }&10.5\\
\end{array}

Or 20% better than a comparable internal combustion vehicle. That's just battery & fuel costs. We may also expect savings on the EV only drive train/chassis versus the internal combustion comparable, that is a $2.5k electric motor displaces in the ICE:
Engine $1850, Trans $625, Exhaust system $460, Fuel tank/injection/other $860 = $3.8k
http://www.ge.com/battery/resources/pdf/DickonPinner.pdf (slide 23)

Up thread Russ commented on this EV approach:
My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35....
The purchase price of a battery exchange capable EV with a chassis comparable to either a Prius or Civic should be substantially less. The Prius commands a premium because of its battery and hybrid drive train; the high mpg Euro Civic also does because of the more expensive diesel engine (Edit: and the Civic is smaller than Better Place's Renault)

edit: spreadsheet version of the above data attached

mheslep

Jun10-09, 04:19 PM

Cost per km analysis from McKinsey, entire vehicle, model vehicle is a VW Golf. They show a BEV200km comparable in cost to a similar US Gas vehicle which is in agreement with my previous post. The same gas/diesel in Europe w/ the higher fuel taxes and combustion vehicle taxes is substantially more expensive than a BEV200.
http://www.ge.com/battery/resources/...ckonPinner.pdf, slide 24
They state in the notes that the battery model is depreciated separately from the vehicle, though they don't make clear how. A separate battery depreciate model is key for a battery exchange system. Above I used a battery life of cycles x the battery pack range * 70%. That's crude, as it doesn't reflect the battery shelf life which must come in to play as the battery life in km/miles extends past ~150k/200k.

mheslep

Jun18-09, 12:59 PM

Port of LA now using some electric trucks for its short haul work around the port. Full size 18 wheelers, 60000lb load, 40-60mi range. They went lead acid with the first ones, lithium on the next go round.
Mfn Fact Sheet
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/Electric_Truck_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Electric Truck
2 kilowatt hours of energy units per mile
Operation cost: 20 cents per mile
...
Diesel Truck with 5 miles-per-gallon*
Operation cost: 80 cents to 90 cents per mile
* The above energy consumption and energy cost comparisons are based on a 100% duty cycle, which diminishes in the diesel truck when the truck is idling. A common 50/50 duty cycle in a diesel truck, reflecting 50 percent idling time, would increase the diesel truck’s cost per kilowatt hour from .90 to $1.80

Video
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

OmCheeto

Jun18-09, 08:31 PM

mheslep

Jun19-09, 04:55 PM

Did anyone read the article in the latest SciAm today regarding grassoline?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/cover/cover_2009-07_thumb.jpg (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn)

I've not had a chance, and am running quite late.
Well this part is disappointing:...[the author] is the founder of Anellotech, a biofuel startup
C'mon Sci American. That the explains the lack of any mention of the recent Science paper showing the biofuels are better used to produce electricity than gasoline.

RonL

Jun19-09, 05:58 PM

Port of LA now using some electric trucks for its short haul work around the port. Full size 18 wheelers, 60000lb load, 40-60mi range. They went lead acid with the first ones, lithium on the next go round.
Mfn Fact Sheet
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/Electric_Truck_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Video
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

When I suggested this type of truck, someone said it was an asinine idea, Oh well not everyone thinks alike.
I'm still working on the lead acid batteries that last a lifetime. Even if energy density is compromised at 50% to 75%, would it be worthwhile?
I think so.:smile:

mheslep

Jun19-09, 07:34 PM

When I suggested this type of truck, someone said it was an asinine idea, Oh well not everyone thinks alike.
I'm still working on the lead acid batteries that last a lifetime. Even if energy density is compromised at 50% to 75%, would it be worthwhile?
I think so.:smile:Lead acid has two drawbacks here RonL, weight is one but the other is limited deep cycle lifetime. So its fine to build a few of these trucks with lead acid to see how they work out, but the batteries will quickly give it up. Even thats ok for the experiment - replace them, but it can't fly economically. A real working E-truck requires something else like Li-ion and thousands of deep cycles, which the Port of LA is doing as the sources above show.

OmCheeto

Jun19-09, 08:52 PM

Well this part is disappointing:
C'mon Sci American. That the explains the lack of any mention of the recent Science paper showing the biofuels are better used to produce electricity than gasoline.

But it was very nice to see them mention that we could generate half of the country's motor car fuels from farm refuse.

I saw something that looked a lot like crude oil in the bottom of my bio-recycle bin last week, but I rinsed it out. I guess I should have taken it to work and had them do a spectrum analysis of the goop. Might be, one of my 20 weeds spontaneously decomposes into fuel. Now wouldn't that be something.

drewk79

Jun20-09, 08:25 AM

Trains have been running diesel motors to power electric motors for years. Caterpillar is now building a D7 bulldozer that works on the same principal. No batteries. Raser has also built a H3 hummer using the same tech and claims 100 mpg. http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/the-electric-h3

These technologies when mass implemented will only be one rung in a never ending search for energy independence.

O yeah I applied to switch over to Real Time Pricing on my elec bill. WooHooo!!

mheslep

Jun23-09, 01:11 PM

Energy Secretary Chu just announced big loans to three car companies for electric cars. Ford $5.9B, Nissan $1.6B, Tesla $465M. A US loan to a Japanese auto maker is eye raising, but the Nissan plant (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=Smyrna%2C%20Tennessee%20nissan) to be retooled is in Smyrna, Tennessee.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124573130607640647.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/06/23/going-electric-nissan-exxon-the-feds-and-tesla-enjoy-a-big-day-for-electric-cars/

Rennault-Nissan has the deal with the electric infrastructure company Better Place to build battery switch capable cars, discussed above. Its not clear whether the vehicles coming from the Tn. plant will be compatible.

mohd_adam

Jun25-09, 10:42 PM

mheslep

Jun25-09, 11:35 PM

signerror

Jun26-09, 01:45 AM

For nuclear power plant 1000 MWe, it needs 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5%.
To get 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5% , we need 200 tones of uranium oxide 'yellow cake'. ( i hope correct of numbers are wrong )

in 2006 the world produce 39100 tones. If the world started depend on nuclear power, when uranium will run out !?
--------

The world uses about 15 TW (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29) of thermal energy (1 ton oil equivalent = 42 GJ); one 1 GWe nuclear reactor produces about 3 GW of heat. So as an order-of-magnitude estimate, we would need about 5,000 one-gigawatt reactors.

If these were once-through reactors like ordinary light water reactors, we would need 5,000 * (200 tons/year) = 1 million tons uranium metal per year. If instead these were fast breeder reactors, we could use the U-238 (via U-238(n,gamma) Np-239 (,e-) Pu-239, which is fissile), and there is about 100 times more of that isotope than U-235 in nature. So, with closed fuel cycles, we would need 1/100th as much natural uranium, or 10,000 tons/year.

How much uranium we 'have' depends on what resources you consider accessible. According to the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html), there are an estimated 5 million tons of 'conventional' ore resources, and another 30 million tons unconventional, very low concentration resources in phosphate minerals (PO4-3). There is also about 5 billion (http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006/4_5.html) tons of uranium salts dissolved in the oceans at 3 ppb, which appears to be feasible to extract.

I think the meaningful number here, since we were projecting centuries out, is the theoretical supply of ocean uranium, used in fast breeders: this is 5 billion tons / (10,000 tons/year) = 500,000 years at present world energy demand. The other, less meaningful permutations are - from the above numbers,

conventional reserves - 5 years
conventional reserves in FRs - 500 years
phosphate reserves - 30 years
phosphate reserves in FRs - 3,000 years
seawater reserves - 5,000 years
seawater reserves in FRs - 500,000 years

Hope this is helpful.

mohd_adam

Jun26-09, 06:34 AM

thank you signerror , mheslep for the reply and the information..

mheslep

Jun26-09, 09:09 AM

The world uses about 15 TW (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29) of thermal energy (1 ton oil equivalent = 42 GJ); one 1 GWe nuclear reactor produces about 3 GW of heat. So as an order-of-magnitude estimate, we would need about 5,000 one-gigawatt reactors.Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used, so I think that must be ~15,000 one GW(e) reactors.

....
conventional reserves - 5 years
conventional reserves in FRs - 500 years
phosphate reserves - 30 years
phosphate reserves in FRs - 3,000 years
seawater reserves - 5,000 years
seawater reserves in FRs - 500,000 years

Hope this is helpful.
Plus another 1.5 million tons of Th worldwide

signerror

Jun26-09, 10:04 AM

Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used, so I think that must be ~15,000 one GW(e) reactors.

No, that's silly: it makes much more sense to compare like with like (thermal with thermal). For example: (nuclear electricity) EVs need to carry much less energy than petroleum cars, because they store electricity rather than thermal energy. So comparing oil joules with electricity joules would overestimate their electricity requirement by a huge factor. But if you compare oil joules with nuclear reactor heat joules, you get the right numbers - modulo differences in the efficiencies of the heat engines (internal combustion engine vs. steam turbine).

Also, direct use of nuclear reactor waste heat will probably be much more common in the future. For one thing, Gen IV reactors can finally reach temperatures high enough that waste heat can be used directly in industrial processes, like hydrogen production.

Plus another 1.5 million tons of Th worldwide

That's negligible compared to the U figures I showed.

mheslep

Jun26-09, 12:39 PM

No, that's silly: it makes much more sense to compare like with like (thermal with thermal). For example: (nuclear electricity) EVs need to carry much less energy than petroleum cars, because they store electricity rather than thermal energy. So comparing oil joules with electricity joules would overestimate their electricity requirement by a huge factor. But if you compare oil joules with nuclear reactor heat joules, you get the right numbers - modulo differences in the efficiencies of the heat engines (internal combustion engine vs. steam turbine).That's a moving the goal post fallacy. Your premised was that world wide primary energy usage is ~15 TW(t) and then calculated the amount of oar required to produce that thermal power, fair enough. You can not then logically reduce that load assuming all of combustion powered travel (ground/air) the space heating and needs become much more efficient and credit the difference to nuclear, as if oil/gas could not also be used to make electricity. You are then actually reassuming the thermal load as something less, maybe 10-12TW(t).

That's negligible compared to the U figures I showed.
Not at all. Obviously that Th reserves figure was for land mined reserves only. For land mining Uranium and Thorium worldwide reserves are the same order of magnitude.

mheslep

Jun30-09, 07:45 PM

Another source confirming a 5 year Moore's law for Li Ion battery cost per kWh.

Section 1.3.3, Figure 3 from Kromer and Heywood, 2007
Electric Powertrains: Opportunities andChallenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet
http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf

This compares well with the Japanese data I posted over here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2224199&postcount=78).

A related figure to cost is specific energy (Wh/kg), an it turns out the authors say (page 41):
As a general framing principle, it is important to understand that improvements in battery capacity will not proceed along anything like a Moore’s-law trajectory. Rather, progress occurs in incremental steps, improving a few percent each year: over the near- and mid-term these improvements are likely to involve developing host materials with higher lithium uptake and operating cells at higher voltage;...
These constraints would indicate that specific energy can be expected to at most double in the next several decades – an improvement of 3.5% per year.That's not the quite the same as kWh/$ over time, but they are related.
However, they also say:
For reference, the historical rate of improvement illustrated in Figure 10 corresponds to about 7% per year.which is a 2x increase in spec. energy every ~6 years, historically.

Below I also attached Figure 11, the economies of scale for Li-Ion which is based on internal Ford studies, showing production cost decreases "nearly 3-fold from 50k to 2M units". Given high volume battery production, the Battery Technology Advisory Panel claims a specific cost of $270/kWh, and Argonne National Labs claims $225/kWh - again that's current technology at high production. (table 11, page 43).

russ_watters

Jun30-09, 08:17 PM

Another source confirming a 5 year Moore's law for Li Ion battery cost per kWh.....with the elephant-sized caveat that it doesn't include the last 7 years!

mheslep

Jun30-09, 09:30 PM

Significant updates to post #422
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2255903&postcount=422

vanesch

Jul1-09, 12:11 AM

Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used,

Well, there is one I know of :smile:
http://eng.lafermeauxcrocodiles.com/

It is heated with the cooling waters of the Tricastin nuclear power plant.

(about 100 km from where I live)

mheslep

Jul6-09, 03:25 PM

Another interview with the Better Place battery swap people, suggests they would include a switches to different batter sizes:

I'll give you an example: Hypothetically, you could drive in (Las Vegas) on a contract. Vegas is about a 15-mile-radius city, and you have a smaller battery inside. But on the edge of Vegas you might pull out your battery and put in a long-distance battery. In theory, you pay roaming charges as long as you have not returned that battery to the station. So, it would be a convenience thing. You'd go to L.A.; you'd drive a lot more; then you'd come back three days later; you'd drop the battery and take back the 50-mile battery.
http://www.gartner.com/research/fellows/asset_221489_1176.jsp
A 50-mile battery drops the total battery depreciation plus energy cost to $0.06/mile* versus a combustion fuel 30 mpg vehicle cost of twice that, $0.10/mile.

*($400/kWh - 3000 cycle battery, 0.19 kWh/mi tank-to-wheel, $0.09/kWh electricity)

mheslep

Jul13-09, 10:35 PM

A Berkley (http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical_Brief_Economic.pdf)study came out today that backs the battery rental/ exchange approach to all electric vehicles.

3rd party summary (http://www.prweb.com/releases/UCBerkeley/Electricvehiclestudy/prweb2628184.htm):
The University of California study shows that the mass adoption of electric cars is a reachable goal. For electric cars to achieve this wide-scale adoption in the United States, these vehicles must be able to compete with the existing gasoline fueling infrastructure in terms of price, range, and reliability. Becker finds separating the purchase of the battery from the car is the most practical and cost-effective means of addressing these concerns.

First, not having to pay for the battery upfront makes the purchase price of an electric car competitive with that of an internal combustion vehicle. Given current battery prices and the federal tax incentives for the purchase of electric cars, switchable battery vehicles are expected to be $7,500 less expensive than a similar gasoline-powered car when introduced to the market in 2012. The total cost of ownership of these vehicles is expected to be between $0.10 and $0.13 lower on a per-mile basis than gasoline-powered cars, depending on the future price of oil.

Second, electric vehicles with switchable batteries can have a driving range comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles. Just as there is a network of gas stations, the study incorporates the cost of a network of public battery charging spots augmented by battery switching stations into the per-mile service contract price offered by electric car network operators. This business model innovation will ensure that a sufficient density of electric car infrastructure is deployed to extend the range of these vehicles. Through this system, Becker argues that "the overall range of electric cars will eventually rival that of gasoline-powered vehicles."

Lastly, consumers must perceive electric cars to be as reliable as gasoline-powered vehicles. To achieve this, Becker again finds that the best solution lies in separating the ownership of the vehicle from the battery. By placing ownership of the battery in the hands of an electric car network operator, consumer concerns over the lifetime or durability of the battery are eliminated. Switchable batteries also allow the newest innovations in battery technology to reach drivers more quickly.

mheslep

Jul15-09, 01:12 PM

The Berkeley study, Exhibit 5 (http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical_Brief_Economic.pdf), predicts the point where half of US light vehicle new sales are EVs will be reached in 10-11 years given acceptance of battery lease and exchange paradigms, and nearly twice that long if it is not. That's in-line with what some companies have been saying. I'll go further here and say that, if battery lease & exchange is accepted, that we'll see the point where EVs are half of all new vehicle sales in at least one [smaller] country in 5-6 years

mheslep

Aug4-09, 03:59 PM

Nissan announces their EV, which when released in 2012 would make it the first mass market EV in 90 years.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6537775/green/zero-emissions-all-green-introducing-the-nissan-leaf-ev/index.html
They seemed to have dumped the idea of on-the-fly battery swap stations, or any connection with third party battery lease companies. The quick charge feature is nice, but it is no replacement for a 2-3 minute fill up and go, and that situation will not improve, rather it will get worse with bigger batteries.

Performance
Driving range over: 160km/100miles (US LA4 mode)
Max speed (km/h): over 140km/h (over 87 mph)

Motor
Type: AC motor
Max power (kW): 80kW
Max torque (Nm): 280Nm

Battery
Type: laminated lithium-ion battery
Total capacity (kWh): 24
Power output (kW): over 90
Energy density (Wh/kg): 140
Power density (kW/kg): 2.5
Number of modules: 48
Charging times: quick charger DC 50kW (0 to 80%): less than 30 min; home-use AC200V charger: less than 8 hrs
Battery layout: Under seat & floor

Topher925

Aug23-09, 10:38 AM

mheslep

Aug23-09, 07:46 PM

Toyota recently announced they will be delaying the release of any all electric cars and will currently focus on hybrids (series/plug-in hybrids) until at least 2012. Also, they have been showing off their fuel cell vehicles to help promote the technology. It seems that this is the same path that GM is taking as well. A smart move for both companies in my opinion.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107571/toyota-holds-back-in-race-to-go-electric?mod=family-autosDelay is not the right word for Toyota regarding EV's; they've never had any EV operations for next year to delay. They are going ahead with a plug in version of the Prius. So for the moment, Nissan is the only company going mass market within next year with a pure EV. Expect Renault to announce similar plans next month (~same company)

...Toyota executives rattle off reasons to be skeptical of electric cars: They do not travel far enough on a charge; their batteries are expensive and not reliable; the electrical infrastructure is not in place to recharge them... That's a common refrain but I think its mistake to level them all in the same sentence. The batteries could be free, and EV's would still be problematic. Infrastructure is a bigger problem, into which the vehicle manufacturers will have to wade, or partner with someone who will. Solve the infrastructure problem, and the other problems fall away.

OmCheeto

Aug23-09, 09:59 PM

Infrastructure is a bigger problem, into which the vehicle manufacturers will have to wade, or partner with someone who will. Solve the infrastructure problem, and the other problems fall away.

I've x'd out the name of the city in the following article. It was written by the cities own mayor. Is Reuters allowed to do that? Seems like shameless, self-promoting advertising to me. :mad:

X Lands Major Upgrade to Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenAutos/idUS268106043420090806)
Reuters
Thu Aug 6, 2009
...
The state in which X is situated was named as a test market by the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), which announced today it's receiving $99.8 million in federal funds to study electric vehicle usage.
.....
eTec, a subsidiary of ECOtality, Inc., is working with Nissan North America to deploy approximately 5,000 electric vehicles and 12,750 charging stations in five U.S. markets

ps. Portland recieves loads of hydro and wind generated electricity, so it's fairly CO2 friendly.

mheslep

Sep5-09, 05:58 PM

OmCheeto

Sep8-09, 12:56 AM

The post office just published a study on the feasibility of making its local delivery fleet of 146,000 vehicles electric. It's a nearly ideal case. First, daily range for the USPS vans is short, averaging only 18 miles per day, 97% of the fleet is less than 40 miles, and they park at night. Second, the stop/go pattern means the current combustion vehicles average ~10mpg in making the rounds allowing a large savings of 28 cents per mile in a replacement EV van, or $1500 per year per USPS van.

Their costs assumptions are shown below, which look reasonable to me, though I believe their battery replacement rate is too high at five years. A nine to ten year life with a daily full discharge/charge cycle is more reasonable for their use case.

Of course the USPS is $7B in the hole/yr so they can't afford new anything.
http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/DA-WP-09-001.pdf

Odd that they stop with a simple electric. Perhaps the UPS hydraulic hybrid (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/ups-hydraulic-h/) didn't work out. It stuck me as a more logical stop and go system.

But it looks like the Feds will be spending more money on it, and other programs:

Trucking Headlines
DOE awards $300M in grants (http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=81411)
9/1/2009

The U.S. Department of Energy last week announced the selection of 25 cost-share projects under the Clean Cities program that will be funded with nearly $300 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
.....

Under the Recovery Act, the Clean Cities program will fund a range of energy-efficient and advanced vehicle technologies, such as hybrids, electric vehicles, plug-in electric hybrids, hydraulic hybrids and compressed natural gas vehicles, helping reduce petroleum consumption across the United States.

If this keeps up, I may have to give up all my research, and just sit at the beach. :cool:

mheslep

Sep8-09, 01:19 AM

Odd that they stop with a simple electric. Perhaps the UPS hydraulic hybrid (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/ups-hydraulic-h/) didn't work out. It stuck me as a more logical stop and go system...I would think that would be much more expensive way to capture stop/go energy than a simple regenerating electric motor.

Astronuc

Sep9-09, 08:28 AM

To make better biofuels, researchers add hydrogen
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10344817-54.html
The biggest technology breakthrough in this design is the high-temperature electrolysis, which originally came from a program to study how nuclear reactors could be used to make hydrogen. But hydrogen-powered vehicles face a number of obstacles, including on-board storage and the infrastructure to cleanly produce and to distribute hydrogen.

By contrast, if the hydrogen was used to make hydrocarbon fuels, they could be distributed through the existing channels and be used with existing autos, including hybrid-electric vehicles.

The jump from hydrogen research to biofuels happened when Hawkes thought to make biomass the heat source for INL's high-temperature electrolysis, rather than the heat from a nuclear reactor. By making that switch, the electrolyzer can operate on biomass and electricity alone, rather than rely on a nuclear reactor.

"We feel each that each one of these technologies is individually proven but nobody has ever taken them and hooked them together to make one process," said Hawkes.

There are some commercially available biomass gasifiers and a few facilities turning synthesis gas into liquid fuel using coal as a feedstock. But coal-to-liquids has a high carbon footprint, even compared with gasoline, said Hawkes. If a renewable or carbon-free source, such as hydro power, can be used through bio-syntrolysis, the resulting fuel would have very low emissions, he said.

Storing hydrogen on plants
So far, INL researchers have done experiments using available commercial products and they have modeled the overall efficiency on computer. To build a high-temperature electrolyzer, they have purchased commercial fuels cells and modified them to work in reverse, so they produce hydrogen and oxygen from electricity.

"There is no need for any great discovery but there is a need for development of materials and electrolyzers and just the will the put all the different sources together," said Steve Herring, a research fellow at Idaho National Labs.

The projected cost of the fuel would be $2.50 a gallon to produce, which is not cheaper than today's gasoline. But the primary advantage is the fuel is domestically sourced, low-carbon, and available at a predictable price, Herring said. One of the rationales for the technology is that biomass to make fuel will become a scarce commodity, making techniques that can squeeze more energy from existing crops more compelling.
More on bio-syntrolysis.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=3076&mode=2

There are other processes for producing fuels from biomass.

It looks like gasoline will stay around $3/gal for the forseeable future. The supply is restricted in line with demand and OPEC and the other oil producers are comfortable for now with oil at around $70/bbl.

mheslep

Sep9-09, 12:29 PM

.
It looks like gasoline will stay around $3/gal for the forseeable future. The supply is restricted in line with demand and OPEC and the other oil producers are comfortable for now with oil at around $70/bbl.Is that just a guess, or based on some data/analylsis? EIA says differently for their high price case, 20 to 30% increase per year.
2009:$60.89/bbl petroleum
2010:91.08
2011:104.74
2012:118.35
2013:131.38
2014:145.80
2015:157.23
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeohptab_12.xls

My reading of various sources is that world wide oil production is going to stay roughly flat at 85m bbls/day for some time: the numerous new finds are just balancing out the depletion of older fields. However, there is no such cap on the petroleum demand in China and India, and Asia in general is already growing briskly again.

OmCheeto

Sep12-09, 03:37 PM

I would think that would be much more expensive way to capture stop/go energy than a simple regenerating electric motor.

I was all ready to argue this point until I saw the price of super-capacitors has fallen to a reasonable rate.

Gads.

$1.28 per kJoule! (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2006/03/03/37810/Supercapacitors-see-growth-as-costs-fall.htm)

This means to absorb the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle from 35 mph to zero will only cost $250, vs. $55,000 in 1996.

I should really double check that calculation. If true, my hobby just got a lot simpler.

mheslep

Sep12-09, 07:44 PM

I was all ready to argue this point until I saw the price of super-capacitors has fallen to a reasonable rate.

Gads.

$1.28 per kJoule! (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2006/03/03/37810/Supercapacitors-see-growth-as-costs-fall.htm)

This means to absorb the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle from 35 mph to zero will only cost $250, vs. $55,000 in 1996.

I should really double check that calculation. If true, my hobby just got a lot simpler.I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, Im curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

OmCheeto

Sep12-09, 11:45 PM

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, Im curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

Perhaps you forgot the 1/2 factor. But I'm curious also. I've been quite busy this last week with work and such, and have not had the time to research the mass and volume of a 194 kJ capacitor bank. Might be that they would weigh as much and/or take up as much room as a tractor trailer.

Otherwise, as you've alluded to, there'd've been mention of them.

mheslep

Sep12-09, 11:49 PM

Perhaps you forgot the 1/2 factor.
Yep:redface:

But I'm curious also. I've been quite busy this last week with work and such, and have not had the time to research the mass and volume of a 194 kJ capacitor bank. Might be that they would weigh as much and/or take up as much room as a tractor trailer.

Otherwise, as you've alluded to, there'd've been mention of them.Appears to to 20kj/kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density), 50kj/l

mheslep

Sep14-09, 09:44 PM

MIT Tech Review has good presentation/interview with Emanuel Sachs, founder of PV maker 1366. In particular, I was interested in a tangent question he addresses: "Do we need fundamental breakthroughs in solar cells for solar power to compete with conventional sources of electricity?" (at 4:23). Interestingly, he credits most of the drop in the cost of mass market PV electricity production in the last 30 years to advances in the production process (from $5/kWh -1978 to $0.20/kWh now), not to major physics 'breakthroughs'. There have been some big physics advances - multiband PV and thin film - but they're both niche players in the mass market.

I was also interested in where he drew his break even with natural gas (~$0.18/kWh) and coal ($0.05/kWh) electrical prices. The assumption there must be peak load only applications, i.e, no storage required, use it when you make it. This holds apparently only up about 7% of power needs or 70GW in the US. After that there a serious breakthrough is needed in energy storage for further PV growth. Sounds about right.

Starts at 4:33
http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=433

mheslep

Sep14-09, 10:48 PM

I had begun to doubt the battery switch players were going ahead, but it looks like Renault is coming through as promised with their EV role out in Frankfurt this week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125287239312206713.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"We're making a major industrial bet," said [Renault's CEO]...

It's a risky one, and many other auto companies think Mr. Ghosn is on the wrong track. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. also has announced an electric car for the U.S. market. But Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., among others, say batteries still cost too much, they run down too quickly and recharging them takes too long.
...
But Mr. Ghosn said they will sell for the same amount as their gas-powered equivalents -- and that the overall cost of electricity plus battery use will be less than that of gasoline.

The trick, said Mr. Ghosn, is to have consumers lease, not buy, the batteries, which currently cost nearly €10,000. Renault's electric cars will have removable batteries, which it expects to lease for about €100 a month in Europe. When the electricity runs down in a battery, it can either be recharged, or the leasing company might swap in a fully charged one....
which is about $0.15/mile of battery cost - to the the car owner. That's steep in the US, but w/ $0.20/mile gasoline costs in Europe, Renault must think that battery leasing fee reasonable there.

Leased Electric Car Batteries Take a Big Step Forward (http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002040/leased-electric-car-batteries-take-a-big-step-forward/)
Renault sees strong sales of electric cars in Israel (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jdgoxIRhk6qjSF6C8ry_5lyjqoeQ)

Also Iceland seems to be getting on board with battery switch EVs.
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10002385/iceland-fast-tracks-an-electric-car-charging/?tag=shell;content

Renault's EV:
http://cdn.images.autocar.co.uk/612x408FFFFFFF/Car/Renault/Concepts/Renault-Concepts-119991235155461600x1060.jpg

OmCheeto

Sep26-09, 03:25 PM

Just go shopping.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fizCP9hv_58&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fizCP9hv_58&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

(thank you PC!)

mheslep

Sep26-09, 05:04 PM

Just go shopping.
I disagree where the BB rep says there is no existing US business model. The market for low speed EVs is already in the 100k range, with attention from the majors.

Firm figures for the number of NEVs on the road and the rate of sales growth are difficult to pin down. Some people close to the industry say roughly 100,000 such vehicles are in use, while other estimates are higher. Global Electric Motorcars, the Chrysler LLC unit that builds GEM electric vehicles and is the leading manufacturer, says it has sold about 38,000 vehicles in the U.S. GEM says it has recorded double-digit percentage growth in sales for the past five years. Sales grew at an especially high rate last summer as fuel prices reached $4 per gallon. Other popular models include the Think City and Think Neighbor, built by a former unit of Ford Motor Co., and such small manufacturers as Zenn Motor Co. and Wheego Electric Cars Inc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204348804574402673476299290.html

OmCheeto

Oct9-09, 10:18 AM

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, Im curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

It appears the $1.28/kj was a forecast. Shopping for supercaps results in a price of ~$5/kj. Which means the cost goes up to around $1200 for my requirements. The cost for the caps in the following vehicle would be around $40,000!

http://www.sinautecus.com/products.html#hybrid
Sinautec's forty-one seat Ultracap Buses have been serving the Greater Shanghai area since 2006. The bus is powered entirely by electricity, which is stored in ultracapacitors and batteries onboard. When the bus stops at passenger stops, the overhead charger quickly recharges the ultracapacitor onboard to allow the bus to go to its next destination. The battery serves as a back up power and allows the bus to extend its travelling range. The Ultracap Bus has a top speed of 35 miles per hour and has a maximum range of 45 miles between charges. The bus is ideal for on-campus shuttles and municipal bus lines with short in-between-stop intervals.

When solar panels are placed on top of charging stations and surrounding building, Sinautec's Ultracapacitor Bus can be powered completely by the sun. The bus draws electric power from the charging station solar panels in sunny days, and from the electric grid in cloudy conditions. Ultracap Bus uses less than 10% the fuel cost of a conventional bus. Compared to a diesel engine bus, an Ultracap Bus can achieve a lifetime fuel saving of $200,000. The vehicle is noise free and generates no tailpipe pollution. A Ultracap Bus can prevent over 100 tons of carbon-dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.

I'll be interested in the press coverage it gets when it comes to visit:

http://www.greenbang.com/zero-emission-ultracapacitor-minibus-gets-us-debut_11919.html
Zero-emission ultracapacitor minibus gets US debut ... on October 21st, in Washington DC.

mheslep

Oct9-09, 04:04 PM

The cost for the caps in the following vehicle would be around $40,000!

I'll be interested in the press coverage it gets when it comes to visit:Kind of odd to call it the 'ultra cap bus' with a ton of lead acid batteries on board (60kwh)
Vehicle Life: 8-12 years
Battery Replacement Every 18 Months
Yep, that's lead acid.

OmCheeto

Oct9-09, 08:06 PM

Kind of odd to call it the 'ultra cap bus' with a ton of lead acid batteries on board (60kwh)

There are two versions of the bus.
One is pure cap, with a range of about 3 miles.
The other is a hybrid lead/cap with a range of 45 miles.
Which version shows up in DC will also be interesting.

They list a charge time for the pure cap bus of 5 to 10 minutes.
Though as I recall from grade school, caps can be charged and discharged pretty much instantly, so I'd imagine it's the energy stations that still need development.

mheslep

Oct9-09, 08:39 PM

There are two versions of the bus.
One is pure cap, with a range of about 3 miles.Yes ok I see the top one: 6kWh of ultracaps, 6 miles with no air conditioning. I read 0.02 megajoules / kg elsewhere for ultracaps, so that is still one ton of storage. Lasts the life of the vehicle, and then some I expect.

They list a charge time for the pure cap bus of 5 to 10 minutes.
Though as I recall from grade school, caps can be charged and discharged pretty much instantly, so I'd imagine it's the energy stations that still need development.
Yep, charging in 5 minutes is supportable by the ultracaps, but would require 120kW service (i.e. 4KV at 30A - don't give me that cable) In the future, if the weight can get down to ~500 lbs the way to go here would be use a mechanical capacitor exchange, IMO.

Also they have the bus at 1.5 kWh per mile? I know its a heavy bus, but that's ~7x worse than an EV sedan going 60mph (0.2kWh per mile) and this bus tops at 30 mph. The starts and stops must take a toll, or that must include the air conditioning load.

mheslep

Oct18-09, 12:29 AM

I see the NRC sat on Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear reactor design this week.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-173.html
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has informed Westinghouse that the company has not demonstrated that certain structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building can withstand design basis loads.
...
The impact on the overall AP1000 certification review schedule will be established after the staff and Westinghouse discuss the company’s plans to address the NRC’s conclusions regarding the shield building design....
Response from Fla official:
"The NRC process is supposed to be new and improved, but I'm not so sure it is," said Nathan Skop, a member of the Florida Public Service Commission.

"The NRC has said it would streamline its processes and bring us off-the-shelf plans they would approve," said PSC Chairman Matthew Carter. "It's time for them to expedite the process. We have ratepayers' dollars on the line."
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE59F58U20091016?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11621
Yes I'd also say the NRC review is not 'improved'.

So now the US faces this delay on top of terminating the Yucca mountain waste facility.

Recall that China started construction of its first AP1000 in April.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/19/content_11217731.htm

mheslep

Oct21-09, 02:32 PM

US Wind installation continues to explode with another 7.5GW on track to be installed in 2009, a recession year. (See attached figure). Total capacity already exceeds 30GW (nameplate). Since 2004, the rate of installation has been doubling capacity every ~two years. At that rate by 2013, US wind capacity will be 10% of the total US electric capability (nameplate), which is frankly amazing. I doubt base load issues will be much of a problem prior to 15% or so.
http://www.awea.org/publications/reports/3Q09.pdf

I was curious as to why some of the states in the US wind belt have have been so far behind the others to stand up turbines. In particular Nebraska, Montana and the Dakotas have fantastic wind conditions (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp), and thus some of the best in the world, but next to no installation. Any residents have a reason why that is? Transmission I am sure is part of it, but that can't be the entire reason.

It occurs to me that a wind turbine would be a nice thing to own if one could get one cheap (say in a recession w/ over supply). A single common 1.5 MW turbine should produce about 5000 megawatt-hours per year in the wind belt (38% capacity factor). Wholesale electricity is about $35/MW-h, or $175,000 / year, year after year. I read the typical land lease for a turbine from Joe rancher/farmer is $15,000/year, and I speculate maintenance has a similar cost. However compared to a coal/gas plant, my wind turbine has no fuel price spike or fuel transportation worries, no EPA site impact studies before building the plant, no EPA inspection of my stack emissions. The trick of course is getting the turbine cheap (or getting a big tax credit from the stimulus), as the going price for a turbine 1.5MW turbine is about $2.5M installed, or about $240,000 / year to the bank (5%, 15years).

Another aspect of this analysis is the motivation by interest groups to push for a cap and trade. The price of electricity might well go to $70/MWh under cap and trade, and in that case a wind turbine puts cash in the bank in year after year, no tax credit required.

gmax137

Oct22-09, 07:04 AM

So, what are you waiting for?

Maybe you answered my question already - if your turbine brings in 175K/yr but you repay the bank 240K/yr, then you're losing 65K/yr for 15 years. Most businesses won't invest if the payback period exceeds just a few years. I will be the first to admit I'm pretty simple minded on business/money/economics, but there it is.

PS - I really like the G W quote at the bottom of your post; I don't recall reading that one before.

mheslep

Oct22-09, 11:06 AM

So, what are you waiting for?

To get one cheap on ebay! (or with a tax credit/stim. money which I mostly don't support). Recall that T. Boone placed a ~$10B order with GE for turbines that he can't use in the recession, so he might be giving away at a discount just to unload.:wink:
Maybe you answered my question already - if your turbine brings in 175K/yr but you repay the bank 240K/yr, then you're losing 65K/yr for 15 years. Most businesses won't invest if the payback period exceeds just a few years. I will be the first to admit I'm pretty simple minded on business/money/economics, but there it is.The business would be my own, its a bank the holds the note.

Topher925

Oct22-09, 12:07 PM

To get one cheap on ebay!

To buy an industrial sized wind turbine for a good price might be a little bit difficult as they are really only cost effective with multiple installations (aka. wind farms) unless your in some type of investment program. You could probably start an investment program in your neighborhood for buy shares of a turbine, similar airplane clubs buy planes.

You could also just buy your own personal wind turbine for your house. These CAN and DO save people money on energy costs but this is highly dependent upon the capacity factor around your home and how much you pay for power from the power company. Since power companies started doing energy swapping instead of buying back power, which is a rip off, wind turbines have become much more cost effective for micro generation. I think they are still to expensive to make economic sense for 99% of homeowners out there though.

As a general rule of thumb, if economics are a concern, a turbine owner should have at least a 10 mph average wind speed and be paying at least 10 cents/kWh for electricity.
http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html

mheslep

Oct22-09, 01:01 PM

To buy an industrial sized wind turbine for a good price might be a little bit difficult as they are really only cost effective with multiple installations (aka. wind farms) unless your in some type of investment program. I wasn't referring to building an industry, but the appeal of one unit, or a small share of a larger installation, if bought on a discount. I may not want a small coal or gas turbine power plant for which the operator had gone bankrupt, but a turbine is another matter. Little or no O&M, nor administration, but with a long, long term cash stream. That are not many economic investments available like that.

Topher925

Oct22-09, 03:34 PM

That are not many economic investments available like that.

Thats true. Large scale turbines have become very reliable and the MTBM keeps increasing with each generation. I would imagine the biggest risk would be a sudden shift in wind patterns but I don't think that ever happens for long periods of time.

mheslep

Oct22-09, 04:16 PM

Thats true. Large scale turbines have become very reliable and the MTBM keeps increasing with each generation. I would imagine the biggest risk would be a sudden shift in wind patterns but I don't think that ever happens for long periods of time.If one get's the thing cheap enough even long time wind lulls are no concern. There's no ongoing fuel costs or other overhead to support. And unlike a coal/gas plant, there's no clean up/shut down costs if one decides to sell out.

ticeans

Oct26-09, 10:59 PM

Great discussion Russ, thank you for having it.

My solution is everyone creating electricity at their homes, point of use generation. There are currently huge energy and maintenance drains with transmission of electricity over long distances.

My solution:

Why is it that turbines are things only airlines and power companies can use? Small turbine systems should be commercially available. If we can drive cars, we can use turbines safely.

You buy it in a store and bring it home, hook your propane line or bottle to it, and you get masses of electricity through steam and a turbine. Water has one of the highest coefficients of expansions, lets use it! The condensed hot water would be your water for showers, or brought back into the system to reheat. Could be mass produced inexpensively (if a car can be made for 10K, this thing could be made for much less- in the 1000 range.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/02/business/tiny-turbine-next-generator-company-hopes-its-small-unit-will-dominate-power.html

Small turbines for everyone now!!

russ_watters

Oct26-09, 11:21 PM

Chrysler did make a turbinen powered car in the '60s, but it never reached commercial viability. There are some inherrent issues, not the least of which is scaleability: turbines are so power dense that to make them small requires them to be physically tiny and I'm not sure that's all that easy to do. The Capstone turbine you linked - the system is the size of a large refrigerator and the output is 65 kW, more than 10x the peak need of most houses. Also, efficiency isn't really helped by being in a house. A good gas furnace already gets 96% efficiency for heating and a home turbine wouldn't be combined-cycle and so wouldn't get as good of efficiency as a power plant for your electricity. Lastly, maintentance would be an issue.

However there are some applications where turbines like the Capstone turbine really need to be used more. It should be a requirement that sewage treatment plants and landfills recover their methane instead of flaring (burning it into the atmosphere) it, for example. I did a study of a sewage treatment plant in Delaware a couple of years ago and it is a real head scratcher as to why they didn't consider this when it was built. Perhaps "microturbines" have only really become viable in the past decade or so.

gmax137

Oct27-09, 06:48 AM

... hook your propane line or bottle to it, and you get masses of electricity ...

Where do you think the propane will be coming from?

OmCheeto

Oct27-09, 07:46 AM

Also, efficiency isn't really helped by being in a house. A good gas furnace already gets 96% efficiency for heating.....

A friend of mine this summer mentioned something he'd heard where they were using gas powered engines to heat homes. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. Then he mentioned that they were also hooked to electric generators, so not only was all the waste heat being used to warm the house and water, it was generating electricity. I thought about it for about 12.3 seconds, and decided it was a good idea.

It appears Honda has such a device:

Micro Combined Heat and Power technology (MCHP) (http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx)

In a typical freewatt installation, the MCHP module has provided as much as 75 percent of a home's heating demand, plus enough electricity to power lights, small appliances and security systems.

In those areas where “net metering” is in place, excess electricity can be sold back to the local power company, reducing your utility costs even more.

The Honda MCHP has been used in Japan for over 5 years with over 80,000 installations.

Definitely something for us northerners to think about.

And no whiny 150,000 rpm turbines and reduction gears to worry about. Even the smallest turbines scare me, and I've only seen them on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1oSo03pl1g

mheslep

Oct27-09, 10:47 AM

Also see the smallish turbine (650HP) powered car Leno built recently.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2376951&postcount=308

mheslep

Oct27-09, 11:09 AM

Where do you think the propane will be coming from?Exactly, on two counts: 1) the propane has to still be pulled out of the ground, and 2) its transportation, storage, and pumping energy overhead are greater than the overhead electricity incurs over transmission lines.

mheslep

Oct27-09, 11:49 AM

... Perhaps "microturbines" have only really become viable in the past decade or so.MIT Prof Alan Epstein has been the leading advocate/expert on microturbines. For awhile Epstein wanted a turbine in every garage. I looked briefly at his work for a customer who wanted a longer lasting man packable energy source than batteries would currently provide. That is for life out to 72 hours and beyond (10-30W continuous) fuel cells, microturbines, and disposable primary batteries are under consideration.
http://thefutureofthings.com/articles/49/engine-on-a-chip.html

Q: What sort of performance should we expect from the engine?
A: The best metric is energy per unit weight, about 120-150 w-hr/kg for current commercial Li-ion rechargeable batteries. We expect that 500-700 whr/kg can be accomplished in the near term [from microturbines], rising to 1200-1500 whr/kg in the longer term (for the engine and its fuel supply).
...

Q: What were the major problems you faced on this project? What problems you still face?
A: There have been few easy challenges but the two most difficult problems have been (1) understanding the interaction between manufacturing precision and rotor-bearing performance, and (2) managing the tradeoff between the design requirements (of the thermodynamics, combustion, stress, fluid flow, and electromechanics) with complexity of the manufacturing process. In other words, how to achieve the functionality needed in something simple enough to build. This remains our largest challenge.
This device similar to this one has dimensions 4x21x21mm.
http://64.202.120.86/upload/image/articles/2007/engine-on-a-chip/micro-turbine-engine4_thumb.jpg

Topher925

Oct27-09, 12:25 PM

I don't see how a micro-turbine would provide any advantages over current technologies like fuel cells. Fuel cells are more efficient, have few or no moving parts, can achieve similar or higher power densities, and will probably always be cheaper.

mheslep

Oct27-09, 01:18 PM

I don't see how a micro-turbine would provide any advantages over current technologies like fuel cells. Fuel cells are more efficient,A turbine can obtain 40% efficiency, and in the context of this discussion, using one at home, the waste heat can be reused warm the home. I've not seen a suggestion that the waste heat from a fuel cell be so used.
have few or no moving parts,
Fuel pumps (which fuel cells also require) and bearings aside, a simple turbine need only have one moving part.
can achieve similar or higher power densities,
No, at ~2 kilowatts per kg for PEM fuel cells, they do not. No current technology approaches turbines for power density at ~8 kilowatts per kg, except for super conducting electric motors (10 kilowatts per kg), and they're mostly still in the lab.
and will probably always be cheaper.Based on what?

russ_watters

Oct27-09, 03:38 PM

MIT Prof Alan Epstein has been the leading advocate/expert on microturbines. For awhile Epstein wanted a turbine in every garage. I looked briefly at his work for a customer who wanted a longer lasting man packable energy source than batteries would currently provide. Well that's one cool invention he's got there. What we can do with it, though, I don't know (perhaps a gas-turbine/electric car?).

There is no need to compare a GTE against a fuel cell as Topher did - we need to back up and compare a GTE to what we have now and ask "why?" Ie:
A friend of mine this summer mentioned something he'd heard where they were using gas powered engines to heat homes. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. Then he mentioned that they were also hooked to electric generators, so not only was all the waste heat being used to warm the house and water, it was generating electricity. I thought about it for about 12.3 seconds, and decided it was a good idea. It sounds good until you really get into what it can really do for you and what it requires.

I worked on a 760 unit condo building in Philly a few years ago that put in a cogen plant in the early '80s. It had the following components:

-Diesel/Methane reciprocating engine and generator
-Exhaust heat recovery boiler
-Absorption chiller
-Standard diesel/methane boiler(s)
-Standard chiller(s)
-Normal grid power

Operation and maintenance required a full time staff of skilled engineers and mechanics. More importantly, though, it required full time monitoring to decide what components to run when. A few scenarios:

-At night, in deep winter, commercial electricity is cheap, so they typically ran the standard boilers and powered the building from the grid.
-During the day, in winter, they ran the generator and used some of the waste heat to heat the building. It couldn't provide full heat, so they also used the standard boilers.
-In summer, during the day, they used the generator to provide all the power, the absorption chiller to provide some chilled water and the regular chillers to provide the rest.

This is, of course, an oversimplification: varying gas/oil rates and requirements of your plant meant you actually had to continuously monitor and calculate which components of the plant to run when.

They stopped using it because the energy savings wasn't worth paying the plant engineers to operate and maintain it, plus the expertise to decide what components to run when was hard to come by (the original chief engineer retired and the replacement was nowhere near as good). And you guys want a plant like this in your house?

Best case, what can it do for you?
-In the dead of winter, you run the generator and provide all of your power, plus sell some back to the grid at a price that barely pays for the fuel it takes to generate that power. The waste heat won't be enough to keep your house warm, so you'll either need an additional furnace/boiler or electric backup. Since you're still buying the fuel and your overall system efficiency hasn't changed much from what I currently have now (grid power and a 96% efficient furnace) and you're buying your gas for retail prices, you gain little or nothing financially by doing this. But you can rightly claim to have a small impact on greenhouse gas generation if you live in an area where coal power is prevalent.
-In summer, you can run the generator and use it to power your air conditioning. The waste heat is almost entirely wasted unless you have an absorption chiller, which vastly increases the complexity of the system. You'll need electrical energy storage to limit the size of the generator, since your air conditioning uses a lot of power, but is only on 25% of the time.
-In spring and fall, having almost no need for waste heat, you'll run on grid power.

Overall, you save very little on your energy bills for a huge (perhaps $100k) investment in equipment. You can, however, feel good about lowering your carbon footprint by a couple of percent, maybe.

Over the next decade or so, some of this might change. Utilities might go to hourly billing and the prices might go way up. There might be some formula for this which could provide energy savings as the operating costs go up and the equipment costs don't.

First, though, someone has to actually commercialize a residential cogen plant!

mheslep

Oct27-09, 04:40 PM

...
First, though, someone has to actually commercialize a residential cogen plant!
Doesn't the Honda unit OC pointed to qualify?
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx

Also, I'd say residential can already be somewhat complex (appears so to me?). I have up and down furnaces, down heat pump/air conditioner, up air conditioner. All of that controlled by two thermostats w/ night/day cycles.

mheslep

Oct27-09, 04:48 PM

Well that's one cool invention he's got there. What we can do with it, though, I don't know (perhaps a gas-turbine/electric car?). ...The intent of that design is man portable electric power to replace / extend rechargeable batteries, e.g. run a PDA/laptop and radio continuously in the field for 4-5 days (24/day). The US Army funds him and is quite serious about micro-turbines

Topher925

Oct27-09, 09:11 PM

A turbine can obtain 40% efficiency, and in the context of this discussion, using one at home, the waste heat can be reused warm the home. I've not seen a suggestion that the waste heat from a fuel cell be so used.

Fuel pumps (which fuel cells also require) and bearings aside, a simple turbine need only have one moving part.

No, at ~2 kilowatts per kg for PEM fuel cells, they do not. No current technology approaches turbines for power density at ~8 kilowatts per kg, except for super conducting electric motors (10 kilowatts per kg), and they're mostly still in the lab.
Based on what?

Cogeneration fuel cell plants don't need to be suggested because they have already been implemented. http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/principle-behind-technology/operation-principle/

Portable fuel cells (methanol, biological, etc) typically do not use fuel pumps and have absolutely no moving parts. You are correct about the large ones needing fuel pumps (and blowers) which is why a threw in the word "few". A turbine will need some kind of throttle mechanism for control as well as the turbine itself. It also needs some method to prime itself and an electrical generator.

I was referring the system as a whole. Turbines don't produce electricity, they produce mechanical work so a generator + invert/converter + control system is required. Unless the electric load is constant voltage and current, the electrical components can get quite complex and heavy.

Topher925

Oct27-09, 09:15 PM

There is no need to compare a GTE against a fuel cell as Topher did - we need to back up and compare a GTE to what we have now and ask "why?"

Oh, but we do need to. Fuel cells and these micro-turbines share the same market, which is powering small devices. Fuel cell tech is already on the market.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=26153

And of course they also share the same market for larger scales as well which I cited above.

mheslep

Oct27-09, 09:36 PM

Cogeneration fuel cell plants don't need to be suggested because they have already been implemented. http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/principle-behind-technology/operation-principle/Ah, thanks for that. I was thinking PEM, but SOFC makes more sense for cogen because of the high operation temperature. Still, Seimens says that design is precommercial. Remains to be seen if if will pay off.

Portable fuel cells (methanol, biological, etc) typically do not use fuel pumps and have absolutely no moving parts.No doubt, but a it is likely a microturbine on that scale can also gravity or bladder feed.

You are correct about the large ones needing fuel pumps (and blowers) which is why a threw in the word "few". A turbine will need some kind of throttle mechanism for control as well as the turbine itself. It also needs some method to prime itself and an electrical generator. Fair enough.

I was referring the system as a whole. Turbines don't produce electricity, they produce mechanical work so a generator + invert/converter + control system is required. Unless the electric load is constant voltage and current, the electrical components can get quite complex and heavy.A fuel cell is also likely to need electrical load conditioning of some kind - at least an inverter for vehicle or residence.

russ_watters

Oct27-09, 10:28 PM

Doesn't the Honda unit OC pointed to qualify?
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx Oh, sorry, I hadn't even looked at the link!

The specs of that aren't real impressive (they advertise a peak thermodynamic efficiency of 85%, though the numbers don't compute), but in any case, any idea what it costs?
Also, I'd say residential can already be somewhat complex (appears so to me?). I have up and down furnaces, down heat pump/air conditioner, up air conditioner. All of that controlled by two thermostats w/ night/day cycles. You have two because you have two zones, but each is a single HVAC unit with a single thermostat. It might be three pieces each, but they are a matched set. That's nowhere close to the complexity of what would be needed for even this winter only cogen system.

First, a cogen based hvac system needs to be hydronic based and it needs to be integrated. That means you need:
-A secondary boiler
-A pump
-HVAC units with an add-on hot water coil in addition to the AC coil.
-An integrated control system that can balance the two heat sources and select power sources
-A UPS and autotransfer switch to seamlessly switch between grid power and cogen power (you won't want to run this if you have no use for the waste heat).

One has to go into this with the understanding that it is an expensive and complicated system that is only really useful in the winter and in all likelyhood provides no financial or environmental advantage. So as I asked above....why?

russ_watters

Oct27-09, 10:30 PM

gmax137

Oct28-09, 06:31 AM

-During the day, in winter, they ran the generator and used some of the waste heat to heat the building. It couldn't provide full heat, so they also used the standard boilers.
...

The waste heat won't be enough to keep your house warm, so you'll either need an additional furnace/boiler or electric backup.

I think this is a key point. Say your house uses 2 kW. If you are producing that power yourself (in order to take advantage of the waste heat) how much waste heat is there? If your electrical generation is at 40% efficiency, the answer is, about 10,000 Btu/hr. Is that alot? I don't think so. Most houses of a size to be using 2 kW electric probably have a 60 or 70,000 Btu/hr furnace.

So, while I agree that the idea of using the waste heat from generating electricity for home heating has a nice efficient elegance, in the end you have to install a furnace anyway. So you're paying more for equipment, without gaining much.

mheslep

Oct28-09, 12:44 PM

I think this is a key point. Say your house uses 2 kW. If you are producing that power yourself (in order to take advantage of the waste heat) how much waste heat is there? If your electrical generation is at 40% efficiency, the answer is, about 10,000 Btu/hr. Is that alot? I don't think so. Most houses of a size to be using 2 kW electric probably have a 60 or 70,000 Btu/hr furnace.We wouldn't expect the waste heat to replace the primary furnace, just supplement it. In most parts of the US, the average home heating load will almost always far exceed the electrical load, except in the South. Perhaps there a residential cogen system could entirely replace a furnace.

So, while I agree that the idea of using the waste heat from generating electricity for home heating has a nice efficient elegance, in the end you have to install a furnace anyway. So you're paying more for equipment, without gaining much.Is it?

A MMbtu of natural gas is about $3 for me at present, that's 29.3 kWh/MMbtu, or $3/29.3 = ~$0.10 per kWh of energy delivered by the gas pipe. Perhaps only 40% of that is converted to electrical energy by something like that Honda cogen, but the rest of the 'waste' heat would also be used for heat in the Winter, in the Summer it is truly discarded. I pay about $0.07 / kWh for electric (thanks partly to old nuclear) so no wins there, especially after paying the capital cost for adding the cogen. I would get electrical backup as a by product of the cogen, but that doubtless could be done more cheaply by directly buying a battery or simple ICE-generator backup system.

Bob S

Oct28-09, 01:47 PM

A MMbtu of natural gas is about $3 for me at present, that's 29.3 kWh/MMbtu, or $3/29.3 = ~$0.10 per kWh of energy delivered by the gas pipe....

I hope it's closer to 293.08 kWh per MMbtu. So $3/293.08 = $0.0102
per kWh.

Bob S

Bob S

Oct28-09, 02:01 PM

The intent of that design is man portable electric power to replace / extend rechargeable batteries, e.g. run a PDA/laptop and radio continuously in the field for 4-5 days (24/day). The US Army funds him and is quite serious about micro-turbines
The military has special interest in high power density back packs:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/24/financial/f163512D64.DTL&feed=rss.business
Bob S

gmax137

Oct28-09, 02:03 PM

A MMbtu of natural gas is about $3 for me at present, that's 29.3 kWh/MMbtu, or $3/29.3 = ~$0.10 per kWh of energy delivered by the gas pipe.

Are these units right? If 1 MMBtu is 1,000,000 Btu that would be 293 kW hr, right? Using 3413 Btu per kW hr. I'm not a nat gas customer (no pipes around here!) so I always get confused on the units. I think 1 MMBtu is approximately 1,000 cubic feet. So you're paying $3 per 1,000 cu feet?

edit: I see Bob S beat me to this point. That's what happens when I look at this site at work, the pesky work keeps on interfering...

mheslep

Oct28-09, 03:57 PM

I hope it's closer to 293.08 kWh per MMbtu. So $3/293.08 = $0.0102
per kWh.

Bob S

Are these units right? If 1 MMBtu is 1,000,000 Btu that would be 293 kW hr, right? Using 3413 Btu per kW hr. I'm not a nat gas customer (no pipes around here!) so I always get confused on the units. I think 1 MMBtu is approximately 1,000 cubic feet. So you're paying $3 per 1,000 cu feet?

edit: I see Bob S beat me to this point. That's what happens when I look at this site at work, the pesky work keeps on interfering...

Arg, yes, apologies all around. That changes things a little. :redface: I'm paying ~30 cents per therm, or $3/MMBtu. That's then $0.01 per kWh of gas at the pipe. Maybe the Honda cogen does pay.

parkland

Nov6-09, 08:37 PM

OmCheeto

Nov7-09, 02:05 PM

Hello everyone, this is my 2nd post here.
Having worked in the oilfield for years, and now running my own solar business, I have a few thoughts and opinions I'd like to share.

1. Oil is likely to become a secondary fuel, but never run out. Right now, we are on the brink of oil becoming so expensive that other ideas and technologies are starting to become a cost effective reality. Even after new fuel sources move in, oil will still be around for decades. IMHO, if new technologies take the market enough, you can expect the price of oil to go down and make it hard for new technologies in terms of acceptance, as well as financial backing.

2. I believe most people think of solar power as expensive panels that stop working when it's cloudy or night time - think again. I believe that the biggest breakthrough will be algae oil farming, which uses sunlight to grow algae to harvest the oil, which could be stored and burned in cars, trucks, generators, etc. While this technology is new and not yet widely profitable, eventually it will be, and it will be a huge punch in the face to oil companies that currently own the entire market.

3. It should be up to utility companies to implement alternative energy. Our houses are already wired electrically, it makes no difference if the electricity is from coal, nuclear, biomass, or sun. The company can harvest alternative energy much cheaper than people putting solar panels on their house or running a lister engine from cooking oil. They also have buying power, which a household does not when they put up panels or a wind turbine. It is stupid for the government to hand out grant money for home owners to buy equipment that could have provided 3x the free energy if the cash had gone to a utility company instead.

....maybe more coming, once my thought train boards at the station.....

Welcome to PF parkland. You have many good points. Though I would not be so quick to point fingers, as all governments, utilities, corporations, and individuals have a roll in energy conservation, production, and distribution. Everyone does what they think is best, and opinions are very diverse as to what exactly "best" is.

But if I were to point a finger, it would have to be at myself. Knowing full well the thermal conductivity differences between air and glass, I knew long ago(20 years!) that my single pane windows were losing as much energy as the entire rest of my house even though they only accounted for 5% of the total surface area. It wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that I finally insulated the last 36 ft2.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't get pissy when people experiment with different methods(political, economic, etc.) of energy conservation, we should get pissy when they do nothing at all.

BenchTop

Nov7-09, 08:22 PM

I read that Germany proposes to install small, gas powered electric generators in individual homes. These will feed the grid on demand and the homeowners will make direct use of the exhaust heat for water and winter heating.
The justification given was that it was far cheaper than adding a nuclear power plant.

russ_watters

Nov7-09, 09:10 PM

parkland

Nov7-09, 09:16 PM

I want to poke my thought process into your last comment, I mean this in a positive way :)

Welcome to PF parkland. You have many good points. Though I would not be so quick to point fingers, as all governments, utilities, corporations, and individuals have a roll in energy conservation, production, and distribution. Everyone does what they think is best, and opinions are very diverse as to what exactly "best" is.

-True, but the reason I think more responsibility should lie within the government and major utility companies and corporations is that they can make more efficient use of money compared to individual households. Acts such as you replacing your windows, or me adding extra insulation in my attic are instances that are more "good will" than anything else, and not enough people think like this.

But if I were to point a finger, it would have to be at myself. Knowing full well the thermal conductivity differences between air and glass, I knew long ago(20 years!) that my single pane windows were losing as much energy as the entire rest of my house even though they only accounted for 5% of the total surface area. It wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that I finally insulated the last 36 ft2.

-This is also true, we are all responsible for our actions, in sort of a "lie in the hole you dig" sort of way, but for your average person, they simply get the hydo bill, and pay it. When the car is out of gas, they fill it up. If they happen to stumble on a great deal on dual pane windows when theirs need to be replaced, or if the garage fills the air in their tires during a routine inspection, unfortunately is more likely than them taking incentive on their own to improve something without seeing immediate benefits.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't get pissy when people experiment with different methods(political, economic, etc.) of energy conservation, we should get pissy when they do nothing at

Whos pissy? LOL, just kidding.... I'm all for experimenting, heck, thats pretty near what I do. I just think that when it comes down to spending, the method could be improved.

For an example, we have grants now for solar. The government and hydro company has tested and guaranteed that certain solar equipment will not only pay for itself, but save money in the long run.
Instead of handing out grants to home owners to have "loosely" trained installers set up relatively complicated equipment for 1 SINGLE HOUSE, imagine how far that money could have gone if a central location was set up and utilised not only the buying power, but also the installation expertise of the power company. I'm sorry, but almost every installation I've seen is either loosing 5 hours of light per day because of a tree the owner will not cut down, or some other cosmetic reason. While this generates local business for trades people, like myself, I believe it is a huge waste of money intended to make a difference.

This is like hiring someone to come over and cook supper for a family, instead of just going to the restaurant.

OK, I'm done. Please take no offence, this is only my opinion. There is a good chance I might be wrong. I just like to yell right up to the second I get shot down LOL. :)

BenchTop

Nov8-09, 04:51 AM

That sounds like something the Germans might say, but where did you read that?

I'm not finding the original thing I read, but here are links to more info.

http://www.danielk.ca/2009/09/cogeneration-goes-residential-in-germany.html

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/579/2006-136-en.pdf
The operation of micro cogeneration plants is promoted by legislation in Germany. The most important
effects are
the exemption from the electricity tax for power plants with an electric capacity below 2 MW,
the exemption from the natural gas tax for CHP plants with an average energy efficiency above 70%, and
the payment of an bonus of 5,11 Cent per kilowatt hour for electricity fed into the grid from small CHP
plants that are commissioned before 2006.

This shows how great is the influence of ... um.... collateral expenses that have nothing to do with delivering actual power.

mheslep

Nov9-09, 01:06 PM

I'm not finding the original thing I read, but here are links to more info.

http://www.danielk.ca/2009/09/cogeneration-goes-residential-in-germany.html

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/579/2006-136-en.pdf

This shows how great is the influence of ... um.... collateral expenses that have nothing to do with delivering actual power.I suppose then that the residential cogen unit made by Honda (mentioned up thread (http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx)) is targeted at places like Germany.

Brian H

Nov14-09, 04:39 AM

Speaking of Germans and windows and physics and CO2 -- http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
Sample excerpt:
"In [the] case of partial differential equations more than the equations themselves the boundary
conditions determine the solutions. There are so many different transfer phenomena--radiative
transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.--and many
types of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc., for which
there does not exist an applicable theory, ... that one even cannot write down the boundary
conditions [176, 177].
In the "approximated" discretized equations artificial unphysical boundary conditions are introduced, in order to prevent running the system into non-physical states. Such a "calculation", which yields an arbitrary result, is no calculation [at all] in the sense of physics, and hence, in the sense of science. There is no reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on ... climates." {Edited slightly to correct Gerglish grammar.}

The paper demonstrates not only that the IR blockage hypothesis is false for atmospheres, but it doesn't even apply to glass greenhouses!
So we should actually maximize CO2 production to boost agriculture. Solving the energy crisis is a totally separate issue.

BenchTop

Nov14-09, 11:32 AM

mheslep

Nov14-09, 05:13 PM

Hopefully we can stick to ENERGY topics in this thread.

Relay

Nov14-09, 06:43 PM

America needs to go on a diet! You must give up your fast high energy life styles. Forget solar and wind power, the dollars per power ratio is just too high. Build more hydroelectric generating stations, wildlife be damned. Switch all your home lighting to LEDs. For higher light output switch to the new sulphur lights. Forget your automobile, invest in Canada's tunnel boring machines and build underground moving sidewalks to get around. Ten foot or wider belts moving at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25km will move many people around. Walk and run on the belts to get to your destinations. Tell your engineers to design these transportation belts so that they can be serviced while operating. Use the railway to move between cities and states. Build nuclear power plants to carry over to the future and build them under ground deep. Most important of all do research to find a new energy source to solve your problems. There is no shortage of energy in the universe. There's more but I think you get the idea.

Brian H

Nov15-09, 12:41 AM

Brian H

Nov15-09, 12:54 AM

By golly... when you start questioning things you find out, eh?
I'm still trying to get over the fact that it took me more than half a century to realise that the sun is not yellow but white. It's not like it was hiding from me all that time - I was guilty of believing without properly looking, much less thinking.
Heh.
Of course, it's only white by biological convention. Our eyes are built to exploit a particular slice of solar EM frequencies and treat the 'colors' equally so they blend as phenomenological white. A perceived color shows imbalance in the input, which is information to be appreciated and exploited.
The imbalance that makes the sun look yellow when regarded directly, of course, is the preferential scattering of the blue component across the sky. TANSTAAFC (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Color).
And that, my son, is why the sun is yellow and the sky is blue!

See, you can learn something new every day! :biggrin:

Brian H

Nov15-09, 01:23 AM

Hopefully we can stick to ENERGY topics in this thread.

If the radiative and retained thermal balance of the planet doesn't have to do with energy, what does? :confused: :smile:

OmCheeto

Nov15-09, 09:36 AM

If the radiative and retained thermal balance of the planet doesn't have to do with energy, what does? :confused: :smile:

Perhaps he meant "stick to the topic as outlined by the original post"

We always have threads on various pieces of the puzzle, but what I want here is for people to post a coherent plan of how to fix the energy problems we have in the US (and critique what others propose). Some groundrules:

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).

HERE (http://www.agmrc.org/markets/info/energyoverview.pdf) is a site from another thread with some background info on what we use for what.

I'll go first (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=308892#post308892)....

I've taken the liberty of highlighting some of the constraints which appear to be have been deviated from in the last few posts.

mheslep

Nov19-09, 01:06 AM

Well I'm very happy to see a this collaboration between Senators from Virginia and Tennessee on energy.
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2009-11-16-01.cfm
This is maybe a $20B energy bill over its lifetime, tops. No sweeping attempt to reinvent the economy in a trillion dollar bill, but a common sense collaboration between both parties.

“If we were going to war, we wouldn’t mothball our nuclear navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If addressing climate change and creating low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we shouldn’t stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills,” said Senator Alexander. “This legislation will create the business and regulatory environment to double our country’s nuclear power production within 20 years and to launch five Mini-Manhattan projects to make advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-competitive.”

Summary:
* A $10 billion authorization that can leverage up to $100 billion in government backed loans for the development of clean, carbon-free energy to bring in investors and project developers to jump start efforts that are otherwise too capital-intensive up front.
* $100 million per year for 10 years toward nuclear education and training. [...]
* $200 million per year for 5 years for a cost-sharing mechanism between government and industry to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review new nuclear reactor designs such as small and medium reactors and help bring those technologies from concept into the market place.
* $50 million per year for 10 years for much needed research to extend the lifetime of our current nuclear fleet and maximize the production of low-cost nuclear power.
* $750 million per year for 10 years for research and development of low-cost solar technology, battery technology, advanced bio-fuels, low-carbon coal, and technologies that will reduce nuclear waste. [...]

I happen to like both Webb and Alexander.

mheslep

Dec1-09, 11:47 AM

Exxon just made released their energy forecasts, stating that the developed world will be flat, no growth:

From Japan to the U.S. to Europe, energy consumption will be flat. Exxon expects zero growth in energy consumption in the world’s developed economies. Indeed, energy demand is expected to be slightly lower in 2030 than in 2005. “The main reason is efficiency,” says Mr. Swiger. It’s a very different story in China, India and other developing economies which are expected to boast a 2.1% annual growth in energy consumption.
http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/energy09/id96206447.cfm, slide 6
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_2008_energyoutlook.pdf

The EIA forecasts contradict Exxon. Out to 2030, the EIA forecasts 1.2% annual growth of primary energy consumption for the US, with growth about the same in fossile fuels (with highest growth fore cast for coal) and renewables. EIA forecasts 0.7% growth for OECD Europe. **

Sorry EIA, I'm with Exxon on this one. Clearly at the moment we're seeing declining usage and emission now in OECD countries; this is all chalked up to the economic downturn, but I think that's over used as a cause. I see renewables growing faster, CCGT continuing to replace coal as natural gas is cheap and going to stay that way, and plenty of money continuing to pore into efficiency - lighting, heating, etc.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_1.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_2.pdf

** Note to Europeans - EIA forecasts nuclear will decline in Europe at 1% annually.

mheslep

Dec2-09, 01:49 PM

Sorry EIA, I'm with Exxon on this one. Clearly at the moment we're seeing declining usage and emission now in OECD countries; this is all chalked up to the economic downturn, but I think that's over used as a cause. I see renewables growing faster, CCGT continuing to replace coal as natural gas is cheap and going to stay that way, and plenty of money continuing to pore into efficiency - lighting, heating, etc.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_1.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_2.pdf

** Note to Europeans - EIA forecasts nuclear will decline in Europe at 1% annually.
Yep, here we go, another data point today showing coal on the way down. Progress (big utility in the SE) is closing existing coal plants, 30-50 years old. They're going with gas instead. Exxon rules, EIA drools.

Big Utility to Close 11 Plants Using Coal (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/energy-environment/02coal.html?_r=2&ref=us)

MTurner

Dec9-09, 02:24 PM

Several solutions I propose for consideration:
1. Federally encourage telecommuting - Employer doesn't pay workman's compensation for any worker that works 36 or more hours a week from home. Imagine how many cars wouldn't be in the commute any more. Encourage an exodus away from the cities.
2. Use remaining TARP funds for an infrastructure project that repaints all road lines using solar collecting paint and build trickle taps from the roads into the power grid. Build large stable battery substations to store excess grid energy and use it first. Encourage private industry to hook into the substations to provide power by paying them competitive rates to the power companies. This could employee millions of people from various skill levels for a short term boost to the economy and a long term boost to our power level.
3. Marry the coal and carbon industries so that the folks who want to make nanofibers get on board with the folks who want to burn coal to find the very best method of capturing all that 'pollution' and turning it into fibers. We have coal. It is not economically feasible for us not to use it. Let's figure out the very best way to use it. The by-product at it's worst from this effort will still be many times better than nuclear waste.
4. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>
5. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>
6. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>
7. Create national inventors 'Olympics' where artists and inventors would present their creations for judgement. The best ones would be federally promoted. Let's get some power behind the innovation of the people. Sponsor it through a national lottery with the winner selected during the Olympics or something.
8. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>

Alfi

Dec9-09, 04:15 PM

4. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>
5. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>
6. << off-topic idea deleted by berkeman >>
Damn! I was just reading those. I thought they were some good ideas that could be explored.
Please. MTurner re post them in a new thread. I see a few flaws to the ideas but ... that's what discussions are all about.

MTurner

Dec9-09, 05:08 PM

Doh figures, I didn't copy it anywhere. I can try to rewrite, but not sure which forum would be appropriate...

mrlaughingman

Dec10-09, 07:52 AM

i feel that we need to explore new fields of energy. what i mean by that is get away from the standard electricity and experiment with new forms of energy such as changing radiation maybe so it would be harmless for normal people to handle. i feel that electricity is a very crude and raw power source for us to be using.

Topher925

Dec10-09, 10:47 AM

mrlaughingman

Dec10-09, 12:07 PM

So how exactly does one go about "changing radiation"?

i was just saying we need to experiment with changing forms of energy is all. i dont know how one would be able to achieve that goal but thats what experimenting is for.

MTurner

Dec11-09, 11:16 AM

I understand what you mean by new forms of energy. I personnaly think our next big breakthrough will come when we are able to capture and store light. Instead of simply harvesting energy from solar power we could capture the power of the sun and take it with us to use as needed. I don't mean creating little mini suns, I mean storing the power like filling up a jug with water. It is no more far fetched than filling a battery with electricity was 200 years ago...

Nspyred

Dec18-09, 09:55 PM

Nspyred

Dec19-09, 09:21 AM

Solar thermal storage would be another option.

rpm

Dec27-09, 03:26 PM

A friend told me to Google search "smackbooster.pdf"
Check this out.

I built and installed one of these in my Dodge truck and it really works.
I'm getting over 42 mile/gal city :)

Just read it.

OmCheeto

Dec27-09, 06:18 PM

A friend told me to Google search "smackbooster.pdf"
Check this out.

I built and installed one of these in my Dodge truck and it really works.
I'm getting over 42 mile/gal city :)

Just read it.

hmmm.... I just read it's illegal. For the smackbooster to work apparently, you are required to lean the fuel air mixture by modifying the pollution sensory system. This will also degrade exhaust emissions to the point that you will no longer meet federal pollution standards. I also read that the Oxygen Hydrogen mixture doesn't really do very much. Running the engine lean will apparently give you the same gas savings.

rpm

Dec27-09, 07:26 PM

hmmm.... I just read it's illegal. For the smackbooster to work apparently, you are required to lean the fuel air mixture by modifying the pollution sensory system. This will also degrade exhaust emissions to the point that you will no longer meet federal pollution standards. I also read that the Oxygen Hydrogen mixture doesn't really do very much. Running the engine lean will apparently give you the same gas savings.

Actually it lowers fuel emissions by burning all of the fuel as it reverts back to water out the tail pipe.
Also, Lowers cylinder temperature as it increases cylinder pressure.

Running the engine lean will apparently give you the same gas savings is not true.
I have the ability to lean with or without HHO gases.
I tested it myself. Leaning the motor reduces power.

There is a 16 to 1 fuel to air ratio (stock computer controlled).
HHO gas is 6 times more powerful than gasoline.
The system makes the gas on demand so you don't have to store it.

You must work for a oil company...LOL!

Char. Limit

Dec27-09, 09:40 PM

Here's a solution:

Stop driving. In your garage, there's an old metal contraption. It hasn't been used in years, and it feels really lonely. It might need a little oil, but not as much as your behemoth Hummer does. It might also need a little cleaning, but, again, not as much as your behemoth Hummer does. It has some good qualities though. Your gas mileage will be infinite, and you'll get in better shape as you use it to get from place to place. You might also meet new people as you go somewhere.

It's called a bike.

Barring that, all I can say is ditch the Hummer and get a smaller car. Some really cheap cars get surprisingly good gas mileages. You might even get a profit just from the trade-in.

rpm

Dec27-09, 10:20 PM

Ivan Seeking

Dec27-09, 11:47 PM

The HHO systems have been pretty well debunked.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304690

Redbelly98

Dec28-09, 11:04 AM

HHO gas is 6 times more powerful than gasoline.

If that's true, then it takes at least 6 times as much energy to produce it. And that energy is coming from the car battery***, which gets it's energy from burning fuel in the engine! So that's a net loss of energy.

This is basic thermodynamics / conservation of energy.

***source: 1st paragraph of the "Smack's booster" pdf file you told us about.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smack.pdf

Ivan Seeking

Dec28-09, 02:53 PM

If that's true, then it takes at least 6 times as much energy to produce it. And that energy is coming from the car battery***, which gets it's energy from burning fuel in the engine! So that's a net loss of energy.

This is basic thermodynamics / conservation of energy.

***source: 1st paragraph of the "Smack's booster" pdf file you told us about.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smack.pdf

The legitimate HOD proponents claim that the advantage of the system is found in the improved combustion of the petro fuel, not the energy contained in the hydrogen. But that claim seems to be debunked in the link I provided.

There is the scam side of this, which is effectively a free-energy claim, but I don't think that is the claim here.

rpm

Dec28-09, 04:00 PM

WOW!

I guess this guys wrong??

[crackpot link deleted]

Ivan Seeking

Dec28-09, 06:41 PM

WOW!

I guess this guys wrong??

[crackpot link deleted]

Heh, that is Bob Lazar, who also claims to have reverse engineered alien spacecrafts at Area 51.

Bob Lazar is specifically cited in our banned topics list in the general guidelines.

Redbelly98

Dec28-09, 07:21 PM

The legitimate HOD proponents claim that the advantage of the system is found in the improved combustion of the petro fuel, not the energy contained in the hydrogen. But that claim seems to be debunked in the link I provided.

There is the scam side of this, which is effectively a free-energy claim, but I don't think that is the claim here.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I admit I was surprised at how easy it seemed to come up with a rebuttal.

OmCheeto

Jan2-10, 05:19 PM

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I admit I was surprised at how easy it seemed to come up with a rebuttal.

Nasa looked into something similar, but did not include any oxygen in the mix.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

From figure 10 on page 34, the minimum power input for a constant power output appeared to be the same for both gasoline and gasoline-hydrogen mixtures. All the hydrogen did was shift the fuel to air ratio, or "equivalence ratio" as they called it.

The closest thing to a real experiment with HHO was at Frybrid.com, where the author claimed a loss of efficiency:

http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108150&postcount=18
Powering the HHO generator from the alternator REDUCED the fuel economy by 3% to 10%. Under ideal conditions, it does not improve combustion enough to make up for the added load on the alternator and engine by the HHO generator itself.

So if someone is getting an improvement in fuel economy on the road with HHO, it is most likely that either they are making up for an engine miss-tune or they have changed their driving style to a more efficient style.

Ivan Seeking

Jan5-10, 12:23 AM

Note that what Lazar claims in the video is basically correct: One can run a car on hydrogen. This is not a secret. What he doesn't say is that its a lot cheaper to burn petro. This is true even if you factor in the use of solar power for the hydrogen generation. He is correct in that storage is an issue with hydrogen fuel, which I suspect gets to the core of his video. My guess is that he is trying to sell his secret plans to make lithium-6 deuteride - yet another Lazar scam.

Also note that we never even saw the car run. Given Lazar's history, the car probably still runs on gasoline!

To my knowledge there are presently no viable [commercially available] storage media for hydrogen as hydride, but this is a focal point for H2 technology proponents.

Topher925

Jan5-10, 10:50 AM

To my knowledge there are presently no viable [commercially available] storage media for hydrogen as hydride, but this is a focal point for H2 technology proponents.

Ovonics has hydride type hydrogen storage commercially available along with their own refill program.
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/en/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=108&idproduct=1235

Technically, NiMH batteries use a hydride to store hydrogen as well but its obviously not for multipurpose storage.

IMP

Jan5-10, 12:34 PM

I don’t know about “fixing” the energy crisis, but I do know how to make some progress, and it starts at home.

I cut my electricity bill in half (actually about 56% compared to the year before, calculating for rate changes).

1. Swapped all incandescent bulbs for CFL (except oven and freezer). Cost: approx $110. DYI.
2. Added about 18 inches of blown-in cellulose insulation into attic. Cost: approx $900. DYI.
3. Added ridge vent to attic. Cost: approx $350. DYI
4. Had foam pumped into all existing exterior walls (47 year old house with existing Rock Wool insulation) Cost: $2500. Contracted this out (retrofoam).
5. Replaced 17 year old HVAC with modern unit. Cost: $3500. Contracted this out.
6. Replaced every window in the house, and back patio door. Had single pane with aluminum frame. Went with Pella Impervia dual pane with low-e coating (they have fiberglass frames). Cost: $7900. Contracted this out.
7. Added second layer of aluminized fiberglass insulation to all HVAC ducting in attic. Cost: approx $275. DYI.

Spent so far: approx $15535. I get $1500 back in cash for my 2009 tax return, making my actual investment $14035. I know the payback will take years, and that was not really my only motivation. My house is significantly quieter than it used to be, no more barking dogs keeping me up at night. The house is just “cozier” if that makes sense. As for the actual payback, I am saving about $1800 per year in electricity usage, it will take just under 8 years before I break even (at the current electrical rate).

Yet to do:
1. Install grid-tied solar voltaic system (I have a huge South facing roof section with no trees).
2. Replace hot water heater with on-demand unit.
3. Purchase fuel efficient vehicle (still haven’t found one I really like yet).
4. Install “solar screens” over all windows.
5. Install radiant barrier over cellulose insulation in attic.

I can’t claim that everyone doing this would “fix” the energy crisis, but it is a good head start.

mheslep

Jan5-10, 03:36 PM

Thanks for this post IMP. Couple follow up questions if you are inclined.

2. Added about 18 inches of blown-in cellulose insulation into attic. Cost: approx $900. DYI.Blown-in? How did you manage a DIY? Rent the blower, etc? How does that work out with any attic stored nick-nacks you may have? Does some insulation tend to blow every time you enter the attic?
4. Had foam pumped into all existing exterior walls (47 year old house with existing Rock Wool insulation) Cost: $2500. Contracted this out (retrofoam).What entry hole to the wall does this require? If there are horizontal between-stud braces installed at mid-wall, would it require two holes for every fill - one up and one down? If so how does the contractor go about repairing the entry holes?

6. Replaced every window in the house, and back patio door. Had single pane with aluminum frame. Went with Pella Impervia dual pane with low-e coating (they have fiberglass frames). Cost: $7900. Contracted this out.Care to say how many windows (plus the one door) for $7900? That seems like a very good price.

IMP

Jan5-10, 03:57 PM

Thanks for this post IMP. Couple follow up questions if you are inclined.
Blown-in? How did you manage a DIY? Rent the blower, etc? How does that work out with any attic stored nick-nacks you may have? Does some insulation tend to blow every time you enter the attic?
What entry hole to the wall does this require? If there are horizontal between-stud braces installed at mid-wall, would it require two holes for every fill - one up and one down? If so how does the contractor go about repairing the entry holes?

Care to say how many windows (plus the one door) for $7900? That seems like a very good price.

Home Depot will loan the blower free for one day for every 8 bags of cellulose you purchase.
I removed everything from the attic first (45 years worth of stuff, no easy task!)
The insulation is very stable and does not seem to blow around. It "settles" very nicely.
The retrofoam required them to drill three holes between every stud cavity all the way around the house (maybe 200 holes or more)(this answers your horizontal stud question too). They drilled in the mortar between the bricks, 3/4" holes I believe. After pumping the foam, they patched the mortar. You can't even tell they were ever there (they matched the mortar color perfectly).
9 windows total, with a couple of those being very large. And the back patio door is large as well.

kjsigpa

Jan13-10, 02:22 PM

I hate to admit this but the frogs (French) got it right. Nuclear power is the answer for the bulk of our needs. The French have a single design, i.e. single training program, single logistics pipeline for parts etc. Recycling of nuclear materials and waste is also accompished.

Now with nuclear being constructed we can reduce oil dependence through coal gassification and use in diesel engines. As Nuclear progresses we can transition our natural gas use for electrical generation to automobile use.

As natural gas and coal gassification are used for automobile / transportation use it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Hydrogen is a bomb waiting to go off. Has anyone seen the operating pressures for the hydrogen vehicles? I belive it is in the range of 10000psi. Can anyone say hindenburg?

Solar while usable is not for the large usage. It would take hundreds of thousands of acres to provide enough energy to make a dent. I think I saw someplace that to provide for the countries needs we would have to cover the state of texas with solar panels.

Wind is only usable where windy. Then it takes a lot of space as well.

Just my $.02

mheslep

Jan13-10, 04:00 PM

kjsigpa

Jan13-10, 05:22 PM

mheslep

Jan13-10, 06:23 PM

Mheslep,

If I am providing misinformation, please let me and the rest of the posters know where the information is incorrect and provide the correct information so we can all learn. If I am correct then please admit it.

J
Welcome to PF kjsigpa.

Sorry that I was abrupt, but it's not my job to provide all the correct information, nor parse in detail the dozen or more claims in your post. The agreement at PF is that, regarding claims, one either posts from expertise or based on sources which you reference, especially in the science and engineering forums. The less expertise, the more references required in my view. If you care to single out any one of those subjects - nuclear, gas, France, wind, coal gasification, etc, etc, AND your basis for making that assertion, I'll respond in kind.

gmax137

Jan14-10, 06:28 AM

The French have a single design

If I am providing misinformation, please let me and the rest of the posters know where the information is incorrect and provide the correct information so we can all learn.

The french have both 3-loop 900 MW units and 4-loop 1300 MW units, as well as a few other units of assorted designs.

{edit} http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/rds2-26_web.pdf

Buckleymanor

Jan15-10, 09:54 AM

The HHO systems have been pretty well debunked.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304690
That is a conclusion easily arrived at if you consider that you can't get something for nothing.
What most people don't consider even advocates of HHO systems is that if you approach it from a K.E.R.S point of view it does make some sense, energy is produced by the alternator when the vehicle is brakeing.
This energy would go to waste in slowing the vehicle. instead it is converted to brown gas or whatever.
So you ain't getting something for nothing but you are getting something that would go to waste as heat.

OmCheeto

Jan15-10, 10:47 AM

That is a conclusion easily arrived at if you consider that you can't get something for nothing.
What most people don't consider even advocates of HHO systems is that if you approach it from a K.E.R.S point of view it does make some sense, energy is produced by the alternator when the vehicle is brakeing.
This energy would go to waste in slowing the vehicle. instead it is converted to brown gas or whatever.
So you ain't getting something for nothing but you are getting something that would go to waste as heat.

So how much HHO is generated in 10 seconds with a 14.4 volt 10 amp power source?
Never mind. I'll just do a straight energy conversion.
answer: 144 watt seconds, which = 144 joules.

hmmm..... ke = 1/2 mv2

v = sqrt(144*2/1600) = 0.42 m/s, which is just shy of 1 mph.
Not quite back up to 30 mph, which is the benchmark for most of my KERS thought experiments.

Actually this will tell us what the current would have to be.
143,000 joules, which over 10 seconds yields 14,000 watts, into 14.4 volts, yields 972 amps.

Wow. I'll have to get a bigger alternator. And how much HHO would that generate? Because we of course have to store it in a bottle because we are coming to a stop.

Ah! Late for work. I'll do the math later.

Buckleymanor

Jan15-10, 01:35 PM

So how much HHO is generated in 10 seconds with a 14.4 volt 10 amp power source?
Never mind. I'll just do a straight energy conversion.
answer: 144 watt seconds, which = 144 joules.

hmmm..... ke = 1/2 mv2

v = sqrt(144*2/1600) = 0.42 m/s, which is just shy of 1 mph.
Not quite back up to 30 mph, which is the benchmark for most of my KERS thought experiments.

Actually this will tell us what the current would have to be.
143,000 joules, which over 10 seconds yields 14,000 watts, into 14.4 volts, yields 972 amps.

Wow. I'll have to get a bigger alternator. And how much HHO would that generate? Because we of course have to store it in a bottle because we are coming to a stop.

Ah! Late for work. I'll do the math later.
So it takes 144 joules to allmost produce 1mph.
But 143,000 joules to reach 30mph.
Seems a tad excesive.
Would have thought it would be more like 4,500 joules.
But I am no expert I only mentioned it made "some" sense in so far that there is "some" gain without breaking any conservation laws.
If it is possible to improve on this by using a larger alternator or fly wheel arangement then good.It might not be able to compete with the standard efficiency of a K.E.R.S arrangement.
But it might be possible to be able to store the energy produced indefinately which could be usefull,unlike a flywheel.

Redbelly98

Jan15-10, 04:40 PM

So it takes 144 joules to allmost produce 1mph.
But 143,000 joules to reach 30mph.
Seems a tad excesive.
Would have thought it would be more like 4,500 joules.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.

To increase the velocity by a factor of 30 (from 1 to 30 mph) requires 30 squared, or 900, times as much energy.

900 x 144 J = 130,000 J. That's in the ballpark of OmCheeto's 143,000 J figure. Probably some rounding error, since the baseline speed was not exactly 1 mph.

RonL

Jan15-10, 06:59 PM

If it is possible to improve on this by using a larger alternator or fly wheel arangement then good.It might not be able to compete with the standard efficiency of a K.E.R.S arrangement.
But it might be possible to be able to store the energy produced indefinately which could be usefull,unlike a flywheel.

When engineers can step past using a flywheel as a single function storage device, energy efficiency will move forward in a more productive way.

Ron

Buckleymanor

Jan15-10, 07:36 PM

When engineers can step past using a flywheel as a single function storage device, energy efficiency will move forward in a more productive way.

Ron
Yes I agree.
One of the problems with the flywheel is that when the vehicle breaks it can be accelerated to it's maximum efficiency.
If the stored energy is not used shortly after, any additional breaking energy will be wasted, as there is a practical maximum that the flywheel can be accelerated to.
If the flywheel was connected to the alternator and the alternator produced brown gas which could be stored I imagine that the energy produced when breaking could be used in a more productive and efficient way.

OmCheeto

Jan15-10, 09:13 PM

So it takes 144 joules to allmost produce 1mph.
But 143,000 joules to reach 30mph.
Seems a tad excesive.
Would have thought it would be more like 4,500 joules.
But I am no expert I only mentioned it made "some" sense in so far that there is "some" gain without breaking any conservation laws.
If it is possible to improve on this by using a larger alternator or fly wheel arangement then good.It might not be able to compete with the standard efficiency of a K.E.R.S arrangement.
But it might be possible to be able to store the energy produced indefinately which could be usefull,unlike a flywheel.

I was not aware that there was a "standard efficiency" of a KERS arrangement. I'm not really familiar any KERS arrangements as a matter of fact. But storing 130,000 joules in an HHO state strikes me as a bit dangerous, unless the gasses are kept separate or course. That much energy released instantaneously, would launch me about 500 feet into the air. Not that it would of course, but one should always look at worst case scenarios. Shrapnel is so light, and so sharp.

Buckleymanor

Jan16-10, 07:42 AM

I was not aware that there was a "standard efficiency" of a KERS arrangement. I'm not really familiar any KERS arrangements as a matter of fact. But storing 130,000 joules in an HHO state strikes me as a bit dangerous, unless the gasses are kept separate or course. That much energy released instantaneously, would launch me about 500 feet into the air. Not that it would of course, but one should always look at worst case scenarios. Shrapnel is so light, and so sharp.
I think you will find that there is a maximum pratical amount of energy that can be stored using a flywheel KERS arrangement.
This is dependent on size materials strength and the maximum speed or revolutions the flywheel travels at, you would not want a piece of flywheel traveling at 64,000rpm engaging with the back of your head.http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/01/11/kers-explained-how-a-mechanical-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-works/
As you say it would be safer to keep the gasses produced seperate I don't think hydrogen is explosive on it's own.
As with all systems there is an inherant amount of risk but with good practices these can be made much less.

OmCheeto

Jan16-10, 04:40 PM

I think you will find that there is a maximum pratical amount of energy that can be stored using a flywheel KERS arrangement.
This is dependent on size materials strength and the maximum speed or revolutions the flywheel travels at, you would not want a piece of flywheel traveling at 64,000rpm engaging with the back of your head.http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/01/11/kers-explained-how-a-mechanical-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-works/
As you say it would be safer to keep the gasses produced seperate I don't think hydrogen is explosive on it's own.
As with all systems there is an inherant amount of risk but with good practices these can be made much less.

While an interesting and novel concept, the flybrid looks a bit spendy. My worst case regen storage requirement is about 1.9 million joules, which occurs once a day on my way home from work. This is about 5 times the energy capacity of the current flybrid. And it would require the production of about 130 liters of unpressurized HHO gas to store that much energy. Now here is the part where I have a problem. Even if I had both the flybrid, and the HHO system, this would only save me $1100 over a 30 year period.

Now you might say that I've not taken into account the rest of my drive, and that is true. But my criteria for KERS are very simple. The system only needs to store the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle stopping from 30 mph. Period. Which the flybrid is more than capable of handling all by itself.

From an analysis of my trip to and from work, I stop about 50 times a day, which works out to about 6.5 million joules of recoverable energy. So the flybrid alone would save me $3800(20%), without the added terror and expense of the HHO system.

So the bottom line is, how much will a flybrid installed in a production vehicle add to the cost of the vehicle? CMU is working on a solid state, 180kj system. I estimate the current cost of a finished system to be less than $2500, retail. They also claim a 76% cost savings when driven as a pure electric vehicle vs my gas guzzler. So the savings would go from $3800 to $14,300 over a 30 year period. Yet another reason to dump the HHO idea. Burning fuels is so last century.

(As I drag my 6 mpg boat to the river again... You are such a hypocrite Om....)

ps. I probably should have stated this a bit differently;

I'm not really familiar any KERS arrangements as a matter of fact.

As we've discussed both the Flybrid (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326816&postcount=11) and CMU (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2505796&postcount=55) systems before.

bonzoboy

Jan20-10, 08:14 PM

I'll give you my opinion. I've done several analyses on the subject. To sustainably operate a 1,000 MW power plant (Rankine cycle), one would need access to roughly a 65 mile diameter forest for timber; and the extracted material could not be used for any other industry (paper, pulp, etc.). The US would need about 1,000,000 MW (or 1,000GW) of capacity (because that's what we have now). So you can figure out how much land would have to be reserved for the biomass.

If you consider something even less appealing, like corn ethanol, the picture is far worse, because in that industry so much high energy feed materials (nitrates, phosphates) and water are consumed, that it just isn't environmentally or economically worth the effort (that's why those industries are all looking for subsidies).

If you want to find out if something can be done economically or commercially, see if seller of the technology is asking for a subsidy first.

Topher925

Feb17-10, 02:14 PM

So, yesterday in the machine shop I was working on one of my many fuel cell related projects and I had an undergrad student I knew from one of the classes I TA for come up to me and ask me what I was working on. I mentioned how I was working on a fuel cell project to which he responded, "why, fuel cells are an obsolete technology".

Riddled with curiosity I asked him why he would say that. He then replied "Oh well, Professor SoAndSo taught us in his class that fuel cells have no future because they are a dead end technology. That is why no one is doing research for them anymore". I was pretty shocked by this. Not by what the professor said, I've had this professor before, and know his propaganda that he spreads quite well. What surprised me was that this student didn't even know how a fuel cell even works or the impact hydrogen technology could have on the modern world. He just blindly took a professors word for it without a second thought.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Perhaps the biggest problem to solving the energy crisis is just to educate people about what the hell is actually going on. I've seen many projects get ridiculous amounts of funding, one or two I've been a part of, that are aimed at solving our current predicament but have absolutely no practicality to them what so ever. And yet, a lot of the developing technologies which will serve their purpose in the future are being belittled by arrogant people with stature. Finding the solutions to our energy problems may be difficult, but actually implementing those solutions may be near impossible if the technical community is divided.

mheslep

Feb17-10, 04:57 PM

Not by what the professor said, I've had this professor before, and know his propaganda that he spreads quite well.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Perhaps the biggest problem to solving the energy crisis is just to educate people about what the hell is actually going on.
Yep.

I've seen many projects get ridiculous amounts of funding, one or two I've been a part of, that are aimed at solving our current predicament but have absolutely no practicality to them what so ever. And yet, a lot of the developing technologies which will serve their purpose in the future are being belittled by arrogant people with stature. Finding the solutions to our energy problems may be difficult, but actually implementing those solutions may be near impossible if the technical community is divided.
So wouldn't it be more useful to point out where this U. professor is mistaken and propagandising, rather than going on about THE MAN (i.e. arrogant people with stature.)

onebad1968

Mar17-10, 08:38 AM

I would begin with the building of about a 150 nuclear power plants.This could reduce electric bills helping american indusrty compete as well as putting more money in the hands of the consumer. The other large public project would be a high speed electric train system which would follow major interstates this would drastically reduce the wasteful use of tractor trailers to move many goods around the country.Just think of the fuel and pollution (as well as the cost) created moving freight by truck from coast to coast non stop.

mheslep

Mar17-10, 11:55 AM

The other large public project would be a high speed electric train system which would follow major interstates this would drastically reduce the wasteful use of tractor trailers to move many goods around the country.Just think of the fuel and pollution (as well as the cost) created moving freight by truck from coast to coast non stop.I don't believe high speed rail is available for freight (weight issues and stress on the tracks). That and efficiency issues aside for the moment, you mention cost. You've no doubt heard about the high cost of high speed rail compared to, almost anything else?

onebad1968

Mar17-10, 12:10 PM

RonL

Mar17-10, 12:51 PM

Certainly it is a costly plan but the trillions the fed has spent in the last year wouldve been a good start and would've put alot of people to work.What is the cost of doing nothing? Certainly there could be a design that would address the perceived shortfalls of electric hauling freight even if it were a hybrid for the takeoffs etc.

This might be the start of what you are talking about. Check through their website, a lot that looks good.
I have thought of buying stock, but something has made me hold off. They have always seemed to be needing the assistance of one man to keep them going (Carl E Berg), but the times seem right for them to take off.

Does anyone know anything about this company????

http://www.valence.com/applications/motive/electric_van_and_trucks

onebad1968

Mar18-10, 08:27 AM

I almost forgot the other power generation idea... I say we use our largest natural source of renewable energy in the country where theres probably enough power to supply a vast amount of our needs completely renewable and Green...and doing so could very well be shown to be a very positive thing for the enviroinment in more than one way.I've thought this for years but the day may be soon approaching when we will actually get serious about it..what am i talking about? I am talking about drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?.....

RonL

Mar19-10, 12:50 PM

mheslep

Mar19-10, 01:31 PM

Too Simple!!! Too Easy!!! Too Dangerous!!!!!!!!!

Tampering with what is considered a MegaVolcano might trigger just the amount of change needed to break an otherwise stable condition.Could you demonstrate how geothermal energy plants might have any impact on possible volcanic eruptions?

gmax137

Mar19-10, 01:40 PM

... drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?.....

'Simple' isn't the word I would use for this idea.

RonL

Mar19-10, 04:19 PM

Could you demonstrate how geothermal energy plants might have any impact on possible volcanic eruptions?

Well it might have been a knee jerk reaction:blushing: but I have broken a few pieces of ceramic kitchenware by putting cold water in a hot item.

I know about blowout preventers on high pressure oil wells.

The one thing that still makes me shiver is, the last swimming pool I excavated using an air ram rock breaker mounted on front of my Bobcat skid loader resulted in a breath taking event, There was a final depth of about 6" of lime stone to remove from the deep end and as I started impacting the breaker, the entire bottom dropped about a foot. I had fractured the top of a very small (thank goodness) cavern, having been in Carlsbad and a few caverns here in central Texas I shiver when thinking it might have been the top of a really big room.

The heat of the rock zones 3 and 4 miles down, anywhere, is pretty high.
Messing around the base of any volcano where the stress relief can cause a sudden fracture of the rock formation, seems to me like drilling holes in glass bottles, I have done plenty but have broke a few.

That might not be a good first hand engineering demonstration, but would engineers really be able to predict any possible outcome?? Thermal shock can be a powerful event.

mheslep

Mar19-10, 05:16 PM

Well it might have been a knee jerk reaction:blushing: but I have broken a few pieces of ceramic kitchenware by putting cold water in a hot item.

I know about blowout preventers on high pressure oil wells.

The one thing that still makes me shiver is, the last swimming pool I excavated using an air ram rock breaker mounted on front of my Bobcat skid loader resulted in a breath taking event, There was a final depth of about 6" of lime stone to remove from the deep end and as I started impacting the breaker, the entire bottom dropped about a foot. I had fractured the top of a very small (thank goodness) cavern, having been in Carlsbad and a few caverns here in central Texas I shiver when thinking it might have been the top of a really big room.

The heat of the rock zones 3 and 4 miles down, anywhere, is pretty high.
Messing around the base of any volcano where the stress relief can cause a sudden fracture of the rock formation, seems to me like drilling holes in glass bottles, I have done plenty but have broke a few.

That might not be a good first hand engineering demonstration, but would engineers really be able to predict any possible outcome?? Thermal shock can be a powerful event.
It's one thing to talk about man made wells and the violence of blow-outs, it is another to suggest that has anything to do with a colossal magma chamber 50 miles below Yellowstone. As for the we-dont-know-what-could-happen school of thought, well there is no end to where that can take you:

Drilling to hell (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-deepest-hole-ever-drilled.htm)
The Kola Superdeep Borehole was the source of a tabloid rumor, started by a Finnish newspaper, that Russian researchers had burrowed through to Hell. The story was reproduced by several American tabloids. It stated that 9 miles (14.4 km) down into the Earth's crust (1.4 miles deeper than the real borehole), the scientists reached a pocket of air with a temperature of 2000 degrees F. Intrigued, they sent down a heat-tolerant microphone. The microphone picked up the screams of the damned. The rumor was exacerbated when recordings of the alleged screams popped up on the Internet shortly thereafter.

:wink:

OmCheeto

Mar19-10, 08:13 PM

Drilling to hell

Why not just shove a tube down Kilauea's throat, with a cap on the end. When it get's down to the layer of molten gold, we just pop the end off the end of the pipe and let the gold pour all over the island. Once the system has equalized, we can cap the area, and extract all of the thermal energy. The now solidified gold will pay for the 300 years of debt we'd have accumulated trying to reach the layer of gold. Of course, over the course of 300 years, we'd have determined the thermal stress limits of rock and... wait.... this isn't the lounge....

oh poop.:blushing:

RonL

Mar19-10, 11:16 PM

Hmmmmm!! "Volcano Tappers, LLC".

If I was just a little younger:uhh:

WillWard

Mar29-10, 06:20 PM

Problems as I see them :
1) We all rely on energy at an unsustainable level
2) Population growth is massively underestimated when reported - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/09/population-unitednations

If you follow the above link, it is basically a report that is repeated heavily in the news, it states that population could hit 9 billion people by 2050.
If you look at the data they have used, they have figures from 1950 to 2009, over this 59 year period the average population increase is 1.7%, with a maximum of 2.05% in 1968 and minimum of 1.175% in 2009. Their projections work out as follows
2019 – 0.97% increase
2029 – 0.706% increase
2039 – 0.51% increase
2049 – 0.318% increase
2050 – 0.29% increase

I cant see how population increase will be smaller than it has been in the last 60 years, and continue to shrink for 40 years.

If you continue the estimations based on the previous 59 year average of 1.7% increase per year then you would have figures closer to the following:
2015 – 7.556 bn
2025 – 8.944 bn
2035 – 10.586 bn
2045 – 12.529 bn
2050 – 13.631 bn – if you continue to extrapolate figures based on a 40 year doubling rate (which we are experiencing thus far) – then:
2090 – 27.262 bn
2130 - 54.524 bn

Solutions :
1) - The obvious reduce carbon emissions etc. I think while efforts should be made to create energy with lower carbon footprints, massive re-education of people is hugely important. If fuels run out in the next decade or 2 people should be able to carry on surviving on what we have available

2) - Overpopulation is a serious problem, unfortunately every solution that actively solves the issue is in-humane, it naturally has to be.
I think efforts should be made to work out exactly how many people the planet can support, by means of maximum food output, and maximum power production. We are possibly very close to the figure of maximum occupancy of the entire world, and if we exceed that then the years following are going to be very difficult, anarchy in the streets etc. We will likely get very close to the limit, and then experience a year or 2 of poor crop yields and experience massive worldwide food shortages.
The next step once we know what maximum occupancy is would be to limit population. This seems a terrible thing, but the time will come that it has to be a "one in one out" society. The sooner people start thinking this way the better.

Also we should throw a massive solar collector in space over the north and south pole, this could collect energy to be transported to earth somehow, and by blocking the sun from the ice caps this could help stop them melting and sort out the raising sea levels :)

mheslep

Mar30-10, 11:28 AM

I cant see how population increase will be smaller than it has been in the last 60 years, and continue to shrink for 40 years. Why not? The trend is declining growth rates, as you noted:

2.05% in 1968 and minimum of 1.175% in 2009.

Population growth rates are declining globally, and in fact population flat or even declining in many developed countries - Japan, W. Europe. That is, there's a strong correlation rate between development and population growth. Actually I expect the somewhat dated UN figure of 9b/2050 is high now, as they probably underestimated the surprising development rate in China.

WillWard

Mar30-10, 04:59 PM

WillWard

Mar30-10, 05:01 PM

Also, does the fact that you picked up on the figures in my comment, but said nothing about the huge solar collector blocking the sun from the artic, mean that you are in support of my idea?

:)

mheslep

Mar30-10, 05:34 PM

The figures of population increase go up and down during the 59 years they provide data for, but they are all increasing. Without trying to sound patronising, are you sure you are not confusing population flat with a non increasing level of growth.

If the population is no longer increasing then why are new houses still being developed at high rates? - will the value of our existing properties fall in coming years rather than rise? will banks start charging for storing money rather than paying out interest on it?

May i ask where you get your figures from, as i have no idea whether i am actually correct or not, but from the figures i have looked at it shows continual growth.
During the 59 year period i had figures for. At a few points over the period the rate of growth decreases, and then back up, the lowest it got was in 2009, but this wasn't the only dip, and it always came back up.Again I spoke to rates of growth, not to growth. The rate of world population growth has clearly decreased over the last 60 years, an indisputable fact. In some developed countries, the rate is actually negative.

Wiki will do for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The fastest rates of world population growth (increases above 1.8% per year) were seen briefly during the 1950s then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s (see graph). The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963.

Regarding developed and developing countries, here's China, with a clearly decreasing rate:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CHN&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

Japan's population peaked in 2005
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN

Similar for Germany:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:DEU

Collection of all the smaller EU countries. These populations trends are 'sustainable' essentially forever:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:DNK:CZE:AUT:EST:GRC:HUN:LVA:LUX:CHE:P RT:LTU:FIN:NOR:SWE&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

mheslep

Mar30-10, 05:37 PM

Also, does the fact that you picked up on the figures in my comment, but said nothing about the huge solar collector blocking the sun from the artic, mean that you are in support of my idea?

:)
Google or search PF threads for Space Based Solar Power. It's been discussed repeatedly.

WillWard

Mar30-10, 06:10 PM

are you suggesting that the population of the earth will simply level out?

I can't help but think we are very close to the point that growth simply wont be able to continue, if this has to be forced then a lot of things will change for a lot of people.

Back to my first point, if we know what the sustainable level of people is, including factors like poor crop yields in some years, then we can prepare before the inevitable overpopulation occurs

russ_watters

Mar30-10, 08:04 PM

are you suggesting that the population of the earth will simply level out? Yes, that is the expectation.

Regarding the US, the internal propulation growth is already flat: The US gains population mostly because of immigration.

azmio

Mar30-10, 08:38 PM

hey guys,

One thing that i have been noticing is that US and China worry so much about securing energy sources. Contrary to that, Germany and Japan focus more on getting more work output from lesser energy inputs. I dont recall hearing any country that synergizes both.

As energy consumption soars and natural resources deplete, the best way forward is in synergizing both the energy production and consumption. I believe that not many have tried this even though the synergy is a key to future energy sustainability.

Char. Limit

Mar30-10, 09:13 PM

So, the derivative of population is negative? Or the second derivative is negative...

Well, I think we've already passed that point. The earth was not meant to feed 12 billion people, as it will have to in the next fifty years...

Eventually, there will be hunger riots. THC said so.

mheslep

Mar31-10, 12:52 AM

So, the derivative of population is negative? Or the second derivative is negative...
2nd is negative, i.e. the growth of population is slowing down; has been for some decades.

mheslep

Mar31-10, 03:14 PM

[QUOTE=mheslep;2647519]Again I spoke to rates of growth, not to growth. The rate of world population growth has clearly decreased over the last 60 years, an indisputable fact. In some developed countries, the rate is actually negative.

Wiki will do for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Regarding developed and developing countries, here's China, with a clearly decreasing rate:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CHN&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

Japan's population peaked in 2005
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN

Similar for Germany:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:DEU
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:DNK:CZE:AUT:EST:GRC:HUN:LVA:LUX:CHE:P RT:LTU:FIN:NOR:SWE&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

mheslep

Apr15-10, 11:01 PM

James Woolsey, former CIA Director and now an energy advocate of the off-foreign-oil type, has an op-ed in today's paper. I link it here because as it happens I agreed with Woolsey's approach to the energy problem, and in this article I agree with him point by point and with the same priorities. To my mind the article is accurate in its premises and claims, and avoids any of the silly impractical distractions that often in appear in op-eds.

Woolsey Premise:
Upon petroleum reaching $125/bbl again, half the world's wealth will be controlled by OPEC nations (i.e. Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc)

Prescription:
1. Apply the latest electronic technologies to internal combustion engines to improve mileage.
2. Switch the trucking and bus fleet to natural gas, ala T. Boone Pickens.
3. Force petro products to compete with other fuels made from waste or algae. For instance, force all new gas-using vehicles to be flex fuel capable. Note that methanol can be made from natural gas at ~$1.20 a gallon.
4. Electrify automotive transportation.

How to End America's Addiction to Oil (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575168130469848598.html?K EYWORDS=woolsey#)

Topher925

May5-10, 10:35 PM

Another step towards the realization of a hydrogen economy.

http://mobile.technologyreview.com/energy/25244/

Abraham

Jun9-10, 02:02 PM

I'm actually tempted towards switching to nuclear engineering, or at least grad school in it. I think that the future of energy will depend on our ability to harness nuclear fusion.

Topher925

Jun10-10, 07:43 PM

I'm actually tempted towards switching to nuclear engineering, or at least grad school in it. I think that the future of energy will depend on our ability to harness nuclear fusion.

Unless we want to live in the dark or destroy the planet, the majority of the supply of energy in the near future will almost undoubtedly come from nuclear energy.

Redbelly98

Jun11-10, 08:35 AM

Unless we want to live in the dark or destroy the planet, the majority of the supply of energy in the near future will almost undoubtedly come from nuclear energy.
But surely you mean fission, whereas the previous post was referring to fusion.

Topher925

Jun16-10, 06:43 PM

But surely you mean fission, whereas the previous post was referring to fusion.

Yes, I did. Totally missed the part about fusion.

Feliks

Jul6-10, 06:48 AM

Unless we want to live in the dark or destroy the planet, the majority of the supply of energy in the near future will almost undoubtedly come from nuclear energy.

"Salt water extraction"

http://www.new4stroke.com/oil500.gif

http://www.new4stroke.com/pompa.pdf

And sallt water Tank:

http://www.new4stroke.com/Okinawa.jpg

1 m^3 / sec if H = 100 m give ~~ 1 MW ( 1000 KW) electric energy

Detail about salt water generator:

http://www.new4stroke.com/salt%20water%20pumped%20storage.pdf

Regards Andrew :tongue:

mheslep

Jul6-10, 04:13 PM

"Salt water extraction"

That refers to pump storage, i.e. an energy storage scheme, not a primary energy production technology like nuclear.

OmCheeto

Jul6-10, 08:38 PM

That refers to pump storage, i.e. an energy storage scheme, not a primary energy production technology like nuclear.

Disagree.

Energy is extracted from ocean waves and then stored for either immediate or future use.

It may not look like much, but getting away from "one trick pony" types of energy solutions is very important, IMHO.

mheslep

Jul6-10, 10:45 PM

Disagree.

Energy is extracted from ocean waves and then stored for either immediate or future use.
Yes I'm wrong, missed that part of it - the pump.

Topher925

Jul7-10, 12:23 AM

Very nifty. Gets around the entire baseload problem.

russ_watters

Jul7-10, 05:47 AM

Must be some pump....color me skeptical.

RonL

Jul7-10, 08:03 AM

Looks good to me, one large pump would not react as well to the wave energy, but a multiple of smaller units might, a little like keys on a piano board.

Topher925

Jul7-10, 10:11 AM

I'm sure there would be many pumps involved in order to capture as much energy as practically possible.

diamondscape

Jul7-10, 10:39 AM

I suggest FIRE the people we have in congress and start over. That would fix more than just the US Energy Crisis.

mheslep

Jul7-10, 01:34 PM

Very nifty. Gets around the entire baseload problem.Nifty yes but an 'entire' problem solver might be stretching things a little. If pumped storage was tasked with backing an entire US theoretical electrical grid that ran only off an intermittent source like, say, solar power and existing hydro, then the US would need some 800 GW(e) of pumped salt water storage running at night worst case, and would require transmission to the middle US from the coasts. At the moment, the US has 21.5 GWe (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/excel/aeostimtab_9.xls) (2.6% ) of pumped storage, including the largest single facility in the world. Also, the existing pumped storage facilities are designed with a run capacity on the order of a dozen hours or so, not the couple, three days that might be required in the event of a major winter snow storm.

Feliks

Jul7-10, 01:41 PM

Looks good to me, one large pump would not react as well to the wave energy, but a multiple of smaller units might, a little like keys on a piano board.
Yes, you right

One large wave...
http://www.new4stroke.com/images/ocean2.jpg

Regars Andrew:wink:

RonL

Jul7-10, 02:14 PM

Yes, you right

One large wave...
http://www.new4stroke.com/images/ocean2.jpg

Regars Andrew:wink:

I stand corrected, that would work one very large pump.:eek::biggrin:

russ_watters

Jul7-10, 05:37 PM

Looks good to me, one large pump would not react as well to the wave energy, but a multiple of smaller units might, a little like keys on a piano board. I'm sure there would be many pumps involved in order to capture as much energy as practically possible. An idea with no numbers attached to it has no identifiable feasibility. Here's the wiki on wave power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

People have been trying to harness wave power for hundreds of years and as of yet have made little headway toward making it practical for large scale power generation. Here's a link to the website of the first project on the list on the wiki: http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/reedsport.htm

OPT is developing the first commercial wave park on the West Coast of the United States located 2.5 miles offshore near Reedsport, Oregon. The wave park will consist of ten (10) PB150 PowerBuoys, an undersea substation to collect the power, and a submarine cable to deliver the renewable power to the Pacific Northwest electric grid. Each PB150 PowerBuoy® has a maximum sustained generating capacity of 150 kiloWatts.

The estimated amount of electricity this project will deliver to the grid is approximately 4,140 MegaWatt-hours/year based on the wave resource at this location, or enough for up to 375 homes. To put those numbers in perspective:

-Many buildings have generators bigger than the total capacity of that plant on their roofs.
-It takes about 20 of these buoys to match the [peak] capacity of one large wind turbine.
-With a load factor of 30%, it will actually generate an average of 470kW altogether.
-Power plant sizes vary, but a typical coal plant might be 500 MW and a typical nuclear plant 2,000 MW, both running at pretty high load factor. It would take 3,300 of these devices to match the [peak] power of a single typical coal plant and 13,000 to match a single nuclear plant. To match the consumption, multiply those by 3.
-The company claims it can match the max cost per kWh of wind, about $.15/kWh. That's more than double what is typical for nuclear and closer to triple what coal is. And that's an estimate by the company that is trying to sell them. No doubt, their pilot plant is much more expensive.
-The company's cost projection is based on being able to sell 400 of these buoys a year. If they meet their production goal, in 33 years, they will have installed enough capacity to match a single nuclear plant's kW capacity - and in 100 years, they'll be able to match a nuclear plant's kWh capacity.

Bottom line: people have been looking into wave power for centuries and even today they have not been proven to be viable, even as a high-priced niche product.

russ_watters

Jul7-10, 05:49 PM

Regarding cost and technical feasiblity, here's an article about the world's first true commercial wave power plant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/24/wave.pelamis/index.html

The first phase went online in 2008, generating 2.25 MW at a cost of about $11.2 million. If they last 20 years and require negligible maintenance while delivering a load factor of 30%, the power they deliver will end up costing about $.08 to produce.

However, the plant only operated for 4 months before bearings failed. They are currently planning on replacing the units with upgrades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelamis_Wave_Energy_Converter

More: http://www.ecogeek.org/tidal-and-wave-power/2635
A plant in Ecuador was intended to produce 750kW and never produced more than 200. It is now also ofline due to technical problems and the company (same company) appears to be in financial company. Keep in mind, this is probably the most successful wave power company ever and so far, they have little to show in the way of real commercial accomplishment.

mheslep

Jul7-10, 07:53 PM

An idea with no numbers attached to it has no identifiable feasibility. Ding, ding, ding. That's got sig, or an engineering forum guideline addition written all over it.

Topher925

Jul7-10, 08:19 PM

Nifty yes but an 'entire' problem solver might be stretching things a little.

I don't think anyone here ever stated that this was an amazing fix all solution. But it is an interesting idea based on already proven concepts. Just because an idea doesn't have all the numbers immediately attached to it doesn't mean you should just completely throw it out.

Also, Oceanlinx as far as I know has so far been successful. Although they are still very new and have only very recently connected one of their generators to the grid.
http://www.oceanlinx.com/
http://www.oceanlinx.com/images/FactSheets/oceanlinx_technical_facts_sheet_v3_eng.pdf

mheslep

Jul7-10, 08:23 PM

I don't think anyone here ever stated that this was an amazing fix all solution. But it is an interesting idea based on already proven concepts. Just because an idea doesn't have all the numbers immediately attached to it doesn't mean you should just completely throw it out.
<shrug> I didn't suggest completely throwing it out.

OmCheeto

Jul7-10, 10:28 PM

Looks good to me, one large pump would not react as well to the wave energy, but a multiple of smaller units might, a little like keys on a piano board.

That's how I see it.
Don't know why people don't like the idea.
Of course it'll take tweaking to get it right.

Who'd have thought, a hundred years ago, that if you collected a certain type of rock, threw them in a special box, you'd get free energy out of that box for decades.

ps. your keys on a piano board sounds like my wave powered rowboat.(a linear array of ratcheted arms with floats on the ends powering a single shaft) I don't think I'll ever build it of course, but the same idea can be used to pump water. A very handy device on a sandy beach when it's 100'F outside. Some of this stuff doesn't necessarily have to save the world. It just needs to make me more comfortable.

russ_watters

Jul7-10, 11:05 PM

Ding, ding, ding. That's got sig, or new engineering forum guideline addition written all over it. Thanks, we can work out a licensing agreement offline :biggrin:

russ_watters

Jul7-10, 11:31 PM

I don't think anyone here ever stated that this was an amazing fix all solution. Well, the person who first brought it up made some pretty bold implicit claims. First, the post was in response to a statement you said about the "vast majority of the supply of energy", implying this could provide something substantial. Besides which, just by being brought up in this thread, it should be considered a technology with the potential to make a real impact.

Then, there's the addition of the comment about the pumped-storage, which is largely unrelated and includes a completely context-less capacity statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity of the pumping device.

That's an awful lot of nothing on which to base some lofty insinuations. But it is an interesting idea based on already proven concepts. Interesting idea, yes, but the concepts are clearly not proven. As far as I can tell, none of these devices has yet been attached to the grid long enough to even test its actual capacity, much less make a real contribtution, much less prove technical viability, much less prove economic viability! It's basically still drawing-board level speculation based on failed prototypes.
Just because an idea doesn't have all the numbers immediately attached to it doesn't mean you should just completely throw it out. No one has suggested that. But in a thread looking for real solutions, implying real potential exists in an invention that hasn't successfully left the drawing-board is wrong. Also, Oceanlinx as far as I know has so far been successful. Define "successful". Because: Although they are still very new and have only very recently connected one of their generators to the grid. So they've "successfully" proven you can generate power from waves. That's old news and not really worth writing home about. Heck, *I* could do that in a month with a $10,000 budget! (But I'll take $5 million in venture capital funding, if you're offering). What they haven't done is demonstrate that you can run one of these for an extended period of time, generate a meaningful amount of power, or do it for a cost worth doing it for. These are the basic questions that separate a gee-that's-cool idea from a real commercial product and after decades of serious development, none of these generators has come anywhere close to moving from that stage to the "viable commercial product" stage. These are all just drawing board/developmental prototypes.

Also note that while the company's website says: The Mk3PC was installed at Port Kembla on 26 February 2010, about 100 metres off the eastern breakwater of Port Kembla Harbour. It was connected to the grid and has been providing electricity since 19 March 2010 to customers of local retailer, Integral Energy. ....what they don't tell you is: [May 17th]The landmark Oceanlinx wave energy system, the Mk3PC, sits underwater at the bottom of Port Kembla's eastern break wall after heavy seas ripped the unit from its moorings.
The 170-tonne structure, which was located 150m offshore, broke free of its pylons on Friday afternoon. http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/port-kembla-wave-generator-on-sea-floor/1831275.aspx

Oops. So it operated for less than 2 months before catastrophic failure. I'm really not that impressed by that. And this by a technology that is rated one of the top 10 renewable energy investments by the UN. That doesn't give much confidence for renewable energy!

russ_watters

Jul7-10, 11:35 PM

Don't know why people don't like the idea. 1. Too materials intensive.
2. Too intriniscly expensive because of #1.
3. Very difficult to make robust enough to reliably withstand the forces of the ocean.
4. Power density far too low (related to #1).

turbo

Jul7-10, 11:38 PM

My wife and I use as little energy as possible. Our small house is un-insulated with log walls, but it is really easy to heat with a small stove. We need a bit more refrigeration capacity for hot spells like this, but not a lot. Addressing broad energy needs needn't involve top-down regulations or enforced rationing. Education and cooperation can get us there.

OmCheeto

Jul8-10, 12:59 AM

1. Too materials intensive.
2. Too intriniscly expensive because of #1.
3. Very difficult to make robust enough to reliably withstand the forces of the ocean.
4. Power density far too low (related to #1).

And that's why my design was made out of empty 2 liter pop bottles, sticks, a long tube, discarded bicycle gear parts, and of course, duct tape.

I have to agree with you about pie in the sky ideas and the money that is being thrown at it.

I had an argument with someone at another forum. His idea was obviously perpetual motion, but I played along, feigning that I didn't understand his science. It was an oceanic device that worked off of differential pressure and different sized pipes. I told him that if it would work in the ocean, then it should work just as well in my 20 gallon fish tank. He said something to the effect that; it would only work if it were really big, and went really deep into the ocean. hmm.. and I bet he wanted investors too...... unsubscribe......

But I wouldn't discount ocean wave energy based on a few failed attempts. We do after all, extract energy from other types of waves. We just need a simple method of harnessing this new one.

Topher925

Jul8-10, 01:28 AM

First, the post was in response to a statement you said about the "vast majority of the supply of energy", implying this could provide something substantial. Besides which, just by being brought up in this thread, it should be considered a technology with the potential to make a real impact.

Uh, no.? I never said anything remotely about the "vast majority of the supply of energy". What basis do you have that this kind of technology can't make a significant impact? Thermodynamics says that it can.

Then, there's the addition of the comment about the pumped-storage, which is largely unrelated and includes a completely context-less capacity statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity of the pumping device.

I think its obvious that the quantity and capabilities of any pumping devices used is dependent upon the height and capacity of the reservoir and even more so location.

That's an awful lot of nothing on which to base some lofty insinuations. Interesting idea, yes, but the concepts are clearly not proven. As far as I can tell, none of these devices has yet been attached to the grid long enough to even test its actual capacity, much less make a real contribtution, much less prove technical viability, much less prove economic viability!

I disagree. Pumped-storage hydroelectric power plants are very common, reliable, and rather economical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

It's basically still drawing-board level speculation based on failed prototypes.

The way I see it, only half of it. The water storage and power generation thing has been figured out. The only real issue I see is using waves to get the water into the reservoir. However, this isn't something that needs some major technological breakthrough, but rather just the right minded people to figure it out at a relatively low cost.

No one has suggested that. But in a thread looking for real solutions, implying real potential exists in an invention that hasn't successfully left the drawing-board is wrong.

I don't think it is. If the world was full of successful solutions that made it well passed the drawing-board phase, then this thread wouldn't exist. Also, I never said this was something can and should be done, I just simply stated that it was "nifty".

What they haven't done is demonstrate that you can run one of these for an extended period of time, generate a meaningful amount of power, or do it for a cost worth doing it for. These are the basic questions that separate a gee-that's-cool idea from a real commercial product and after decades of serious development, none of these generators has come anywhere close to moving from that stage to the "viable commercial product" stage. These are all just drawing board/developmental prototypes.

So you're saying that we should just abandon the whole idea based on a few failures? Do you think we should have abandoned nuclear power after Chernobyl?

Also note that while the company's website says: ....what they don't tell you is: http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/port-kembla-wave-generator-on-sea-floor/1831275.aspx
Oops. So it operated for less than 2 months before catastrophic failure. I'm really not that impressed by that. And this by a technology that is rated one of the top 10 renewable energy investments by the UN. That doesn't give much confidence for renewable energy!

That is a little disheartening and I believe somewhat unethical on Oceanlinx part. However, I don't think you should can the idea just because someone couldn't properly design a foundation. I also think that generalizing your opinion of renewable energy based on the leadership of the UN is a bit haughty.

russ_watters

Jul8-10, 05:52 AM

Uh, no.? I never said anything remotely about the "vast majority of the supply of energy". Reread post #572, where the originator of the concept quoted you in his introduction of the concept. What basis do you have that this kind of technology can't make a significant impact? Thermodynamics says that it can. The fact that it hasn't yet proven to even work reliably after decades of serious attempts should be a clue, but read post #592 where I list four major obstacles to viability that are probably inherrent and likely unfixable. Consider this as an analogy: if the wind were only half as strong as it is, we'd have no wind power because it would be inherrently non-viable. Converseley, if the wind were twice as strong as it is, we wouldn't be having this conversation because wind would already be taking care of most of our energy needs. See, just saying there is enough overall energy in the wind doesn't tell you anything about how viable the recovery of that energy is. So no, the laws of thermodynamics say nothing whatsoever about the ability of this technology to have a "significant impact". You're confusing theoretical possibility with practical reality. I think its obvious that the quantity and capabilities of any pumping devices used is dependent upon the height and capacity of the reservoir and even more so location. No, it isn't. One need not even be associated with the other, as now obviously we use pumped storage a lot, but not wave power. And wave power could be utilized without pumped storage. Until/unless wave power became a large producer of energy, there is no need to associate it with pumped storage: that's why none of the wave power projects yet mentioned have been associated with pumped storage. I disagree. Pumped-storage hydroelectric power plants are very common, reliable, and rather economical. Again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with wave power, as none of them are powered by waves. That was my objection. Bringing pumped storage into it was a red herring.
The way I see it, only half of it. The water storage and power generation thing has been figured out. Again, two completely unrelated issues. It's like saying we're halfway to fusion powered cars because we have cars figured out. Just because it is half of the sentence, doesn't make it half of the problem. The only real issue I see is using waves to get the water into the reservoir. Which.Is.The.Entire.Problem! However, this isn't something that needs some major technological breakthrough, but rather just the right minded people to figure it out at a relatively low cost. Clearly the concept is simple, yes - but that doesn't mean it has a chance of ever being economically viable. Again, see those 4 objections in post #592 and recognize the density problem discussed above with the analogy to wind.
I don't think it is. If the world was full of successful solutions that made it well passed the drawing-board phase, then this thread wouldn't exist. Ehh - wind power has left the drawing board stage and has potential to make a serious impact, yet this thread exists. Also, I never said this was something can and should be done, I just simply stated that it was "nifty". You're not the one who originated the idea in this thread, but now you're putting an awful lot of energy into defending it. So you're saying that we should just abandon the whole idea based on a few failures? No, I'm saying until one shows some real results, I'm not interested. My goal in starting this thread was to discuss practical ideas that might have a real shot at making a difference. I included only one research component in my original plan: fusion. Everything else in my plan is doable now. I'm not suggesting anyone abandon anything, but a research project is not a solution. Do you think we should have abandoned nuclear power after Chernobyl? Nuclear power was already plenty viable before Chernobyl.

mheslep

Jul8-10, 10:02 AM

Also, I never said this was something can and should be done, I just simply stated that it was "nifty". Yes nifty, and that it "Gets around the entire baseload problem"

Feliks

Jul8-10, 03:51 PM

Map wave height: (display region , and period )

http://www.lajollasurf.org/gblpac.html

Andrew:smile:

russ_watters

Jul8-10, 06:02 PM

Another important reason why I dislike ideas like tidal power is they are a distraction from solutions that actually are viable. This very example was provided as a counter to the absolutely correct claim that nuclear power must make up the vast majority of the solution to fossil fuel power. Not only is just plain wrong to assert that tidal power could make a substantial impact (given what is currently known), it is a dangerous distraction in a time when we need to be focused. Most people consider the reduction or elimination of fossil fuels to be an issue of extreme importance. But if they see and believe that there is a possibility that something like wave power could have a big impact, it could distract them away from supporting nuclear power, delaying the real solution.

Feliks

Jul9-10, 02:57 AM

........... Most people consider the reduction or elimination of fossil fuels to be an issue of extreme importance. But if they see and believe that there is a possibility that something like wave power could have a big impact, it could distract them away from supporting nuclear power, delaying the real solution.

Choosing energy solutions should not depend on faith, but from a very rational economic choices, and ensure safety.

Fortunately, people can still create new solutions that could be better than traditional solutions.

Here are some other new solutions are proposed:
Version at the deep end

http://www.new4stroke.com/aaa4t.gif

Version of the shallow water (my propose half- rotate pump)

http://www.new4stroke.com/pompa11.gif

http://www.new4stroke.com/storage.JPG

For achievement in such this collecting tube of flow 1 m3/sec and 10 bar , requirement 12 pump wanted for transport water on according to following specification 100 m height too reservoir.

Pump reconciles, for simplification about normal piston, should have 0,6 m diameter, and 3 m of height. During average jump of rippling 2 m, it will give during one cycle for composite tube 0,5 m3 water pushed (S= 28 dcm2 H= 20 dcm (2 meter) = 560 dcm3 (liter). For set up flow 1 m3, TWO such pumps should pump for collecting tube.
Taking into consideration that the peak of wave used to the work is coming every 6 seconds one should multiply the score through 6
For proper fabrication of pressure on exit of pump ( set up 10 bar ), wanted proper swimmer is.
There is simple account surface of piston of pump will together page (S) x 100 surface of swimmer.
In my example, surface of piston of pump it 28 dcm2, it signifies that swimmer)should have 2800 dcm2. In order to swimmer had such surfaces, it must have 20 m diameter, and definitely 1 m of height. It needs one kit about 12 pumps 12 swimmers 20 m each diameter, or about dimension one swimmer 12 x28 m2= 336 m2.

For behaviour some reasonable spans, it is possible to accept, that for such array for production capacity 1 m3/sec 10 bar, wanted near 700 m2 place rippling sea .

Need for continuous supplying tank for power station theoretically 700 m3/s (716 MW , 100 m height ) requirement 700 x 700m2 = 490000 m2 rippling sea . It is theoretically only 700 m x 700 m !, when 2 m average heights of waves.

Here, mathematical enumeration same only:

To 1m3/ sec
1 m^3/sec 10 bar(H=100m ), 600 mm diameter pipe and piston pump, S= 28 dcm2 Hwave= 20 dcm (2 meter) = 560 dcm3 (litre) for 1 m3 need 2 piece . but period are 6 sec , sum 6x 2 = 12 piece pump .

S pump= 28 dcm2 , 10 bar, F =28 T, Hfloat >1m, S float ~~=2800 dcm2 (28 m2) , D float =~~20m
12 piece x28m2 =336 m2 ~~ =100m x 7m using area =700 m2

700 MW (700 m3/sec), H=100m
700 m2 x 700 MW = 350000 m2 . ~~700m x 700m area of wave with float

Maybe today people are and what they consider the recording and reproducing sound, then the best solution is Edisons Phonograph.

Regards Andrew:smile:

mheslep

Jul11-10, 02:25 PM

Feliks

Jul11-10, 04:59 PM

It seems to me that, especially given the recent short lived and failed attempts of actual wave/tide energy projects, the interesting engineering results lie not in demonstrating the energy output of a given scheme, no matter how elegant and clever. Instead, the interesting results would be in calculating the inevitably high shears and moments on the structure, the chemical affects from salt water, and demonstrating how such a design can tolerate these adverse impacts over long periods of time, using economically viable construction techniques.

The chemical affects from salt water -Now we live in the age of polyvinylchloride PVC
The maximum pressure can not exceed 10 bars, which corresponds to a pressure of water at home. Thus, for most of the elements you can use PVC.

In addition, all ships in the world with regóły swim in salt water and somehow cope.

Also, tanks can be built on the very edge of the sea, przz what can be designed with a smaller safety factor, because if failure of the water will run down a short path to the sea. If there will not allow people to stay, nothing anyone can, even during high-accident

And started all of my oscillating dynamo in which the oscillations are due to the use of unidirectional semiconductor diode meets
Here the role of the diode valve to go with a spring water valves .
Now you can see the very first ideas oscillatory dynamo:
background: http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/133#toc1

http://www.new4stroke.com/coil.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/rod.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/wave.jpg

This time the mechanic replaced the electronics :rolleyes:

Regards Andrew:smile:

mheslep

Jul11-10, 07:02 PM

The chemical affects from salt water -Now we live in the age of polyvinylchloride PVC
The maximum pressure can not exceed 10 bars, which corresponds to a pressure of water at home. Thus, for most of the elements you can use PVC.Is the device designed to be rigidly attached to the sea floor? If so what is the maximum depth? What's roughly the maximum sheer moment on the main float-piston shaft? What material must be used to withstand that sheer?

In addition, all ships in the world with regóły swim in salt water and somehow cope.
Do you think all the ocean going ship hulls could also be made from PVC?

The 'somehow' includes drydocking ships and resurfacing their hulls, which also mostly don't have exposed moving parts. How easy is that to do (remove and service) with this device that is apparently rigidly anchored to the the sea floor? That degree of difficulty is going to matter, as the device's maintenance costs must be balanced against its output. From some of the wave devices listed above in this thread and on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power#Modern_technology), a single wave-float pump might be on the order of 100KW with at most a capacity factor of ~40%. Such a device produces approximately $32K worth of electricity per year, and its annual maintenance budget (removal and towed back to shore? resurfaced on location?) must be a fraction of that output.

Feliks

Jul12-10, 03:26 AM

Is the device designed to be rigidly attached to the sea floor? If so what is the maximum depth? What's roughly the maximum sheer moment on the main float-piston shaft? What material must be used to withstand that sheer?

Do you think all the ocean going ship hulls could also be made from PVC?
.............

You may need to ask the Japanese how they have managed to corrosion?
http://www.new4stroke.com/salt%20water%20pumped%20storage.pdf

If you want answers to all these questions, you probably need to open a new new academic department.And then you can better edit the Wikipedia .

Until then, with the same idea as myself two years ago, came the Swiss firm, and produced a mobile phone, you do not have to be loaded.
Just hang on a tree growing near you some of these phones and you will have when it will be a little nod from the wind electricity for household
http://www.uncells.com/
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/03/pic2.jpg

Regards Andrew

mheslep

Jul12-10, 09:58 AM

You may need to ask the Japanese how they have managed to corrosion?
http://www.new4stroke.com/salt%20water%20pumped%20storage.pdf
See that's the point, the significance of that article is in the saltwater aspect; there's nothing new about fresh water pumped storage. That pumped storage facility is 31 MW per pump; i.e. it has a relatively high power density. Thus they can afford an expensive corrosion prevention program: stainless or other special steels, active cathodic protection from an external electrical source, and possibly a full time maintenance crew continuously resurfacing the sea side of the system, just as is done for bridges like San Francisco's Golden Gate. These wave energy systems exhibit low power density per device; i.e. it appears some major innovation is required to economically maintain a salt water offshore 31 KW device. Perhaps it can be done, I don't know; certainly the problem is not trivial.

If you want answers to all these questions, you probably need to open a new new academic department.And then you can better edit the Wikipedia .
That's why these are the interesting questions(dealing with the marine environment).

AlexES16

Jul12-10, 10:06 AM

Should i go for ME or EE if i want to work with renewable energy? or maybe both? I really would like to be both. I really want to know how energy is produced and how to make it better.

mheslep

Jul12-10, 10:23 AM

Should i go for ME or EE if i want to work with renewable energy? or maybe both? I really would like to be both. I really want to know how energy is produced and how to make it better.Probably English lit, fiction that is, would be best. :biggrin:

Seriously, probably depends on the actual type. Include chemical engineering and molecular biology in the list for the biofuels, and materials science might also be a useful gateway for solar PV. Many of the oil and gas companies seem to be betting large amounts on renewables, so even entering one of them with a petroleum (or chemical) degree and then switching over might be a plan.

Feliks

Jul12-10, 10:24 AM

That's why these are the interesting questions(dealing with the marine environment).
and some new issue for the new Department:

Mutation pendulum dynamo

http://www.new4stroke.com/pendulum.jpg
Or magnet tooth plate

http://www.new4stroke.com/pendulum300.gif

So far we exploited the energy arising with the help of the pendulum only for stopping him.
Clik on picture, see animation.
http://ultra.ap.krakow.pl/~ogar/elektromagnetyzm/wahado_waltenhofena.html

It is a next mutation of the swaying pendulum around it pivot :

http://www.new4stroke.com/caly400.gif

And it is a conception of containing inside box a dozen or so of such pendulums giving the electricity under the influence of moving. Of course completely hermetically sealed box.

http://www.new4stroke.com/oceanwavve.jpg

Principe oscillating disc dynamo (pendulum)

http://www.new4stroke.com/redpin.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/view%20dynamo.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/pendulum%20dynamo.jpg

Regards Andrew:smile:

AlexES16

Jul12-10, 10:29 PM

Probably English lit, fiction that is, would be best. :biggrin:

Seriously, probably depends on the actual type. Include chemical engineering and molecular biology in the list for the biofuels, and materials science might also be a useful gateway for solar PV. Many of the oil and gas companies seem to be betting large amounts on renewables, so even entering one of them with a petroleum (or chemical) degree and then switching over might be a plan.

Hhahaha the things is i suck in chemistry xD but love math and physics.

brainstorm

Aug15-10, 09:06 PM

The ironic thing about conservation approaches is that they defy the inverse logic of modernization where technology increases energy-efficiency while consumption-culture intensifies to deplete the surplus. To conserve at the consumption level means moving in the direction of so-called "primitive" people who often use no vehicle, have no climate control besides fire when it's cold, rely very little on commodity shipping, etc. These "primitive" cultures are more energy efficient but they defy the western sense of entitlement to consume more in reward for progress.

The interesting sequel to this discussion would occur after people in the developed world would lower their per capital consumption to match those in the developing world. At that point, we could start talking about ways to increase the energy-efficiency of those processes that supplied large numbers of people with certain basic commodities. That would, in effect, achieve a level of global energy consumption that would be completely sustainable with renewable sources.

For example, a clothing factory could be streamlined by changing clothing designs. Furniture production or building architecture could be streamlined by designing plans that relied on less processed wood and other materials. Eventually, the biggest issue would be heating in cold climates, I believe. This would be solved by creating relatively compact spaces of rest and clothing that would allow people to keep warm with a moderate amount of physical activity. Another option might be for people to migrate by foot each fall to warmer climates for the winter. That may sound ridiculous, but if it could be made economically feasible, it would reduce energy consumption to practically nothing.

Astronuc

Aug28-10, 11:04 AM

Wind Turbine Projects Run Into Resistance
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/energy-environment/27radar.htm

Moving turbine blades can be indistinguishable from airplanes on many radar systems, and they can even cause blackout zones in which planes disappear from radar entirely. Clusters of wind turbines, which can reach as high as 400 feet, look very similar to storm activity on weather radar, making it harder for air traffic controllers to give accurate weather information to pilots.

Although the military says no serious incidents have yet occurred because of the interference, the wind turbines pose an unacceptable risk to training, testing and national security in certain regions, Dr. Dorothy Robyn, deputy under secretary of defense, recently told a House Armed Services subcommittee.
. . . . Beware of unintended consequences!

Topher925

Aug31-10, 03:49 PM

Wind Turbine Projects Run Into Resistance
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/energy-environment/27radar.htm

Sounds like a bunch of right-wing nonsense to me. All of the issues mentioned can be easily overcome by just knowing where the wind turbines are. This sounds a lot like the "We need to stop making hybrid cars because blind people can't hear them" argument.

mheslep

Aug31-10, 05:38 PM

Sounds like a bunch of right-wing nonsense to me.
Do you believe the source above, Dr. Dorothy Robyn, current deputy under secretary of defense, is a big right wing nutter?
All of the issues mentioned can be easily overcome by just knowing where the wind turbines are.Location knowledge doesn't trivialize the problem.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=wind+turbine+radar+interference&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=wind+turbine+radar+inter&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=728ef3750cf3a29c

brainstorm

Aug31-10, 05:59 PM

Sounds like a bunch of right-wing nonsense to me. All of the issues mentioned can be easily overcome by just knowing where the wind turbines are. This sounds a lot like the "We need to stop making hybrid cars because blind people can't hear them" argument.

Blind people can't hear hybrid cars? Maybe they need bigger bass speakers.

Ivan Seeking

Aug31-10, 06:05 PM

Make the wind turbines stealthy. :biggrin:

russ_watters

Aug31-10, 09:28 PM

Blind people can't hear hybrid cars? Maybe they need bigger bass speakers. That is one potential solution, yes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-hybrid-cars-too-quiet

Topher925

Sep20-10, 08:38 PM

Found this seminar thing from bill gates and thought it was worth sharing.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JaF-fq2Zn7I&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JaF-fq2Zn7I&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

brainstorm

Sep20-10, 11:39 PM

Found this seminar thing from bill gates and thought it was worth sharing.

Very inspirational speech. CO2=PxSxExC: nice clarity. The only thing I wonder is why do these kind of speeches always build up to suggesting more spending? Why doesn't anyone ever base their visions of progress on the idea that necessity will breed innovation? It seems to me that every time loads of money get thrown at change, the result is more spending on the status quo. How much money was invested in hydrogen and electric cars before it all culminated in cash4clunkers? How much has been spent on improving the energy efficiency of buildings and what has changed in terms of climate control practices? I would have expected many elegant designs for open-air work and consumption spaces. I would have expected to see more light vehicles with sun/rain canopies but no a/c. I would have expected to see cooperation between employers and city planners to move employers and employees closer together to promote pedestrian commuting. How much stimulus money does it take to initiate these kinds of innovations? Or is the truth that the stimulus was only ever intended to maintain cash flows at levels that would preserve the status quo of paying current utility costs, maintaining current machinery, paying off current mortgages, and renovating current infrastructure for current commuting patterns?

OmCheeto

Sep21-10, 12:52 AM

Found this seminar thing from bill gates and thought it was worth sharing.

Never heard of a U-238 reactor before.

I'll check it out and get back to you.

(ten seconds later)

Oops. Never mind. Wiki says it's true:

U-238 can, however, be used as a source material for creating plutonium-239, which can in turn be used as nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors carry out such a process of transmutation to convert the fertile isotope U-238 into fissile Pu-239. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of U-238 for use in these power plants. Breeder technology has been used in several experimental nuclear reactors.

I hate that Gates guy.

I hope his kids kick him in the shins when he gets older, or twist his nipples real hard when he's sleeping. :devil:

brainstorm

Sep21-10, 01:13 AM

I hate that Gates guy.

I hate him for giving so much money away to people who couldn't give a damn about what he's saying. Bill, you're so right about everything but those people just sit and listen to you talk about zero CO2 so they can get your money to go buy more oil, coal, gas, and other high-energy products.

I would love to see him stand there and talk about zero emissions and then say that he's going to take the first step by not letting a penny of his fortune get into anyone's hands who uses any fossil fuel in any way. See if there's any applause after he says that.

Topher925

Sep21-10, 10:45 AM

How can you hate Bill Gates? He created the Windows OS and is the worlds greatest philanthropist. Everything he does these days is to increase the quality of life for man kind.

OmCheeto

Sep21-10, 08:57 PM

How can you hate Bill Gates? He created the Windows OS and is the worlds greatest philanthropist. Everything he does these days is to increase the quality of life for man kind.

But that has nothing to do with fixing the US Energy Crisis does it. I think what I hate more is that a 250cc gas powered car won the automotive x-prize just the other day.

Five million dollars!

Now that, I hate way more than Gates.

Gates is more a jealous kind of hate. I was a ML coder back in his day. Those were the days. I think I wrote over 2000 programs in a 3 year period.

Actually, given a year, and about $100k, I could kick Edison2 (http://www.edison2.com/)'s derriere too. Maybe I hate them both equally.

sigh.....

mheslep

Sep21-10, 09:12 PM

Found this seminar thing from bill gates and thought it was worth sharing.

Gates is referring to a Traveling Wave Reactor. There are several threads e.g:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2607653&postcount=24

and

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/TerraPowerGilleland.pdf

OmCheeto

Sep29-10, 07:48 AM

Their Moon Shot and Ours (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opinion/26friedman.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=electric%20car%20china&st=cse)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
September 25, 2010
The New York Times
The Opinion Pages
....
Beijing just announced that it was providing $15 billion in seed money for the country’s leading auto and battery companies to create an electric car industry, starting in 20 pilot cities. In essence, China Inc. just named its dream team of 16-state-owned enterprises to move China off oil and into the next industrial growth engine: electric cars.
.....
Europe is using $7-a-gallon gasoline to stimulate the market for electric cars; China is using $5-a-gallon and naming electric cars as one of the industrial pillars for its five-year growth plan. And America? President Obama has directed stimulus money at electric cars, but he is unwilling to do the one thing that would create the sustained consumer pull required to grow an electric car industry here: raise taxes on gasoline.

Bill Clinton mentioned something similar regarding this, which I think I didn't quite relay properly the other day, and had someone laughing (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2896073&postcount=122):

.....the rest of the stimulus money that's going to be spent now, it's all the clean energy money. And we can dominate that, or be left in the dust,....
China spent twice as much money as we did last year on clean energy technology.
The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/bill-clinton-pt--2)

Topher925

Sep29-10, 09:25 AM

Ivan Seeking

Sep29-10, 02:35 PM

There's a good reason why Obama hasn't raised taxes on gas, and its because people would go absolutely ape @#$% over it. Just look at how much aggression has been created by the Bush tax cuts ending. If Obama was to enforce an increase cost in gasoline the right wing republicans along with that whole "tea party" movement would tear down the white house.

I think its a very good idea though. Increase the cost of gasoline to help fund alternative energy development and maybe do it with providing a tax waiver for the poor. To bad us Americans don't know whats good for us.

Either we do it strategically, in a controlled manner, to foster alternatives and end our reliance on oil, or we wait until the market does it for us, without controls, and live with the consequences of an avoidable disaster.

But you are right, the Republicans and tea partiers will have no part of it.

Topher925

Sep29-10, 03:01 PM

Either we do it strategically, in a controlled manner, to foster alternatives and end our reliance on oil, or we wait until the market does it for us, without controls, and live with the consequences of an avoidable disaster.

My money's on the latter.

mheslep

Sep29-10, 03:25 PM

There's a good reason why Obama hasn't raised taxes on gas, and its because people would go absolutely ape @#$% over it. Just look at how much aggression has been created by the Bush tax cuts ending. If Obama was to enforce an increase cost in gasoline the right wing republicans along with that whole "tea party" movement would tear down the white house.

I think its a very good idea though. Increase the cost of gasoline to help fund alternative energy development and maybe do it with providing a tax waiver for the poor. To bad us Americans don't know whats good for us.It might fly with an exact revenue match in income tax reduction, where it could be sold with the pitch - save gas and you are ahead of where you were before the tax. Would have flown already I expect, except for the exceptional impact on large, sparsely populated states where its nothing to drive your F150 50mi to work every day.

Mech_Engineer

Sep29-10, 03:55 PM

Why can't you just invent a better alternative to compete against gasoline powered transportation, rather than raise taxes to "research alternatives"?

I've got a better idea: give me the option to reroute my social security, medicare, and welfare taxes into alternative energy research. I'll go for that in an instant.

Topher925

Sep29-10, 05:00 PM

Why can't you just invent a better alternative to compete against gasoline powered transportation, rather than raise taxes to "research alternatives"?

Why can't we just invent a perpetual motion machine that makes more energy than it consumes. If it were possible to wave a magic wand and instantly create an entirely new eco-friendly infrastructure out of no where that was just as economical as gasoline then there wouldn't be an energy crisis in the first place.

I've got a better idea: give me the option to reroute my social security, medicare, and welfare taxes into alternative energy research. I'll go for that in an instant.

I think we all would. Unfortunately routing money from programs that can't even sustain themselves financially to another one isn't a very wise course of action.

Mech_Engineer

Sep29-10, 08:27 PM

Why can't we just invent a perpetual motion machine that makes more energy than it consumes. If it were possible to wave a magic wand and instantly create an entirely new eco-friendly infrastructure out of no where that was just as economical as gasoline then there wouldn't be an energy crisis in the first place.

Why is the federal government responsible for creating a new infrastructure? It seems to me that the market will find alternative options when petroleum is less lucrative...

Topher925

Sep29-10, 08:32 PM

Why is the federal government responsible for creating a new infrastructure? It seems to me that the market will find alternative options when petroleum is less lucrative...

Well, it most certainly isn't. But it is advantageous to accelerate the development of such infrastructure in order to create a knowledge base and manufacturing in this country instead of others.

OmCheeto

Sep29-10, 09:10 PM

Why is the federal government responsible for creating a new infrastructure?
Because to build pyramids, aka really cool big stuff, it takes a nation.
It seems to me that the market will find alternative options when petroleum is less lucrative...
I think we'd still be waiting on interstate highways, sewers, and water works, if we had waited on the market.

I mean really, how do you market; "If you invest in this, your poop will be processed, and your entire country will not stink, like, um, poop."

The market is great for some stuff. But, um, weird stuff that nobody wants to buy into, much less talk about?

Leave that to the Feds. They're really good great at that.

:smile:

G037H3

Sep30-10, 12:03 AM

$5 trillion to fund fusion

US is too stupid to do this though :D

Mech_Engineer

Sep30-10, 10:57 AM

Well, it most certainly isn't. But it is advantageous to accelerate the development of such infrastructure in order to create a knowledge base and manufacturing in this country instead of others.

Which forms of alternative energy specifically do you think need large amounts of funding from the government to make progress? It seems to me that the limitation these days isn't funding, but I could be wrong.

Because to build pyramids, aka really cool big stuff, it takes a nation.

I don't think the problem is funding or size, it's just that fundamental technology hasn't been found that can rival the specific stored energy of petroleum products. If electric cars existed that had a 300 mile range and charged in a few minutes, gas wouldn't stand a chance...

I think we'd still be waiting on interstate highways, sewers, and water works, if we had waited on the market.

I think you're wrong about that. How do you explain privately owned utility companies? If there's a need and lots of people are willing to pay for it, someone will find a way to fill that need.

I mean really, how do you market; "If you invest in this, your poop will be processed, and your entire country will not stink, like, um, poop."

The market is great for some stuff. But, um, weird stuff that nobody wants to buy into, much less talk about?

Leave that to the Feds. They're really good great at that.

:smile:

If no one wants to invest in it, it could be it's not that great of an idea to begin with... However as it is, there is a LOT of private investing happening in alternative energy research.

I don't like that you think it's a good thing that the federal government is great at investing in things no one else will; in fact it seems to me this is one of the fundamental problems with the federal gov't- they are rarely subject to cost-benefit analysis.

Mech_Engineer

Sep30-10, 11:01 AM

By the way- developing alternative energy technology isn't "developing infrastructure," and rightfully so. I shudder at the thought of only government-owned charging stations for my car...

melch

Oct17-10, 08:42 AM

The solution is not political, its physical. The secret is to be able to store and transport existing clean energy (Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, etc.) in a sustainable format.

Not particularly difficult; the same problem arises out of the breeder reactor program that is supposed to come on-line in around 2030 and solutions have been proposed and alternates have been created.

brainstorm

Oct17-10, 11:34 AM

OmCheeto

Oct17-10, 01:20 PM

I think we'd still be waiting on interstate highways, sewers, and water works, if we had waited on the market.
I think you're wrong about that. How do you explain privately owned utility companies? If there's a need and lots of people are willing to pay for it, someone will find a way to fill that need.
Frankly, I don't know how utility companies became private, nor do I care. I don't really see how it relates to infrastructure.

I was listening to the radio the other day, and a young gentleman put it in much better words than I could.

Imagine if everything were private. Gas, electricity, sewer, roads.
Imagine 20 different companies, from the above 4 fields, all after your money.
You'd have 20 separate sewer lines running to your house, 20 separate gas lines, 20 electric lines. And how are you going to fit 20 roads in the space of one road? Stack them? All so we can chose the cheapest, or most reliable, or the least rat infested?

NO! We don't need to privatize the whole world to make it a better place, given your apparent assumption that privatization will solve everything.

If no one wants to invest in it, it could be it's not that great of an idea to begin with... However as it is, there is a LOT of private investing happening in alternative energy research.
There is also a LOT more public investing happening in alternative energy research. Unfortunately, it's public investing by other countries, competing against our "free" market companies. We can sit around with our thumbs you know where, waiting for our companies to do the right thing in the right way, while foreign companies are getting massive government subsidies, getting ready to ramp up production in, you guessed it, alternative energy.

hmmm.... Guess who loses? We do.

There are only a few basic concepts in economics that I've ever thought worthy of devoting brain cells to, one of them is the theory of the economies of scale. If the YenWonYuan Corporation is 100 times bigger than Oosa Corporation, guess who's going to determine prices. Guess who's going to have the most jobs.

Waiting around for market may have worked in the past, but we're not in the past anymore. And wagging your finger at the Chinese Government for being unfair by dumping billions into their upstart companies, is not going to make them stop.

Just one example:

But A123 has another problem on its hands. A pair of giant lithium-ion battery makers -- Japan's Panasonic and Korea's Samsung -- has recently stated plans to radically boost spending to retain industry dominance. They also plan to cut prices to pursue market share, and that's a battle that relatively tiny A123 is ill-equipped to fight. So even as the company looks set to sharply boost sales in 2011 and 2012, gross profit margins may be so low that the company's operating losses fail to shrink. The key for a turnaround in this stock is a path to eventual profits. And until investors can see that path, shares are unlikely to rebound much.
And they didn't even mention the Chinese companies.

Ugh! And I never thought I'd quote Bill Gates:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20007344-54.html
Invest a minimum of $16 billion a year on clean energy. The group said that the U.S. currently spends $16 billion overseas on foreign fuel every 16 days.
But he's right. While we're sitting here, hundreds of billions of dollars are being flushed overseas.

I don't like that you think it's a good thing that the federal government is great at investing in things no one else will; in fact it seems to me this is one of the fundamental problems with the federal gov't- they are rarely subject to cost-benefit analysis.

Well, I can somewhat agree with you here. I had a post deleted quite a few months ago. It was fairly extensive, and consumed probably 12 hours of research. It was a severe criticism of a pair of academics who, based on a government installed solar project, determined that solar energy was not financially viable. I'll not go into the details, except that yes, the project was incredibly expensive, and would never provide a return on investment.

OmCheeto

Oct17-10, 02:14 PM

It's such a joke to listen to people talk about investing in new infrastructure to facilitate conservation. Bicycles are much smaller than cars so exponentially more bicycle traffic can fit on existing roads if significant numbers of drivers converted their lifestyles to biking and walking. The problem isn't the infrastructure, it's the unwillingness of individuals to change their everyday behaviors. Then, of course, you get into all the institutional barriers like why people can't just change jobs to one closer to their house or why employers and employees can't restructure in a way that has them close enough to each other to pedestrian-commute.

It is because no one wants to consider pursuing these kinds of solutions that all the talk about expensive government solutions emerges. Basically the expense and the difficulty of achieving political consensus work as barriers to prevent anyone from having to change. They voted for change and what they got was insulation against having to change, which may have been what they secretly wanted all along.

I disagree, but only because I live ~12 miles from work, in an environment that is not conducive to bicycling 10 months out of the year. And relocate? Do you want everyone to sell and buy a different house every time they get a new job? Or are you talking only about renters?

I know that we all bring our preconditioned prejudices to these conversations, but a solution to the energy crisis needs to include solutions for everyone, not just me and you.

Personally, I'm pursuing an enclosed vehicle that gets 300 mpg* equivalent, with a range of around 30 miles. And that doesn't cost $40,000. I mean really, that's twice what I paid for my house!

*Yes. I know. That's 100 watt hours per mile. But I'm a firm believer in the Kobayashi Maru: When it's impossible to win, cheat. :)

melch

Oct17-10, 02:30 PM

OmCheeto

Oct17-10, 04:33 PM

This can be a very negative board.

Wouldn't it work better, if in the brainstorming phase, if we focussed on creating ideas and only offered objections when the original poster was asking for that kind of feedback.

There is enough negativity in experimental results that speculative negativity is just excess.

Government projects have been very successful (Interstate Highway System) and so have private ventures (The Pennsylvania Railroad). Is this really the forum to determine the political answers? Shouldn't we explore the scientific means?

Scientific means? Those are easy. It's everything outside of the engineering field that gets sticky. Going through the last 41 pages of this thread will probably provide you with the "engineering" answer to the original order: "YOU! Fix the US Energy Crisis"

To continue, in response to our seemingly off topic discussion of the last few days:

I mentioned "Systems Science" a while back and was flabbergasted at the response (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2559571&postcount=3). (I didn't understand a word, and hence, I felt I wasn't qualified to say a word about the topic to which I was referring to. "Could Aperion be a systems scientist?")

Systems Science, in my little mind, related only to the simple idea that everything is interconnected. Nothing can be ignored. Everything must be discussed. I was first exposed to it in the movie Mindwalk, by Bernt and Fridjof Kapra. A movie about, well, it's very, very, boring. You'll have to watch it for yourself. I've a Vhs copy that I nearly wore out.

Many problems involve so many aspects(social, political, scientific, economic), that you cannot help but to break the rules if you want to really solve a problem.

mheslep

Oct17-10, 05:43 PM

brainstorm

Oct17-10, 06:39 PM

I disagree, but only because I live ~12 miles from work, in an environment that is not conducive to bicycling 10 months out of the year. And relocate? Do you want everyone to sell and buy a different house every time they get a new job? Or are you talking only about renters?
Well, considering that the real estate market is overflowing with toxic properties and a glut of excess housing, it really doesn't seem like it would take much of an infrastructural investment to coordinate people being able to change residences to live closer to work.

I know that we all bring our preconditioned prejudices to these conversations, but a solution to the energy crisis needs to include solutions for everyone, not just me and you.
Ultimately the solution for the vast majority of people is going to have to involve living most of their lives in a relatively dense urban environment. The question is how to organize the economy in such a way that facilitates sustainable lifestyles in relatively dense cities.

Personally, I'm pursuing an enclosed vehicle that gets 300 mpg* equivalent, with a range of around 30 miles. And that doesn't cost $40,000. I mean really, that's twice what I paid for my house!
You paid $20k for a house? What a bargain. Enclosed vehicles the size of bicycles are an ideal solution because they get good energy-distance efficiency and they are small enough to allow more vehicles on existing roads without widening them. The problem is that they're just not going to supplant large heavy vehicles overnight. So it makes far more sense to implement mobility-culture reforms that help people transition to pedestrian/bicycle living for the majority of their life activities and reserve personal car transit for weekend getaways once in a while and large-item purchases.

*Yes. I know. That's 100 watt hours per mile. But I'm a firm believer in the Kobayashi Maru: When it's impossible to win, cheat. :)
I think an average person generates about 40 watts and can bike @15mph, so if you divide 40 watt-hours by 15, you get a little less than 3 watt-hours per mile. Beam me up, Scotty.

Bicycle solutions are not pursued because they are not equivalent to motor vehicles across dozens of different obvious metrics, regardless of 'lifestyle' choice.
It's always the same thing whenever I mention bicycling or walking as a solution to energy crisis. People say that bikes are inferior to cars or they live too far from work, etc. But all those obstacles are not necessity but luxury. If there was absolutely no gasoline available, you would quickly see people adjust their lifestyle patterns to walk or bike. They might complain that biking and walking are inferior to driving "across dozens of different obvious metrics," but they would do it because they would have no choice. Then, they would continue to innovate the local economy to make living within a small geographic area increasingly more pleasant.

And guess what, doing this would require relatively little if any government investment in infrastructure or otherwise. People would just reform existing infrastructure and building usage to accommodate large-scale reliance on human-powered transit.

Dr Lots-o'watts

Oct17-10, 08:05 PM

say that bikes are inferior to cars or they live too far from work, etc. But all those obstacles are not necessity but luxury. If there was absolutely no gasoline available, you would quickly see people adjust their lifestyle patterns to walk or bike. They might complain that biking and walking are inferior to driving "across dozens of different obvious metrics," but they would do it because they would have no choice. Then, they would continue to innovate the local economy to make living within a small geographic area increasingly more pleasant.

And guess what, doing this would require relatively little if any government investment in infrastructure or otherwise. People would just reform existing infrastructure and building usage to accommodate large-scale reliance on human-powered transit.

Indeed, I might consider biking when roads are sufficiently safe (free of cars) and there are locker rooms in every office buildings/workplace. But it is an immense undertaking to reform existing infrastructure, and if a politician were to propose this today, he would not get any votes.

I agree with you though. Humans can adapt, but for the moment, they (we) don't feel sufficiently threatened to make such radical changes in lifestyle.

brainstorm

Oct18-10, 07:14 AM

Indeed, I might consider biking when roads are sufficiently safe (free of cars) and there are locker rooms in every office buildings/workplace. But it is an immense undertaking to reform existing infrastructure, and if a politician were to propose this today, he would not get any votes.

I agree with you though. Humans can adapt, but for the moment, they (we) don't feel sufficiently threatened to make such radical changes in lifestyle.

Which is why this thread is somewhat superfluous. We talk about fixing the 'energy crisis' but in reality public denial of the crisis is the driving political-economic sentiment. If people were serious about reducing energy-usage, the kinds of reforms/restructuring you mention would not seem like such an immense undertaking.

What is more difficult, building locker-rooms or other bicycle-commuting friendly facilities in areas where people work or building entire rail systems to expand public transit, as has been promoted as a reasonable public investment? Clearly building rail-systems, electric vehicles and charging stations, etc. requires more investment but people just think that the investment will stimulate the economy, which will in turn sustain the high energy-consumption economy that makes them comfortable.

What is also needed are technologically simple solutions for climate-control systems. Roofs can be used to generate solar heat, for example, but some kind of cheap effective method for enclosing them with transparent material is needed. Glassing in a roof is expensive but if some kind of plastic was available that would resist deforming due to the heat, this plastic could be stretched over entire roofs to create a heat-capture space and indoor air could be circulated through the enclosed roof area (probably some air-filtering would be a good idea with this).

As for cooling in hot months, fans provide air movement that make the indoor air feel cooler than static air at the same temperature. Fans use less energy than air-conditioning.

The problem is that all such conservation measures require humans to adjust their comfort levels, which requires they endure temporary discomfort during the adjustment period. Ultimately it is avoidance of discomfort that is driving most energy-waste. It is ironic that we try to come up with elaborate technical/engineering solutions for a problem that is essentially psychological and social-cultural.

mheslep

Oct18-10, 12:03 PM

It's always the same thing whenever I mention bicycling or walking as a solution to energy crisis. People say that bikes are inferior to cars or they live too far from work, etc. But all those obstacles are not necessity but luxury. If there was absolutely no gasoline available, you would quickly see people adjust their lifestyle patterns to walk or bike. They might complain that biking and walking are inferior to driving "across dozens of different obvious metrics," but they would do it because they would have no choice. Then, they would continue to innovate the local economy to make living within a small geographic area increasingly more pleasant.

And guess what, doing this would require relatively little if any government investment in infrastructure or otherwise. People would just reform existing infrastructure and building usage to accommodate large-scale reliance on human-powered transit.That is all hand waiving, which I note you do while considering the assumptions about the status quo 'such a joke'. You are essentially calling for a back to nature, log cabins and grow your own food plan. Do you really imagine the world hasn't heard endless (and thoughtless) calls of this kind since the beginning of the industrial age? If you want to add to the conversation, take the time to show in at least one (challenging) detail how migrating a modern society mostly to bicycle transportation could work for 300 million people of men, women and children, the sick and the infirm, spread out over a continent 3000 miles across.

brainstorm

Oct18-10, 12:14 PM

That is all hand waiving, which I note you do while considering the assumptions about the status quo 'such a joke'. You are essentially calling for a back to nature, log cabins and grow your own food plan. Do you really imagine the world hasn't heard endless (and thoughtless) calls of this kind since the beginning of the industrial age? If you want to add to the conversation, take the time to show in at least one (challenging) detail how migrating a modern society mostly to bicycle transportation could work for 300 million people of men, women and children, the sick and the infirm, spread out over a continent 3000 miles across.
It's also "such a joke" that you make reference to the "sick and infirm," as if the difficulty these people have with human-powered mobility should automatically exclude healthy, able-bodied people from carrying their own healthy bodies around. Really the size of the continent or the number of people you include in the population doesn't matter. How many people got around without cars in China until very recently? Were they able to do that because of the small size of the physical geography or population?

I'm not saying that no one should ever use a car or public transit for anything. I'm not saying anyone has to live in a log cabin or grow their own food, although I think that would be good for other reasons. Mainly I'm pointing out that because there is resistance to considering energy-conservation strategies that involve culture/lifestyle reforms/changes, people make this energy-crisis more complex and expensive than it really needs to be. The simple fact is that there are numerous ways to modify the way you live and work that reduce energy-consumption. The need for everyone to conform to the same lifestyle is not a valid 'need' at all but a luxury that people have grown accustomed to. Just because your neighbor has air-conditioning, drives a car everywhere all the time, and keeps his voluminous house warm enough in the winter to lounge around in his underwear doesn't mean that everyone else has to aspire to that as well, does it?

Btw, it is so typical to be attacked like this whenever suggesting simple conservation reforms. Could it be that such attacks are the reason energy-conservation never gets off the ground to start with?

mheslep

Oct18-10, 01:36 PM

How many people got around without cars in China until very recently?Ah, there's case. I asked you above to explore such a case, as this is an Engineering forum. In China, before a significant motor vehicle presence, along with the millions of bicycles China also had

An average life expectancy of ~48 years (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+china) circa 1960.
A GDP (PPP) per capita of $250 circa 1980 (http://www.indexmundi.com/china/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html), with hundreds of millions in grinding poverty
I don't see a modern life expectancy and income sufficient to live in a single family dwelling as "luxuries." Inexpensive mobility for a family, that enables Smith's division of labou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour)r is visibly a contributor to the economic productivity that makes these possible.

Btw, it is so typical to be attacked like this whenever suggesting simple conservation reforms. I'm attacking the material in your posts in this line, but apparently insufficiently, so here's some more.

This is the G. Engineering forum, you are aware of the guidelines. Yet instead of offering something akin to a quantitative analysis, you would make this in to the navel gazing forum by offering strawmen and loading your posts with smug pronouncements, e.g. "this thread is somewhat superfluous", "It's such a joke to listen to people talk", "And guess what", "people just think", topped off by "People would just reform" when they do as you pronounce, without bothering with a single reference. Please take it all elsewhere.

BTW, I bike 24 miles a day, family commitments permitting.

Dr Lots-o'watts

Oct18-10, 09:21 PM

If people were serious about reducing energy-usage, the kinds of reforms/restructuring you mention would not seem like such an immense undertaking.

I still think it's a huge undertaking.

What is also needed are technologically simple solutions for climate-control systems. Roofs can be used to generate solar heat, for example, but some kind of cheap effective method for enclosing them with transparent material is needed. Glassing in a roof is expensive but if some kind of plastic was available that would resist deforming due to the heat, this plastic could be stretched over entire roofs to create a heat-capture space and indoor air could be circulated through the enclosed roof area (probably some air-filtering would be a good idea with this).

Solar panels may be able to heat homes in some countries, but up here in Canada, it can not be taken seriously. Not only it can't possibly provide enough heat (from a regular sized-roof), but no one is going to want to shovel snow off a roof-top after the typical storm we get a few times a year. I'm counting on hydro and nuclear for this.

As for cooling in hot months, fans provide air movement that make the indoor air feel cooler than static air at the same temperature. Fans use less energy than air-conditioning.

Yes. Although perhaps the hot air produced by air conditioning could be used to heat water, instead of being wasted.

It is ironic that we try to come up with elaborate technical/engineering solutions for a problem that is essentially psychological and social-cultural.

I suppose we need to attack the problem on all fronts.

brainstorm

Oct19-10, 02:41 PM

Ah, there's case. I asked you above to explore such a case, as this is an Engineering forum. In China, before a significant motor vehicle presence, along with the millions of bicycles China also had

An average life expectancy of ~48 years (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+china) circa 1960.

A GDP (PPP) per capita of $250 circa 1980 (http://www.indexmundi.com/china/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html), with hundreds of millions in grinding poverty

Are you trying to suggest some kind of causal link between widespread bicycling/walking and low life expectancy and low GDP? What about EU and US cities where large numbers of people get around by foot or bicycle? Is it lowering their life expectancy or income? You claim to be doing engineering but this is just very poor quantitative sociological claims you're making without even being brave enough to go beyond implicit suggestions. If you're going to make a claim like saying that biking/walking reduce life expectancy and cause poverty, please be so rigorous as to explain the details of the causation as you envision it.

I don't see a modern life expectancy and income sufficient to live in a single family dwelling as "luxuries." Inexpensive mobility for a family, that enables Smith's division of labou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour)r is visibly a contributor to the economic productivity that makes these possible.
Luxury is a relative experience. To someone who has lived in a mansion, a 2500sf house may seem degrading. To someone who's used to living in 1500sf, 2500sf can seem like a mansion.

I'm attacking the material in your posts in this line, but apparently insufficiently, so here's some more.
Why aren't there forum rules against using such an aggressive tone as this?

This is the G. Engineering forum, you are aware of the guidelines. Yet instead of offering something akin to a quantitative analysis,
Where do you get that engineering discussion have to involve numbers? Besides, in one of my earlier posts I mentioned 40watts as a typical amount of energy generated by a human body and I divided that by 15 mph to get @3 watt-hours.

you would make this in to the navel gazing forum by offering strawmen and loading your posts with smug pronouncements, e.g. "this thread is somewhat superfluous", "It's such a joke to listen to people talk", "And guess what", "people just think", topped off by "People would just reform" when they do as you pronounce, without bothering with a single reference. Please take it all elsewhere.
You don't recognize these things are referring to discourse that you yourself have witnessed? And how is anything I've said, "navel gazing" except insofar as it doesn't fit your personal beliefs about what methods for reducing energy consumption are good?

BTW, I bike 24 miles a day, family commitments permitting.
Congratulations. Is biking a prerequisite for discussing biking and walking as forms of transit now?

I still think it's a huge undertaking.
Many people would agree with you. I wish there was a way to assess how much of the resistance would be institutional, cultural, and psychological, and how much involves actual material hurdles.

Solar panels may be able to heat homes in some countries, but up here in Canada, it can not be taken seriously. Not only it can't possibly provide enough heat (from a regular sized-roof), but no one is going to want to shovel snow off a roof-top after the typical storm we get a few times a year. I'm counting on hydro and nuclear for this.
If nuclear is unbridled, would there really be any need for any other source of energy? The problem is that there usually tends to be popular resistance to nuclear anything. So, imo, the way to get renewable sources going is to come up with very cheap, easy methods. People may not want to shovel snow off their roofs, but if it turns out to make a difference in their heating bill, many might in the long run. In very cold climates, I think insulation and zone-heating are key to efficiency. I've also recently heard that artificial logs can be made by compressing leaves and brush and burned in wood stoves and boilers. I don't know how valuable a source of fuel this would be.

Yes. Although perhaps the hot air produced by air conditioning could be used to heat water, instead of being wasted.
I've been hearing about this a lot lately. It seems you can heat water either with an a/c heat pump or a refrigerator/cooler.

I suppose we need to attack the problem on all fronts.
You suppose? I'm sorry to have expressed cynicism in this forum because I seem to upset some people with it. I just get tired of hearing all this madness in the media about economic, energy, and ecological crises but then see people live as if these crises weren't happening. I mean, there's either crisis or there isn't. Well, maybe what it is is that some people are enduring crisis while others are insulated from it. Also, I think there are so many people insulated from it that those people can just pretend no one else really matters.

mheslep

Oct29-10, 12:54 PM

Here come the electric fleets.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/ge-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-order-a-huge-step-up-.html
GE’s Biggest Electric-Vehicle Order a ‘Huge Step Up’
GE, whose power-generation equipment provides a third of the world’s electricity, will order “tens of thousands” of the vehicles in about a week, Immelt said yesterday in a speech in London, without giving a total or identifying a manufacturer.
[...]
Immelt said half of GE’s sales force of about 45,000 will drive electric vehicles.
[...]
Brett Smith, a vehicle technology analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “It’s the biggest order to date I’m aware of, by a lot.”
Which would be roughly 13M gallons of petroleum per year that does not need to be imported.

Why GE, in particular?
Expanding the world’s fleet of electric vehicles would bolster GE as it expands so-called clean-energy technology such as car chargers, solar panels and wind turbines. For every dollar of electric-vehicle sales, GE estimates it may get 10 cents in revenue, said Gary Sheffer, a spokesman.That's remarkable if true. I would think that means GE should seriously consider making its own EVs, or at least the drive trains.

russ_watters

Oct30-10, 12:48 PM

I'm sorry to have expressed cynicism in this forum because I seem to upset some people with it. I just get tired of hearing all this madness in the media about economic, energy, and ecological crises but then see people live as if these crises weren't happening. I mean, there's either crisis or there isn't. Take a look at the first post in the thread where I set up the framework for the discussion: First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list. So I specifically set it up with the understanding that different people would have different perspectives on what the "problem" is and I left it up to the individual posters to (assigned them the task of) define[ing] the problem, including the level of criticalitity of the problem. And other posters will no doubt want to discuss/critique those ideas. That is, in fact, one of the most important components of the discussion (and is a key part of any engineering problem).

No, engineering isn't all about numbers: just as important are analytical and decision making skills, and that part of the discussion involves using/developing those skills.

russ_watters

Oct30-10, 12:59 PM

That's remarkable if true. I would think that means GE should seriously consider making its own EVs, or at least the drive trains. I'd never thought about it in those terms, but it isn't too surprising. Throwing some quick numbers at the issue: if a car costs $20k and is driven 100k miles at $.02 per mile in electricity, that would be 10%....of course, GE only gets a third of that, but we're in the ballpark.

mheslep

Nov1-10, 10:41 AM

I'd never thought about it in those terms, but it isn't too surprising. Throwing some quick numbers at the issue: if a car costs $20k and is driven 100k miles at $.02 per mile in electricity, that would be 10%....of course, GE only gets a third of that, but we're in the ballpark.Well that is the recurring production cost and GE's end is in the up front capital cost, not operation far as I know. But still a good point. Plus electricity will be at least $0.025 per mile in the US, and substantially more expensive elsewhere in the world where GE plays of course.

Topher925

Nov11-10, 12:00 PM

Here come the electric fleets.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/ge-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-order-a-huge-step-up-.html
GE’s Biggest Electric-Vehicle Order a ‘Huge Step Up’

This has me irked for several reasons;
1. GM doesn't produce a single electric car (Volt is not an EV), what the hell is GE going to buy?
2. Recycling. Li batteries have an average recycle rate of ~15% (don't quote me, but either way its a small number) compared to that of 93% for VRLA batteries. Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead. What the hell are they going to do with all those batteries? Yes, parts of the battery can be recycled, but not all of it. Not at a reasonable price anyway.
3. Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?

EDIT: Contracted statement.

mheslep

Nov11-10, 04:23 PM

This has me irked for several reasons;
1. GM doesn't produce a single electric car (Volt is not an EV), what the hell is GE going to buy?
2. Recycling. Li batteries have an average recycle rate of ~15% (don't quote me, but either way its a small number) compared to that of 93% for VRLA batteries. Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead. What the hell are they going to do with all those batteries? Yes, parts of the battery can be recycled, but not all of it. Not at a reasonable price anyway.
3. Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?

EDIT: Contracted statement.Volt is an EV, Li batteries can last much longer than three years, EV's work in cold weather if the battery is heated, and the Volt's is, unlike some other EVs.

Topher925

Nov11-10, 05:55 PM

Volt is an EV, Li batteries can last much longer than three years, EV's work in cold weather if the battery is heated, and the Volt's is, unlike some other EVs.

The Volt is not an EV by any definition, its a series hybrid.

If your EV is sitting outside in -20'F weather and is not plugged in, how will you start it? The Volt can operate in cold weather because its not an EV and will just operate using the ICE until the battery is heated.

What Li batteries can last longer than 4 years with less than 20% capacity loss and have a specific energy greater than the DOE standard (150 Wh/kg)?

mheslep

Nov11-10, 06:34 PM

The Volt is not an EV by any definition, its a series hybrid. I don't think you understand its design. First 40 miles the Volt is (at your choice) an EV - battery to electric motor to wheels - no ICE in the loop.

If your EV is sitting outside in -20'F weather and is not plugged in, how will you start it?With the key.
The Volt can operate in cold weather because its not an EV and will just operate using the ICE until the battery is heated. If you assumed that to be the case (and its not necessary), then why the games with "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather"?

What Li batteries can last longer than 4 years with less than 20% capacity loss and have a specific energy greater than the DOE standard (150 Wh/kg)?Now its 4 years? Why is the 'DOE standard' relevant? It's your assertion of fact, you need to reference it.

Topher925

Nov11-10, 08:27 PM

I don't think you understand its design. First 40 miles the Volt is (at your choice) an EV - battery to electric motor to wheels - no ICE in the loop.

I entirely understand its design. FYI, parallel hybrids can operate without the ICE engine in the loop as well. They just can't drive as far with battery power alone due to a smaller battery pack, not due to limitations of concept.

With the key.

And what will you do after that, assuming you are no where near an electric power outlet or space heater?

If you assumed that to be the case (and its not necessary), then why the games with "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather"?

I don't think you understand the workings of Li batteries. The majority of Li batteries that are suitable for EVs can not be charged or discharged below 0'C without some form of degradation. The Volt has an ICE which can both power the car and heat the batteries in sub zero climates. This means that the car can still operate without the use of its Li batteries in cold temperatures. Your regular EV can't. Thats why the Nissan Leaf isn't being sold in the colder regions of the US.

Now its 4 years? Why is the 'DOE standard' relevant? It's your assertion of fact, you need to reference it.

My original comment stated "about 3 years" as in give or take 6 months or if you prefer, 3.5 years. Some of the newer batteries can probably last over 3 years but 4 is pushing it. The purpose of the DOE and the USABC standards are obvious but if I need to explain it, its because these organizations have determined the minimum battery performance required to make EVs and PHEVs practical. For example, no one is going to buy a $80k electric car that has a range of 20 miles and a battery life of 6 months. The targets they publish can be seen as goals that need to be achieved by battery manufacturers before OEMs can even think about putting them in a vehicle. If you want more info about these targets, the DOE and USABC have plenty of easy to find information on it;

http://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=25

mheslep

Nov12-10, 02:28 PM

I entirely understand its design. FYI, parallel hybrids can operate without the ICE engine in the loop as well. They just can't drive as far with battery power alone due to a smaller battery pack, not due to limitations of concept. If you knew this, and that the Volt can go 40 miles on batteries alone, then what was the point of your #1 "GM doesn't produce a single electric car (Volt is not an EV), what the hell is GE going to buy?"?

And what will you do after that, assuming you are no where near an electric power outlet or space heater?Drive away?

I don't think you understand the workings of Li batteries. Well I'm not an electrochemist, but I've been over the theory and market fairly thoroughly for work customers, but no need to believe me: I've cited references here before.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2526716&postcount=10
The majority of Li batteries that are suitable for EVs can not be charged or discharged below 0'C without some form of degradation. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2525412&postcount=9
Temporary degradation in capacity. A much more accurate statement than saying they "don't work".

The Volt has an ICE which can both power the car and heat the batteries in sub zero climates. This means that the car can still operate without the use of its Li batteries in cold temperatures. Your regular EV can't. Thats why the Nissan Leaf isn't being sold in the colder regions of the US. If you knew this, and that GE is buying GM Volts, then what is the point of your statement #3 "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?"

My original comment stated "about 3 years" as in give or take 6 months or if you prefer, 3.5 years. Some of the newer batteries can probably last over 3 years but 4 is pushing it. [...]Again, reference? The forum guidelines require you to support statements of fact with a reference. (That 2002 link is irrelevant). If you have questions instead, ask them.

mheslep

Nov12-10, 06:06 PM

Here's a electric series hybrid w/ a little more go than the Volt. And a little more cost. Jag CX75. Four 190HP E-motors, one per wheel; dual diesel turbine 80,000 rpm generators charging the batteries. 0-60mph in 3.4s, top speed 200+ mph. Shazzam (http://www.dailytech.com/Jaguar+CX75+Concept+Features+Four+Electric+Motors+ Two+Gas+Turbines/article19757.htm).

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/16834_c-x75_1.jpg

Why turbines? A reminder that the turbine is remarkable invention:
“You see, the small gas turbines tip the scales at 55 pounds each. In addition, they don’t need oil lubrication or a catalytic converter, and they will run on almost anything from biofuel to LPG. Although they rev at up to 80,000 rpm, turbines are a very reliable known quantity. The fact that they may take up to 15 seconds to reach their optimum operating speed does not really matter here because they are only used to recharge the batteries.”

mheslep

Nov23-10, 06:56 PM

Here's a electric series hybrid w/ a little more go than the Volt. And a little more cost. Jag CX75. Four 190HP E-motors, one per wheel; dual diesel turbine 80,000 rpm generators charging the batteries. ...BTW, does anyone have more than a googling knowledge of the price per HP/KW of turbines? Now that hybrid's have come into their own, I'm curious if a turbine has a chance of supplanting piston reciprocating engines in the mass vehicle market.
Advantages: runs off all kinds of fuels, highest power density of any engine, highly efficient.
Disadvantage: limited RPM operating range, but that's no longer a problem w/ electric motors handling the traction.

I'm guessing the diesel-electric locomotive people evaluated turbine-electric designs and found diesels superior for some reason. But, given the continuing advances in turbines, and that the mass advantage is important for lightweight vehicles, perhaps the tradeoff results would be different now.

mheslep

Nov23-10, 08:03 PM

2. ... Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead. What the hell are they going to do with all those batteries?

General Motors announces 8-year/100,000-mile warranty for Chevy Volt battery
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/14/general-motors-announces-8-year-100-000-mile-warranty-for-volt-b/

Topher925

Nov28-10, 10:48 PM

Drive away?

No you wouldn't, your lithium ion battery wouldn't generate any power.

Well I'm not an electrochemist, but I've been over the theory and market fairly thoroughly for work customers, but no need to believe me: I've cited references here before.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2526716&postcount=10

You didn't specify a source for cold temperature operation. Your other source doesn't say anything about degradation or performance at low temperatures, only the effects of high temperatures.

FYI, not all, and in-fact many, Li batteries used in electric vehicles don't use olivine Fe based cathodes. The batteries developed by LG (CPI) that are used in the Chevy Volt use a non-ferrous spinel structured cathode.
http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/12/its-official-gm-chooses-lg-chemcompact-power-inc-to-supply-chevy-volt-lithium-ion-battery-packs/
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2010/electrochemical_storage/es00a_howell_2010_o.pdf (slide 11)

While you may get some power out of a very cold battery, you're not going to get much since the discharge reaction is limited by transport, specifically diffusion through the SEI, not migration through the electrolyte. The BMS (battery management system) will not allow the battery to operate when its at to low of a temperature, or in layman's terms, your battery wont work. This is the similar to the reason why you cannot charge a Li battery at cold temperatures as the low rate of diffusion will accelerate dendrite formation on the anode.
http://books.google.com/books?id=o-QpFOR0PTcC&lpg=PA60&dq=lithium%20battery%20system%20cold%20temperature&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2525412&postcount=9
Temporary degradation in capacity. A much more accurate statement than saying they "don't work".

Nice work using my post from another thread for your argument. Its completely taken out of of context though. http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab236/Adison4eva/Animated%20smiley%2000/smiley_two_thumbs_up.gif

I of course was referring to batteries just experiencing cold temperatures as the OP stated, not being operated.

If you knew this, and that GE is buying GM Volts, then what is the point of your statement #3 "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?"

Please see the wiki article for vehicle naming conventions. You can call the Volt a PHEV, a SHEV, or a REEV, but it is most definitely not an EV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrains

Again, reference? The forum guidelines require you to support statements of fact with a reference. (That 2002 link is irrelevant). If you have questions instead, ask them.
Cycle life for a battery is generally readily available from its manufacturer. LG/CPI for example, http://www.compactpower.com/lithium.shtml
More here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/2008_energy_storage.pdf

And the 2002 link is not irrelevant. Those targets haven't change and I doubt they ever will with exception of some small modifications.

Topher925

Nov28-10, 10:56 PM

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/14/general-motors-announces-8-year-100-000-mile-warranty-for-volt-b/

No one is saying that the battery will actually last 8 years, only that GM will replace it when it dies.

brainstorm

Nov29-10, 09:59 AM

What about tax deductions for businesses relative to the average commuting-distance for their employees? This would encourage them to relocate closer to where their employees live or hire more local employees to reduce their average commuting-distance.

Likewise, could government cover the closing costs and/or other fees associated with employees relocating closer to their work?

Could government somehow stimulate more mixed residential/commercial developments, such as incentives for apartment/condominium developers to make the ground level of their buildings commercial/retail or promoting mixed-zoning that increases job-density per unit population allowing more people to work close to home?

mheslep

Nov29-10, 12:00 PM

No you wouldn't, your lithium ion battery wouldn't generate any power. [...]From the NREL/Saft source Russ_Waters provided you previously. Lindzen's Battery Handbook also provides temperature data.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2rh2o2s.jpg
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/pdfs/evs17poster.pdf

We also have factual data on, e.g. the BMW E-Mini at cold temperatures. As we can see it manages to drive away, even when cold. Yes the range drops. No it is no prevented from starting by its 'BMS'.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BG780A_CarLi_G_20101017220417.jpg

Cycle life for a battery is generally readily available from its manufacturer. LG/CPI for example, http://www.compactpower.com/lithium.shtml
More here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/2008_energy_storage.pdf
Again, third time, I asked you to source your statement, not for general background reading on batteries.
Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead.
Which was probably some off the cuff comment based on experience with a laptop or the like. We are, of course, discussing batteries made for vehicle electric drive trains. Why not just retract or modify your statement?

Topher925

Nov29-10, 01:24 PM

From the NREL/Saft source Russ_Waters provided you previously. Lindzen's Battery Handbook also provides temperature data.

The source that Russ provided only shows experimental data to 0'C and a theoretical model to -10'C. It also only addresses the effective capacity of the battery, not issues with degradation or specific power at those temperatures.

We also have factual data on, e.g. the BMW E-Mini at cold temperatures. As we can see it manages to drive away, even when cold. Yes the range drops. No it is no prevented from starting by its 'BMS'.

The graphic for the BMW E-mini only shows operation of the car to about 25'F of the ambient air temperature. Again, the question I originally stated was for a battery temperature of -20'F (~-30'C).

Again, third time, I asked you to source your statement, not for general background reading on batteries.

Ok, well for laboratory results for GenIII cells ("latest and greatest"), I again point you here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...gy_storage.pdf
Page 29, Figure III-3
Page 30, Figure III-4

For blanket statements supporting my general point that Li batteries have poor cycle life you can look in just about any book or respectable resource. But since I have to provide a source:

Lithium batteries for EVs are far from commercialization
Lithium metal polymer suffers from poor cycle life. A stiffer solid polymer electrolyte with significantly improved ionic conductivity at room temperature is required.

www.ornl.gov/sci/sp/Pres/Duong.ppt

If you need hard experimental data from battery manufacturers or OEMs, well I'm obviously not going to have it as that information is almost always proprietary. The majority of my practical knowledge of batteries and the vehicles that use them come from primary sources.

Which was probably some off the cuff comment based on experience with a laptop or the like. We are, of course, discussing batteries made for vehicle electric drive trains. Why not just retract or modify your statement?

My experience comes from classmates and colleagues that work at either A123 Systems or General Motors and work on the Chevy Volt. My experience also comes from classes I have taken about battery and hybrid systems as well as my general knowledge of electrochemical storage and conversion devices that I've obtained from my university research. I will not retract or modify my statement because there is nothing wrong with it and you have yet to prove otherwise.

mheslep

Nov29-10, 03:42 PM

The source that Russ provided only shows experimental data to 0'C and a theoretical model to -10'C. So? That they "dont work" cold is your claim. You have information showing the model suddenly fails at -30C (-20F)?

It also only addresses the effective capacity of the battery, not issues with degradation or specific power at those temperatures. The model does. Spec power is ~linearly related to capacity per the model NREL shows on slide 3. That is, if capacity drops by 10%, spec power drops 10%.

Ok, well for laboratory results for GenIII cells ("latest and greatest"), I again point you here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...gy_storage.pdf
Page 29, Figure III-3
Page 30, Figure III-4
Did you review the charts? They say what? That capacity degrades significantly per cycle with long term 55C / 131F usage, and very slowly at moderate temperatures. The GM Volt and Tesla batteries for example will be/are temperature controlled, hot and cold.
For blanket statements supporting my general point that Li batteries have poor cycle life you can look in just about any book or respectable resource.No I don't think so, my Lindzen (http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Batteries-David-Linden/dp/0071359788) doesn't, and I've provided other sources showing the opposite previously in other threads.

But since I have to provide a source:

www.ornl.gov/sci/sp/Pres/Duong.ppt
You noted the source says Lithium metal polymer suffers from poor cycle life.? So? The forthcoming Volt, Leaf, iMiev, E-Mini, iMiev do not use metal poly.

Also from the EERE Duong,2007 ppt:
Slide 7: Life: projections of 10-15 years are based on limited data
Slide 6:[small battery]CD: Energy scaled for range (10-40 miles), 5,000 deep discharge cycles
[large battery]CD only: Energy scaled for 100+ mile range, 1,000+ deep discharge cycles
CD = Charge depletion, ie discharge mode. The first gives 200,000 miles per battery, the second 100,000 miles.

Duong's statement that "Conventional" Li Ion HEV batteries are ripe for commercialization but the pure BEV batteries are not seems to be a statement about their cost, not their calendar or cycle life.
If you need hard experimental data from battery manufacturers or OEMs, Nope, third party tests will do, such as the EERE figures above. I've provided national lab figures myself in another thread.
The majority of my practical knowledge of batteries and the vehicles that use them come from primary sources. Which primary sources? If you can't provide them, can you name them?

I will not retract or modify my statement because there is nothing wrong with it and you have yet to prove otherwise.I'm only interested what you can clearly show through references. I don't have to prove your "about 3 years" claim false, though I can. The burden is on you to prove it true.

Redbelly98

Nov29-10, 07:15 PM

From the NREL/Saft source Russ_Waters provided you previously. Lindzen's Battery Handbook also provides temperature data.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2rh2o2s.jpg
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/pdfs/evs17poster.pdf

Since the data go down to 0 C, I'm leery of using the model to extrapolate much below that. I would be curious to see actual data for -20 or even -30 C (-4, -22 F)

mheslep

Nov30-10, 03:38 PM

Since the data go down to 0 C, I'm leery of using the model to extrapolate much below that. I would be curious to see actual data for -20 or even -30 C (-4, -22 F)Yes I'd like to see the data too. Meanwhile, I'm much more leery of unqualified claims that a Li ion battery completely fails at those temperatures without any support what so ever (data or model).

Topher925

Nov30-10, 04:38 PM

So? That they "dont work" cold is your claim. You have information showing the model suddenly fails at -30C (-20F)?

Do you have information that shows it doesn't? Its your source, not mine. You can't ask me to provide sources that completely prove my point and then just make yourself exempt of the same standard.

Did you review the charts? They say what? That capacity degrades significantly per cycle with long term 55C / 131F usage, and very slowly at moderate temperatures. The GM Volt and Tesla batteries for example will be/are temperature controlled, hot and cold.

What? The charts say absolutely nothing about capacity, they show the increase in ASI (Area Specific Impedance) over time. The purpose of those charts was to show that on average the Gen II and Gen III cells had an increase of ASI of about 25% within 45 weeks. The higher temperature tests are even much higher than that.

No I don't think so, my Lindzen (http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Batteries-David-Linden/dp/0071359788) doesn't, and I've provided other sources showing the opposite previously in other threads.

It appears that Linden is making the comparison between Li-ion to other batteries in general (like for commercial products) and not in the application of electrical vehicles. That book also appears to be very outdated and rather fuzzy when it comes to some of their statements. The fact that they don't really mention anything about Li battery safety and things like thermal runaway throws up a flag.
Linden, sections 35.42-43 Figures 35.45 and 35.46 clearly show severe (greater than 80% SOC) capacity reduction with less than 1,000 cycles. Keep in mind Figure 35.46 is data for a C/LiMn2O4 type battery which is the same anode and cathode materials used LG CPI batteries.

You noted the source says Lithium metal polymer suffers from poor cycle life.? So? The forthcoming Volt, Leaf, iMiev, E-Mini, iMiev do not use metal poly.

I only added the Lithium Metal Poly part because a lot of people think that technology can lead to a significant cost reduction and think its the future of EV's. But you're right, no one uses them for vehicle apps as far as I know so I'll restate it;

Lithium batteries for EVs are far from commercialization

Also from the EERE Duong,2007 ppt:
Slide 7:
Slide 6:
CD = Charge depletion, ie discharge mode. The first gives 200,000 miles per battery, the second 100,000 miles.

Slide 6 clearly states "Energy scaled for 100+ mile range, 1,000+ deep discharge cycles" for EVs, the 5,000 cycles is for PHEVs. 1,000 cycles is just a little more than 2.5 years in estimated calender life.

Duong's statement that "Conventional" Li Ion HEV batteries are ripe for commercialization but the pure BEV batteries are not seems to be a statement about their cost, not their calendar or cycle life.

No, I don't think it is.

Major R&D is focused on suppressing dendrite formation and stabilizing the lithium interphase
Additional barriers include cost, low specific energy and poor cycle and calendar life.

www.ornl.gov/sci/sp/Pres/Duong.ppt

Which primary sources? If you can't provide them, can you name them?

No, I'm not going to ask them for permission to serve as my primary source for someone I'm having a debate with on the internet.

So anyway, back to the temperature thing....

Linden 35.41, Figure 35.43 Approximate C-rate discharge of an 18650-type C/LiCoO2 battery at various temperatures....

The BMS and power electronics of an EV generally operate between a voltage of about 400 to 250V where 250V is the minimum operating voltage. This means that you will generally want your module OCV at around 350ish volts due to the voltage drop and hike when discharging and recharging the battery. So, using these ballpark numbers and a IR of 5mOhm (http://www.a123systems.com/a123/products minus a little for err) and the data from the figure from Linden we can do a quick calculation.

At 25'C -> 350V/4.2 = 83 cells per module (~349V)

At -20'C -> 83*2.9V = 240.7V

10 Volts below that of the minimum operating voltage of the power electronics, which in other words will make the BMS turn off the battery making it "not work" as one of my previous sources stated. You could argue that I just pulled this 250V* number out of the air (which I didn't) but keep in mind I am just talking close OCV here. This doesn't include the temperature effects on current output due to increased impedance from the electrolyte and diffusion of Li ions through the SEI.
http://www.uqm.com/pdfs/HiTor%2010.13.08.pdf

How do you think the Volt's batteries handles cold weather?
The battery needs a minimum temperature of between 0 °C and 10 °C (32 °F and 50 °F) to be used and when the Volt is plugged in the battery will be kept warm enough so that it can be used immediately when the Volt is unplugged. If the Volt is kept unplugged and the temperature of the battery is below the minimum temperature, the gasoline engine will run until the battery warms up. This temperature regulation is done since electro-chemical batteries have degraded performance when they are very cold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Specifications

Another of the weaknesses of electro-chemical batteries is degraded performance when they are very cold. GM engineers have devised battery conditioning algorithms to help overcome this......if you're not plugged in and the battery is not conditioned and we've got to deal with the elements, right now we're thinking 0-10°C we won't use the battery.
http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=686

So, if the Volt can't use its batteries at 10'C and below, what is it thats going to allow a typical EV to do so?

mheslep

Dec1-10, 12:34 AM

It appears that Linden is making the comparison between Li-ion to other batteries in general (like for commercial products) and not in the application of electrical vehicles.
Yes, just as the title indicates - a general battery handbook.
That book also appears to be very outdated
Yes it is a bit old, and not up with the latest improvements.
and rather fuzzy when it comes to some of their statements. The fact that they don't really mention anything about Li battery safety and things like thermal runaway throws up a flag.[/quote]Linden's text is a bible in the industry, cited as a basic reference in papers again and again. Thermal runaway is referenced throughout.

Linden, sections 35.42-43 Figures 35.45 and 35.46 clearly show severe (greater than 80% SOC) capacity reduction with less than 1,000 cycles. Keep in mind Figure 35.46 is data for a C/LiMn2O4 type battery which is the same anode and cathode materials used LG CPI batteries. Good figures for discussion. Figure 45 is old Cobalt chemistry (laptops) and I agree it is important to note the difference w/ C/LiMn2O in Figure 46. Those figures however are for full discharge, 100% DoD cycles. The GM Volt, which uses LG batteries, does not swing through 100% DoD, more like 50-60%, as you no doubt know. See then Linden page 35.48 and figure 35.55 , which shows data for a 30% DoD case yielding "cycle lives between 55,000 and 137,000 cycles" [italics mine]. Then, the other pure BEVs like the the Leaf/Fluence which will do 100% DoD are using newer nano - particle anodes (not found in Linden) which brings the cycle life up considerably.

mheslep

Dec1-10, 01:18 AM

So anyway, back to the temperature thing....

Linden 35.41, Figure 35.43 Approximate C-rate discharge of an 18650-type C/LiCoO2 battery at various temperatures....

The BMS and power electronics of an EV generally operate between a voltage of about 400 to 250V where 250V is the minimum operating voltage. This means that you will generally want your module OCV at around 350ish volts due to the voltage drop and hike when discharging and recharging the battery. So, using these ballpark numbers and a IR of 5mOhm (http://www.a123systems.com/a123/products minus a little for err) and the data from the figure from Linden we can do a quick calculation.

At 25'C -> 350V/4.2 = 83 cells per module (~349V)

At -20'C -> 83*2.9V = 240.7VThe packs can be put together in most any series / parallel combination that yields at least a couple hundred volts and can be efficiently converted to motor voltage from there, but that's beside the point. The ~2.9VDC figure Linden shows in Fig 43 is the -20degC full 1C discharge voltage. This is not the discharge rate required to roll out of a parking spot on a -20degC morning, rather ~0.1C will do that, with 10X less I*R voltage drop. So full acceleration power won't be available at startup, but then I don't put my foot to the floor right away w/ my gasoline vehicle either on -20degC days.

I'm sure you noted the capacity data in Figure 35.44 down to -20degC, maybe a 20% loss. So what we have is an EV that starts and drives a way even on the coldest mornings, but loses some range and top end power. Thus I think it was a dumb move for the Leaf/E-mini/Fluence not to include some kind thermal management on their battery.

Topher925

Dec1-10, 03:07 PM

Thermal runaway is referenced throughout. Show me where it gives more than two reasons for thermal runaway.

Good figures for discussion. Figure 45 is old Cobalt chemistry (laptops) and I agree it is important to note the difference w/ C/LiMn2O in Figure 46. Those figures however are for full discharge, 100% DoD cycles. The GM Volt, which uses LG batteries, does not swing through 100% DoD, more like 50-60%, as you no doubt know.

No, I don't know that because its not true. BTW, I don't think anyone uses Co, not even for laptops. Its been slated to be too dangerous for consumer products.

The Volt's 375 lb (170 kg), 220-cell lithium-ion battery (Li-ion) pack is anticipated to store 16 kW·h of energy,[1][67] but will be restricted (in software) to use only 10.4 kW·h of this capacity to maximize the life of the pack. It will only be allowed to charge to 90% of full capacity and to discharge only to approximately 25% SoC before the engine cuts in and maintains the charge near the lower level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Battery

See then Linden page 35.48 and figure 35.55 , which shows data for a 30% DoD case yielding "cycle lives between 55,000 and 137,000 cycles" [italics mine].

I don't have the book with me at the moment so I will have to look at the figures again later tonight. Regardless, BEVs will go beyond 30% DoD in order to meet their distance requirements.

Then, the other pure BEVs like the the Leaf/Fluence which will do 100% DoD are using newer nano - particle anodes (not found in Linden) which brings the cycle life up considerably.

No they are not.

Type: Laminated lithium-ion battery
Total capacity (kWh): 24
Power output (kW): Over 90
Number of modules: 48

Battery pack contents:
-Positive electrodes – Lithium manganate
-Negative electrodes – Carbon
-Cells
-Modules
-Assembly parts

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/27/details-on-nissan-leaf-battery-pack-including-how-recharging-sp/

The only material that can use nanoparticles on the negative electrode is lithium titanate oxide which used by manufacturers like Altair Nano. However, using Li2TiO3 drops the OCV considerably reducing the specific energy so much that those kinds of batteries are not suitable for EVs (~50Wh/kg).
http://www.targetdoc.com/viewer.asp?b=546&k=lchr4714LC&bhcp=1

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned this about the Leaf yet;Battery life: After 10 years, the battery is expected to have 70-80 percent of its original storage capacity
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/27/details-on-nissan-leaf-battery-pack-including-how-recharging-sp/

Topher925

Dec1-10, 03:31 PM

The packs can be put together in most any series / parallel combination that yields at least a couple hundred volts and can be efficiently converted to motor voltage from there, but that's beside the point.

So you think EV engineers should devise a system to rewire the modules depending on how cold the batteries are? Sounds expensive.

The ~2.9VDC figure Linden shows in Fig 43 is the -20degC full 1C discharge voltage. This is not the discharge rate required to roll out of a parking spot on a -20degC morning, rather ~0.1C will do that, with 10X less I*R voltage drop. So full acceleration power won't be available at startup, but then I don't put my foot to the floor right away w/ my gasoline vehicle either on -20degC days.

So the moment you pull out of your driveway you're going to keep going 1mph? How long and how much energy do you think it takes to heat up a 500kg battery? I would bet that in a practical case it would take a while even considering the battery to be at full power output just to heat itself up from -20'C in a reasonable amount of time. Its not like you're heating an internal combustion engine which has a smaller mass and where 75% of the energy you're using is being turned to heat.

I'm sure you noted the capacity data in Figure 35.44 down to -20degC, maybe a 20% loss. So what we have is an EV that starts and drives a way even on the coldest mornings, but loses some range and top end power. Thus I think it was a dumb move for the Leaf/E-mini/Fluence not to include some kind thermal management on their battery.

No I don't recall without the book in front of me, but what does capacity have to do power output in this case? And if this is true, why can't the Volt just drive away using only its battery when its 0'F outside? If the Leaf uses the same chemistry, why can it operate at those temperatures but the Volt cant?

The nixing of the TMS for the batteries wasn't necessarily a dumb move, it just wasn't a very smart one. Nissan is building the Leaf to a price point and in order to reach that point they have to have an air cooled battery. Will this shorten the life and reduce the performance of the battery? Most definitely. Will there be potential future lawsuits if the cells experience thermal runaway? Yeah, probably, but I bet Nissan is going to sell a lot of these cars.

mheslep

Dec1-10, 03:40 PM

Show me where it gives more than two reasons for thermal runaway. Search the Amazon reference for "thermal runaway" if you like.

The GM Volt, which uses LG batteries, does not swing through 100% DoD, more like 50-60%, as you no doubt know.
No, I don't know that because its not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Battery90-30 = a 60% DoD swing.

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned this about the Leaf yet;
Battery life: After 10 years, the battery is expected to have 70-80 percent of its original storage capacity
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/27/details-on-nissan-leaf-battery-pack-including-how-recharging-sp/Yes and Nissan also warranties the battery for 8 years/100,000 miles. You knew this, and accepted it all along? Yet you still made the "about 3 years before they are considered dead (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2980109&postcount=656)" claim?

mheslep

Dec1-10, 04:36 PM

No I don't recall without the book in front of me, but what does capacity have to do power output in this case?The battery model is relatively simple for a first approximation as several of the references have shown: a simple idea voltage source at ~4.2V connected to the load via an internal (effective) battery resistance, with a dependency on state of charge, temperature, and life cycle as we have seen. Capacity then is the total energy delivered by the battery to a load which is not consumed by the I^2 * R losses, and power is simply the rate of delivery of that energy, also limited by voltage drop across the internal resistance. And if this is true, why can't the Volt just drive away using only its battery when its 0'F outside? If the Leaf uses the same chemistry, why can it operate at those temperatures but the Volt cant? The Volt's battery probably could, but as we've discussed driving around with a cold battery and thus high internal resistance wastes energy unnecessarily on internal losses and cuts the range significantly. GM wants to be able to say, I believe, that battery operation range is at least close to 40miles, always. So it makes perfect sense for the Volt's controller to use the combustion engine first to warm up the battery, given the Volt has that option. Same probably goes for hot temperatures in the Volt to avoid life time degradation - cool it off first.

mheslep

Dec1-10, 05:11 PM

The ~2.9VDC figure Linden shows in Fig 43 is the -20degC full 1C discharge voltage. This is not the discharge rate required to roll out of a parking spot on a -20degC morning, rather ~0.1C will do that, with 10X less I*R voltage drop. So full acceleration power won't be available at startup, but then I don't put my foot to the floor right away w/ my gasoline vehicle either on -20degC days.
So the moment you pull out of your driveway you're going to keep going 1mph? The tractive power required to travel 70mph vs 10mph in a sedan is about 20:1 (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cA/page_256.shtml)

How long and how much energy do you think it takes to heat up a 500kg battery?
Leaf pack is 300kg (http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/05/27/nissan-leaf-battery-specifications/), Fluence is 250kg, frame and all, only the electrolyte and separator matter, and as the curves show it need be warmed only only to ~ 0 degC or so.

I would bet that in a practical case it would take a while even considering the battery to be at full power output just to heat itself up from -20'C in a reasonable amount of time. Its not like you're heating an internal combustion engine which has a smaller mass and where 75% of the energy you're using is being turned to heat. Well consider, for example, that the total battery pack is providing, say, 100A through an elevated internal resistance when cold of 10 milliohm. That's one KW of heating applied exactly where its needed. Yes the Leaf will be sluggish in extreme cold, and I imagine we'll hear people griping about it giving the car a bad rep. I suppose, as you say, Nissan's going for cheap, not good all weather performance. Of course some people are already used to taking additional measures in the extreme cold - Canadians and Scandinavians plugging in engine block heaters overnight.

Topher925

Dec7-10, 05:31 PM

Search the Amazon reference for "thermal runaway" if you like.

I don't need to. I already searched the book itself. I couldn't even find where it states all of the root sources of thermal runaway.

Yes and Nissan also warranties the battery for 8 years/100,000 miles. You knew this, and accepted it all along? Yet you still made the "about 3 years before they are considered dead (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2980109&postcount=656)" claim?

Did I know that all along, yes. Did I "accept" it, a very strong No. There's a lot of controversy and suspicion over Nissan and the battery they put in the Leaf. 1,2,3 Stating that their battery can last essentially 10 years and even do it without a TMS is quite the statement, especially from a company that can't even build a much simpler competitive hybrid. Nissan has to buy their hybrid powertrains from their competitor, Toyota.4

1. http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+CEO+Calls+Nissans+Leaf+Battery+Tech+Primitiv e+Boasts+About+Model+S/article19286.htm
2. http://gm-volt.com/2010/01/28/nissan-taking-shortcut-on-leaf-battery-no-thermal-management-system/
3. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26832/?p1=A1
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

Topher925

Dec7-10, 05:38 PM

Capacity then is the total energy delivered by the battery to a load which is not consumed by the I^2 * R losses, and power is simply the rate of delivery of that energy, also limited by voltage drop across the internal resistance.

Ok? Still not seeing the connection here. You can have a relatively small or large I and not have a big change in capacity, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Also, when Li ion batteries get really cold, their power output and perceived capacity is time dependent as the reaction is limited by diffusion of Li+ through the SEI.

The Volt's battery probably could, but as we've discussed driving around with a cold battery and thus high internal resistance wastes energy unnecessarily on internal losses and cuts the range significantly. GM wants to be able to say, I believe, that battery operation range is at least close to 40miles, always.

Do you have any way to support this claim? The sources I pointed out very clearly state it to be a performance issue suggesting that its an issue with power and not one of capacity.

Topher925

Dec7-10, 05:55 PM

The tractive power required to travel 70mph vs 10mph in a sedan is about 20:1 (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cA/page_256.shtml)

Alright. But whats your point other than traction power increases with speed?

Leaf pack is 300kg (http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/05/27/nissan-leaf-battery-specifications/), Fluence is 250kg, frame and all, only the electrolyte and separator matter, and as the curves show it need be warmed only only to ~ 0 degC or so.

OK, either way 300kg is a large mass to heat, especially when the battery is air cooled and designed to have efficient convective heat transfer. Even if you assume the battery is made entirely of something like aluminum, thats about 1.5kWh to raise the battery from -20'C to 0'C. Or in other words, about 12% of your usable battery capacity.

And no, its not just the separater and electrolyte that matter, the electrodes, especially the negative electrode, matter as well. Its not like you can just heat one without the other anyway.

Well consider, for example, that the total battery pack is providing, say, 100A through an elevated internal resistance when cold of 10 milliohm. That's one KW of heating applied exactly where its needed. Yes the Leaf will be sluggish in extreme cold, and I imagine we'll hear people griping about it giving the car a bad rep. I suppose, as you say, Nissan's going for cheap, not good all weather performance. Of course some people are already used to taking additional measures in the extreme cold - Canadians and Scandinavians plugging in engine block heaters overnight.

See comment above. At 1kW of heat, its going to take well over an hour to heat up that battery. Although 10mOhm for resistance of an entire battery pack sounds pretty small to me. Were you referring to just a single cell or module?

mheslep

Dec7-10, 07:37 PM

Alright. But whats your point other than traction power increases with speed? Right, required traction power increases with speed. The point is that the vehicle won't need anywhere near the sustained full power for which the EV battery was designed until it hits the highway, and then only at high speed.

OK, either way 300kg is a large mass to heat, especially when the battery is air cooled and designed to have efficient convective heat transfer. Even if you assume the battery is made entirely of something like aluminum, thats about 1.5kWh to raise the battery from -20'C to 0'C. Or in other words, about 12% of your usable battery capacity.

And no, its not just the separater and electrolyte that matter, the electrodes, especially the negative electrode, matter as well. Its not like you can just heat one without the other anyway.

See comment above. At 1kW of heat, its going to take well over an hour to heat up that battery.The heat comes only from the active part of the battery, and there will be a heat flux down a temperature gradient between the active battery area and the remainder. Lets look at the details.

As we discussed, the power limitation is due to ion diffusion temperature sensitivity, in this case Li ions. Thus we need look at only that which contains Lithium and is actively transferring ions, namely most of the electrolyte and the surface of the cathode. The electrolyte is about 18% of the cell by mass (table 2.2) (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf) for one cell. Sixty such 100Ah cells at ~3.5kg/cell make up a 24KWh - 100 mile EV pack, for ~210kg, the rest is infrastructure (wiring,housing,etc), leaving maybe only 40kg of active material. The electrolyte is a salt, say LiPF6; I don't know its specific heat capacity but assuming it is similar to other salts at ~0.9 kj/kg-K, we have 0.9 *~20kg * 20degK / 1kW = 720s, i.e. a 20deg C rise in 12 minutes. Yes some of the heat is dissipating away to the rest of the battery, but via a salt and non-metal electrodes I'd guess that's a down ~20degC temperature gradient to the outside housing at max power.

Topher925

Dec7-10, 08:12 PM

Right, required traction power increases with speed. The point is that the vehicle won't need anywhere near the sustained full power for which the EV battery was designed until it hits the highway, and then only at high speed.

And what about acceleration and driving up hills? What if I live in San Fransisco? Not everyone is driving Ms. Daisy.

The heat comes only from the active part of the battery, and there will be a heat flux down a temperature gradient between the active battery area and the remainder. Lets look at the details......some of the heat is dissipating away to the rest of the battery, but via a salt and non-metal electrodes I'd guess that's a down ~20degC temperature gradient to the outside housing at max power.

One of the details you didn't include is the heat transferred to the electrodes and current collectors. The geometry of the electrolyte and seperater obviously provide a large area of contact to the electrodes providing a lot of surface area per volume for heat transfer. The electrodes are constructed from graphite and spinel, both materials which have very good thermal conductivity. The current collectors are constructed from aluminum and possibly copper, again very good thermal conductivity. Its not realistic to make the assumption that only the electrolyte and seperater are generating heat and mostly only heating themselves, especially with a 20'C temperature gradient. To be realistic, you should at least consider the entire mass of the battery itself, 210kg, to account for convective heat transfer to the surroundings.

mheslep

Dec7-10, 08:34 PM

I don't need to. I already searched the book itself. I couldn't even find where it states all of the root sources of thermal runaway.

Did I know that all along, yes. Did I "accept" it, a very strong No. There's a lot of controversy and suspicion over Nissan and the battery they put in the Leaf. 1,2,3 Stating that their battery can last essentially 10 years and even do it without a TMS is quite the statement, especially from a company that can't even build a much simpler competitive hybrid. Nissan has to buy their hybrid powertrains from their competitor, Toyota.Oh I agree, a lack of a thermal system is going to be big problem, and the Leaf is going be all over the place in performance as a consequence. Some owner in San Jose, Ca w/ 80F 365 days a year will get 10 years, but some other guy in Vegas who drives hard in 110F summers may get half. That's completely different from the blanket statement "Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead", especially in the context of the recent GE buy of GM Volts which do have TMSs.

1. http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+CEO+Calls+Nissans+Leaf+Battery+Tech+Primitiv e+Boasts+About+Model+S/article19286.htm
2. http://gm-volt.com/2010/01/28/nissan-taking-shortcut-on-leaf-battery-no-thermal-management-system/
3. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26832/?p1=A1

Thanks for these references. The bit from today's TR story I didn't know and is especially interesting:
Nissan recommends a cold weather package that includes a battery heater, but this doesn't come as standard. And the option is not available for the first Leafs to come off of the assembly line, and it cannot be added to a car later. If the Leaf pack gets too cold, or too hot, it enters a limited power mode, which restricts acceleration and top speed.

mheslep

Dec7-10, 09:23 PM

And what about acceleration and driving up hills? What if I live in San Fransisco? Not everyone is driving Ms. Daisy. If the location is SF then an EV will never see -20C, nor anywhere else in Ca outside the mountains. Lets not turn this around as if I have claimed all EV/PHEV's will work perfectly without downsides, all the time, everywhere. As I've said, an EV/PHEV without TMS in extreme cold weather is going to be sluggish until it warms itself up. I objected up front only to absolute claims that "EV's still don't work in cold weather", and then digging in deeper with claims that an EV won't "start" in the cold, and then won't drive away from the parking lot if started.

One of the details you didn't include is the heat transferred to the electrodes and current collectors. The geometry of the electrolyte and seperater obviously provide a large area of contact to the electrodes providing a lot of surface area per volume for heat transfer. The electrodes are constructed from graphite and spinel, both materials which have very good thermal conductivity. The current collectors are constructed from aluminum and possibly copper, again very good thermal conductivity. I did consider the electrodes for heat flow and discounted them. What's important is not that the electrodes are good thermal conductors, but that salts (solid) are relatively very poor thermal conductors - probably 20-30x worse than metals, and thus won't quickly give up their heat. Imagine a hot brick (poor thermal conductor). Embedding several metal rods in it won't cause it to cool markedly faster.

mheslep

Dec13-10, 09:48 PM

I came across these sticker prices for the Nissan Leaf EV vs a comparably sized gasoline vehicle, the Chevy Cruze, and wanted to extend them to ten year cost of ownership. Both are 5 door, 5 seat smallish vehicles.
http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BG918_EVFUTU_NS_20101018203702.gif

The Leaf EV price of $26,380 is after the $7500 tax credit.

Here's ten year total cost of vehicle plus fuel/electricity, with the Cruze at $1457/yr and the Leaf at $396/yr:
Leaf: $30,340
Chevy Cruze: $31,565
Prius: $30,960

Maintenance:
For other maintenance, both vehicles will both need tires, but the Leaf needs no: oil changes, transmission work, radiator flushes, fuel/water pumps, little or no brake work, etc, etc. On experience, I'd guess that's $400/yr (not including tires) for a small vehicle like the Cruze, or $4000/ten years. The Leaf is going to need a new battery at ten years; replacement cost is complicated ten years out. Currently the battery is ~$10,000-12,000; by 2020 probably $5000. But then it may not make sense to buy a brand new ten year (non-swappable) battery for a ten year old car, so perhaps a half-life battery would do, if such a thing could be bought on the market at that time.

brainstorm

Dec13-10, 09:55 PM

mheslep

Dec13-10, 10:22 PM

brainstorm

Dec13-10, 10:26 PM

Which day of the week?

Lol. Sunday morning at 11am when it's 40F with no clouds and the car is driving due east 50% of the time in Chicago with a 50/50 mix of shaded and unshaded routes.

mheslep

Dec15-10, 04:12 PM

Was reviewing some of the posts upthread on nuclear costs and thought this apropos to recent news:

Regards the Olkiluoto EPR, any word from the industry on a) the expected final cost of the plant and b) the primary reasons for the cost overruns and schedule delays? Pop press now says 4.5B Euro / $5.7B for the 1,600MW plant, won't come online until 2012 (permit granted in early 2005)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/18/nuclearpower

Update two years on:
But the Olkiluoto-3 reactor has had a deeply troubled history. Originally slated to cost around $4 billion (€3 billion), its price tag has nearly doubled to $7.2 billion (€5.3 billion). And it is four years behind schedule.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703865004575648662738551250.html?K EYWORDS=Olkiluoto

That's one reactor being built at an existing nuclear plant. Good grief.

mheslep

Dec17-10, 02:09 PM

Several large companies have bought or are buying EV trucks recently (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644773552573304.html) (from Smith Electric in Kansas (http://www.smithelectric.com/products.aspx)) for around town deliveries, and not for green wash, but because they pay off:
[...]Staples Inc., the Frito-Lay division of PepsiCo, FedEx Corp., AT&T Inc. and a few other companies have begun purchasing electric delivery trucks. Proponents say they make more sense in many ways than electric cars. That's because delivery trucks generally drive short, defined routes each day, which are better suited to the limited range of battery power.

Staples has ordered 41 trucks from Smith Electric Vehicles of Kansas City, Mo., and will start receiving them in January. There is "a real strong chance we'll make a second order for 40," Mr. Payette said.

The trucks, which have a top speed of about 50 mph and can carry 16,000 pounds, cost about $30,000 more than a diesel, but Staples expects to recover that expense in 3.3 years because of the savings inherent in the electric models, Mr. Payette said.

Interestingly it appears maintenance is becoming one of the deciding factors for high usage EVs.
Staples said the annual maintenance cost of a diesel delivery truck is about $2,700 in most years, including oil, transmission fluid, filters and belts. For an electric truck—which has no transmission and needs no fluids, filters or belts—the cost is about $250.

I can vouch for the advantage in brake wear from my own experience:
One big savings comes in brakes. Because electric trucks use "regenerative" braking, which returns some of the force of stopping to the batteries in the form of electricity, the brakes don't wear out as fast. That means the brakes last four or five years, not one or two, before they need a $1,100 repair.

Summary:
Add it all up and Staples expects to save nearly $60,000 over the 10-year life of an electric truck over a diesel model.

Stats on the Smith van:
range: 100 miles , 50 miles
top speed: 50 mph
payload: up to 8 tons
recharge time: 6-8 hours
cost for 50 mile version:$90k vs $60k diesel.

BilPrestonEsq

Jan7-11, 11:53 PM

The solution to energy crisis has been discovered and I have already invested: the Snuggie (blanket with sleeves).

As for the problem with heating electric cars, how much propane would it take to keep an electric car at 70F for a 1-hour commute?

That is hilarious I am still laughing a little even now

I have done a lot of thinking on electric cars and I have never thought of heating or cooling the car. Wow

So my two cents in this discussion is this(keeping it short): I think that more giant power plants isn't the answer. A lot of smaller ones would be better. Everything is going to have to become more locally based( well maybe we should keep trying to figure out the whole fusion thing). I just like the idea of having my own personal power supply, same goes for food supplies but thats a different topic I guess, well except for all the energy we would save if we didnt have to drive all our food across thte country and ship it in from other countries. Also home design is HUGE and the materials that go into them. How many houses are designed for passive solar heating? Not many. Passive Solar design in itself would save such a massive amount of energy and thats just the tip of the iceberg. And for cars, well if we worked closer to home we wouldnt have to drive as much. I do think that we should be driving electric cars, the ones with hub motors that burn biodiesel in super efficient free piston linear generator motors that take advantage of regenerative braking and regenerative shocks(I know that was talked about already). Well I dont want to type anymore but those are a couple of things that I could elaborate on if this discussion is continued mainly home and building design there is so much to talk about though.

Topher925

Jan11-11, 05:08 PM

I recently attended a green car expo this past weekend and had the chance to talk to a (very cute) GM rep who was showcasing the chevy volt. She informed me that the latest and greatest batteries from CPI was providing an estimated battery life of about 150k miles, much greater than the current estimated battery life.

Apparently GM is still working with A123 as well and they may become their future supplier. GM has also developed a fuel cell version of the volt, although they don't showcase it nearly as much as the new equinox.

brainstorm

Jan12-11, 12:37 PM

So my two cents in this discussion is this(keeping it short): I think that more giant power plants isn't the answer. A lot of smaller ones would be better.

Strangely, I have never seen comparative analyses between different configurations of generators and grid maintenance costs (including energy costs). You would expect that some efficiency is gained by the scale of a large central power plant and a widely dispersed grid, but maybe it is the opposite and sprawling urban/rural areas could better scrap their grid lines and recycle them into solar panels. The problem with solar is storage, even when you reduce your power usage to fall within the capacity of your solar system. In denser areas, the costs and materials for maintaining a grid and central generator are probably must less per unit consumption. Surely heating a multistory apartment building uses much less energy than if the same residences were spread out as numerous single-family dwellings?

I just like the idea of having my own personal power supply, same goes for food supplies but thats a different topic I guess, well except for all the energy we would save if we didnt have to drive all our food across thte country and ship it in from other countries.
I would be interested to know how much fuel is consumed by all food-related transportation. I'm not so sure that more fuel is used by ocean ships than trucks driving across land. It may also be the case that the shipping logistics of food-distribution is relatively well-planned and efficient and the biggest energy-waste is due to maintaining climate-controlled and otherwise luxurious supermarkets and prepared food distributors (e.g. restaurants). It could be that if vegetables were grown locally in warm months and more storable dry foods like rice, grains, etc. were distributed out of the backs of trucks, UN-style, that this would cut most of the fuel loss.

And for cars, well if we worked closer to home we wouldnt have to drive as much. I do think that we should be driving electric cars, the ones with hub motors that burn biodiesel in super efficient free piston linear generator motors that take advantage of regenerative braking and regenerative shocks(I know that was talked about already).
Driving less is the holy grail of fuel conservation. More efficient cars are a neat idea, but ultimately how much fuel can you save when you're moving around 2000+ pounds of vehicle weight in addition to passengers and cargo? Trains seem most efficient to me because they have practically no rolling friction and they are long, which would seem to minimize wind-resistance. Rails are expensive to maintain, though.

Dr Lots-o'watts

Jan12-11, 02:13 PM

As for the problem with heating electric cars, how much propane would it take to keep an electric car at 70F for a 1-hour commute?

Why not just regular gas, but used exclusively for heating? Or traditional heating oil?

mheslep

Jan12-11, 04:57 PM

Topher925

Jan12-11, 05:31 PM

1. Was that mileage life for the Volt battery (future), or some other, generic, LG CPI battery? 2. Did you get her ph number?

1. Yes, the vehicle life of the Volt. 2. No, I kept getting cock-blocked from people going up to her and asking stupid questions.

PhilKravitz

Jan13-11, 06:47 PM

Issue as I see it is lack of energy independence.

My favored solution is what some call the Matt Simmons plan (see Ocean Energy Institute) which is
1) off shore wind powered electrical generators up and down both the west and east coast
2) on shore wind up and down the middle of the country
3) PV solar in the southwest
4) oil from algea in the southeast

I am also interested in Thorium based nuclear.

Where will the money come from to do this? I do not see a politically doable way to make this happen. If we could divert money from the two major federal expenses health and military to pay for this then we could do it. But that seems unlikely.

mheslep

Jan13-11, 07:56 PM

Issue as I see it is lack of energy independence.

My favored solution is what some call the Matt Simmons plan (see Ocean Energy Institute) which is
1) off shore wind powered electrical generators up and down both the west and east coast
2) on shore wind up and down the middle of the country
3) PV solar in the southwest
4) oil from algea in the southeast
Before paying them, have you given any thought to how those sources work technically, e.g. when the wind doesn't blow, when the sun doesn't shine?

PhilKravitz

Jan13-11, 07:59 PM

Before paying them, have you given any thought to how those sources work technically, e.g. when the wind doesn't blow, when the sun doesn't shine?

I like storage of the energy in the form of hydrogen from water+electric+catalyst. Which is getting easier thanks to the work of the folks at MIT.

Topher925

Jan18-11, 12:12 PM

I like storage of the energy in the form of hydrogen from water+electric+catalyst. Which is getting easier thanks to the work of the folks at MIT.

While I do firmly believe in a hydrogen based economy, there are still a lot of issues to be worked out. The folks at MIT did (somewhat accidentally) find a way to electrolyze water efficiently but that doesn't mean its applicable to full scale industrial applications. AFAIK, things like durability, cost, and purity still need to be addressed with that technique.

As of right now, the only commercially available methods of large scale energy storage is with flywheels and thermal reservoirs used by solar thermal power plants.

Interesting factoid: Humanity doesn't have an energy supply problem. By constructing solar thermal or photovoltaic solar energy farms over just 1% of the land in the Sahara Desert, we could supply all of the worlds energy with essentially no pollution. The problem that we needs to be solved is an energy distribution problem.

mheslep

Jan18-11, 12:23 PM

As of right now, the only commercially available methods of large scale energy storage is with flywheels and thermal reservoirs used by solar thermal power plants. And hydro.

Topher925

Jan18-11, 01:54 PM

And hydro.

Woops, forgot about that one.

PhilKravitz

Jan18-11, 03:20 PM

Yes hydro is fine but pretty much fully developed in the US. Some options in Canada if you are willing to violate the rights of the original owns and push them out.

mheslep

Jan18-11, 03:37 PM

Yes hydro is fine but pretty much fully developed in the US....With regards to hydro electric power and storage:
1) All existing hydro, some 8% of total US electric power capacity, can be used to store energy. That is, while solar or wind is online hydro can be (and is) simply idled, allowing water to backup and its potential energy is used later when needed.
2) Pumped-storage hydro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity), ~3% of US electric power capacity, can be installed nearly anywhere there's a hill large enough hold a lake, i.e. with sufficient elevation. It does not require a large natural water source.

This is not say that pumped storage hydro is a blanket solution to the energy storage problem presented by large scale use of intermittent power sources likes wind and solar, but it certainly can help.

PhilKravitz

Jan18-11, 04:30 PM

With regards to hydro electric power and storage:
1) All existing hydro, some 8% of total US electric power capacity, can be used to store energy. That is, while solar or wind is online hydro can be (and is) simply idled, allowing water to backup and its potential energy is used later when needed.
2) Pumped-storage hydro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity), ~3% of US electric power capacity, can be installed nearly anywhere there's a hill large enough hold a lake, i.e. with sufficient elevation. It does not require a large natural water source.

This is not say that pumped storage hydro is a blanket solution to the energy storage problem presented by large scale use of intermittent power sources likes wind and solar, but it certainly can help.

#1 is a super good idea that I have never heard before. Is it yours? If so get it out in the public it is good.

#2 yes I like pumped hydro storage. In fact Astor (yes the guy who drowned on the Titanic) wrote a book in 1895 (yes 18!) that proposed pumped hydro storage!!! The book is "A Journey in Other Worlds" it is mostly about a trip to Saturn and the dinosaurs they find there but along the way he make some comments on energy systems that are 100 years ahead of his time.

mheslep

Jan18-11, 04:33 PM

#1 is a super good idea that I have never heard before. Is it yours? Storing power until needed later through hydro has been around as long as there has been hydro.

PhilKravitz

Jan18-11, 04:41 PM

So between hydro and hydrogen we have storage taken care of. :)

Now all we have to do is figure out how much money (work and natural resources) it will take to build the system. ;)

mheslep

Jan18-11, 04:46 PM

So between hydro and hydrogen we have storage taken care of. :)

You didn't here that from me; again:
This is not say that pumped storage hydro is a blanket solution to the energy storage problem presented by large scale use of intermittent power sources likes wind and solar, but it certainly can help.

PhilKravitz

Jan18-11, 05:14 PM

OK how much of the storage issue is covered by hydro and hydrogen? Anybody know? How will we find out?

Topher925

Jan20-11, 04:49 PM

OK how much of the storage issue is covered by hydro and hydrogen? Anybody know? How will we find out?

Probably not. We will find out when someone does a study of it.

olguinma

Jan21-11, 01:57 PM

Towards Nuclear Fusion: Cobalt properties (specifically of its usage at different temperatures, not the usual).

Topher925

Jan31-11, 04:34 PM

I'll be keeping a close eye on this one.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-hydrogen-storage-material-added-fuel.html

Artus

Mar15-11, 09:00 PM

Another problem is to create parts and devices without having oil involved. Every part and machine involved must be created with oil substitutes (e.g. no plastics). If you develop a new energetic system but you need oil to build it or transport the parts, then you're not solving the problem.

kland1

Mar15-11, 09:29 PM

We always have threads on various pieces of the puzzle, but what I want here is for people to post a coherent plan of how to fix the energy problems we have in the US (and critique what others propose). Some groundrules:

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).

HERE (http://www.agmrc.org/markets/info/energyoverview.pdf) is a site from another thread with some background info on what we use for what.

I'll go first....

Hello Russ and fellow contributors, I think your question is great!

In 2006 I got the insane idea of purchasing a boat, she's 177' long 42' beam, all steel, end of WWII F/S class ship really. When I got her it was with a general idea of helping to save the oceans with her as a research vessel. Now you ask what in the world does this have to do with fixing anything related to energy right, well here's how.

After getting her and learning all about what makes her run, probably should have done that before getting her; she has seven diesel engines, holds 65,000 US gallons of diesel, burns around 800 us gallons a day when under full cruising speed (around 12.5 knots) and over a 42 week work year generates around 700 tons of emissions, "pollution".

Two problems for a ocean saving vessel, one is it cost a condo every time she gets fueled up and two she pollutes to high heaven, not very earth friendly.

So, I started looking into ways of running her with lower cost fuel and with hopefully near zero emissions. After five years of research and a bunch of hard work I have a working 125KW prototype electric generation plant that runs on H2O2, and will be running on waste oil. http://www.seabirdadventure.com/tesla-turbine-projects

How does this help, by building a electric power plant that runs on H2O2 and waste oils? H2O2 is a renewable resource and easily made while waste oil is currently being stored and improperly disposed of. http://www.seabirdadventure.com/waste-oil-as-a-fuel-source

The idea is to build three power plants of 850KW each to run the Seabird at full cruising speed while using a waste product and creating zero emissions. That comes out to a little more the 2.4 million watts of electricity, to make a comparison a 3500 sqft house uses about 80KW per day so these power plants would power about 30 homes with AC running and all their lights on.

Now granted that over time as waste oil is eliminated from society this solution would not help much but right now the US gathers and stores around 1.2 billions gallons of waste oil per year with 800 million gallons being disposed of improperly.

Please let me know what you think, thanks

Kris

Buckleymanor

Apr3-11, 06:56 PM

Storing power until needed later through hydro has been around as long as there has been hydro.
Here is one or two built earlier.http://www.fhc.co.uk/

stonecoldgen

May30-11, 09:42 PM

More government funding for universities to make researches on things such as energy density/biofuels/plasma energy sources/etc.

The US is mostly a flat territory, making cars use natural gas instead of gasoline something serious, shouldnt be a problem, start selling only fluorescent bulbs, shouldnt be something hard to do as well

The US should leave 3rd world countries alone and dont depend so much on that, yeah, that would not follow the ''superpower'' ideal americans have, but i dont care

organize campaigns, concerts, etc. to promote the green-thinking

eventhough US is the paradise for capitalists, it should lower though, capitalism causes consumism and consumism causes a lot of damage to nature

Shifty8

Jun13-11, 07:24 AM

I've written an article about this a while ago, funny to find this discussion going on while I was looking for something completely different.

First of all, I'm not a sceptic, nor a scientist, and my main language sure aint english. I'm just trying to be realistic a give my view on this matter, so bare with me.

In my opinion there are some mayor flaws in how the general public looks at alternative energy sources, wich may very well be the result of our governments or the large oil companies behind them. A real soltion in my opinion lies in a Technique yet to be dicovered or perfected, while most of us think we can do it with the techniques we allready have. I'll elaborate on this later on.

We are never going to switch to a completely different source of energy in a realistic ammount of time, without certains parties benefitting or at least not being disadvantaged by it. When a brilliant scientist finds a solution for all of our energy problems today (for example discovers some sort of perpetuum mobilae), he will be dead tomorrow. Such a solution would destroy our economies, wich are driven by oil. Hence the need for a solution that doesn't disadvantage the oil-companies or at least tries to prevent them from going bust.

To cut things short, I believe a solution would be found in a combination of techniques over a period of time. In a first phase we would need to reduce our current trend in polluting our planet and reduce the trend of our energy consumption from materials that are bound to run out in a short period (oil, coal, gas, etc).
The second phase, wich needs to run in paralell with all other phases, is looking for alternative power production methods. This should be a heavilly funded non-stop operation.
The third phase would consist of making the switch to these new techniques. From what is known to me today, I'd say a combination of nuclear Fusion together with Hydrogen is our best bet.

Phase 1: At the present we have a few alternative energy production methods at our disposal. The first step in a long term solution would be to use solutions more, and cut back in waste (both energy waste as waste products like CO2). This in a short term won't solve our problems, but would at atleast make them less pressing, giving us time to come up with a consturctive way of resolving these issues.

Phase 2: In this second stage, wich should run parrelel to the other stages, we would need find an alternative energy production method wich can sustain our growing energy consumption on the long term. The basic idea that seems to be running arround is that we will all use solar/wind/biomass/hydrogen power over 50 years instead of the conventional coal/nuclear power we use today. I believe this isn't true, I'll elaborate later on. The only viable solution for as far as I know of would be something in the means of Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion has great potential, and should be ready for use in a matter of years. But as stated before, we won't be able to make a switch any time soon. This in my opinion creates a lot of lag in the development of this technique, hence I must put allot of emphasis on this phase. Looking at the current state of politics (encouraging alternative power, but not putting enough emphasis on a real solution), Im convinced we will not make a shift towards an alternative power supply without certain parties benefitting from it.

In the Third stage we would implement all of the above. This is where things get critical. We need to solve our energy issues, without tearing down multiple economies. So, why not use a combination, like we are allready doing today. The oil companies provide us with the juice required to make our engines and factories work, including production of many oil-based products, while the power companies provide us with the electricity to power our homes and bussinesses. For the sake of our economies, let's try to keep it this way. Give the oil companies a free pass to become the only producers of Hydrogen, give the power companies a free pass to become the only producers of Fusion Power. Production of all other oil-based products can continue by the Oil companies (imo oil has a greater value to us as a raw material for plastics etc anyways compared to a raw material for energy production) The mayor benefit of having a renewable and pritty much unlimited power supply, such as Fusion Power, is it gives us the ability to create large quantaties of Hydrogen. All you need to make large quantaties of Hydrogen is electricity, and lots of it.
Oil companies will be satified since making Hydrogen with electricity is much more cost effective then mining for oil, and we'll just let them sell it from approximately the same price as gas for the starting period (to overcome the costs of making the shift). Power companies will need allot of Funding to make such a shift since constructing, perfecting and maintaining Nuclear Power plants is going to cost allot. But I feel if we would distribute this financial burden ammongst all the population benefitting from it we could make it. Or else the governments should put the taxes on gas to a good use.

Finally an elaboration why I think other techniques lack posibility to become our prime way of harvesting power:
- Solar power, lots of potential since it has a lot of yield, but did you ever think about the environmental issues? I mean, your taking energy out of the environment and returning it in a different state. Harmless on a small scale, but what about large scale implementation? Imo, a great addition to our current energy production methods, but no replacement. Also the storage and unreliability (called night or clouds) of this form of energy is a huge problem.
- Biomass Power, from waste: Excellent idea. From crops specificly grown to produce Biomass, TERRIBLE idea. We'd be better of sending those crops to parts of the world straving...
- Hydro Power, geographicly speaking there aren't enough places to build these power plants to sustain our power consumption in the long term, specially for the smaller flat countries (like the Netherlands where I'm from). Not to mention about their potential impact on the environment.. (Dam's build to create artificial lakes are known to have destroyed complete habbitats etc etc.) Again, a nice addition if the environment permits it.
- Wind Energy, if the wind stops blowing, then so does your energy supply. Basicly the same as Solar energy.
- Hydrogen Energy, has huge potential but should be seen (in my opinion) more as a medium to transport energy, rather then an energy source. The most common way to create Hydrogen resides on Electrolysis, wich requires electricity. Any other method also requires energy to make Hydrogen. Theres no viable way of making Hydrogen a power supply at this moment, nor will there ever be because of this simple restraint. Even if microbes were to make hydrogen (the most viable solution imo as of today), it would still require huge microbe farms harvesting the power of the sun to make hydrogen.

I'm eager to hear your opinions and critics on this story, since I'm not in any position to share this story to anyone with ample knowledge. Hence I posted it here.

Ivan Seeking

Jun18-11, 04:44 PM

Given the vast new finds of natural gas in the US,

CADDO PARISH, La. -- A massive natural-gas discovery here in northern Louisiana heralds a big shift in the nation's energy landscape. After an era of declining production, the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html

solar cracking of methane may provide a viable path to a carbon-free hydrogen supply.

Background – The SOLHYCARB proposal addresses the exploration of an unconventional route for potentially cost effective hydrogen production with solar energy. The novel process thermally decomposes natural gas (NG) in a high temperature chemical reactor heated by concentrated solar energy. This process results in two products: a H2-rich gas and a high-value nano-material, carbon black (CB). H2 is thus produced with renewable energy. Solar energy is stored as a transportable fuel. The fuel has zero CO2 emission: carbon as opposed to CO2 is sequestered. Fossil fuels are saved, and CB is synthesized.

This solar process is described in Figure 1...
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/research/projects/?id=solhycarb

johnbbahm

Jun24-11, 10:56 AM

I have been thinking Carbon is a good storage method for Hydrogen. I.E. we make our own methane. We already have a natural gas transport and storage technology.
As for as a long term transport solution, think about making the US interstate system a power grid. Technologies are being worked on now which allow electrical power to cross an air gap. If hybrid vehicles had a secondary tuned circuit to receive power from the powered lane, you could cross the country and the electric use be recorded on your cars electric meter. This might be more useful for long haul trucks. Fuel would still be used, but only for local trips, and to and from the interstate.
Other ideas include homeowners leasing their roofs to power companies for solar power generation. Rent is paid in the form of a percent of power generated.
Fixing our energy issues will require thinking way outside the box.

revaredneck

Jul3-11, 08:52 PM

hello, my name is rodney, and im not a very school educated person, but more of an experiance educated person, so forgive me if my thoughts seem primitive, or immature to a more scholarly individual. i have had many thoughts on the subject of off grid electricty generation, many of the ones out there are pretty expencive to get started, solar? wind? water? everything costs money i know but the thoughts of men can be free.
that in mind; lets look at a different kind of thought.
energy? electricity? pollution? foreign dependency? we need as a country in our country, an electrical generation machine that does not produce polution, independent from need of outside country help, and does not need a specific fuel persay to run.

perpetual motion electricity generation; maybe using pendulums and counter weights, to produce a perpetual motion electricity generating machine. i believe it is not only possible but in reality can be done using a switch to switch counter weight ballances to keep the motion going. when one weight gets to its optimum a switch turns it or switches it to use the other side of a set of weights to keep it in a see saw affect, using gears simular to a grand father clock, only in a large enough scale to turn off set pulleys to turn power generators. using gears and counter weights this concept could and can be a reality. i realize the thoughts on the friction debate, but i believe that if enough people put enough thought into the actual building of this, IT CAN BE feasable.

and to the problem of the case for friction i say one word,.... GREASE!

i wish to hear any comments good or bad to my thinking, and again please forgive me for my ignorance. R.E.VanAlstine.

Erk3452

Jul3-11, 09:39 PM

Um no... That will never happen.

mheslep

Jul5-11, 11:40 AM

...

perpetual motion electricity generation; maybe using pendulums and counter weights, to produce a perpetual motion electricity generating machine. i believe it is not only possible but in reality can be done using a switch to switch counter weight ballances to keep the motion going. ...Hello Rodney. That topic is not allowed here.

...Perpetual motion and "free energy" discussions
Search PF and you will find many threads that have been closed in a number of forums. As for S&D, any claim of this nature would be reproducible and/or testable by the scientific community; hence there is no need for debate.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2269439&postcount=2

revaredneck

Jul5-11, 12:23 PM

may i ask why?

russ_watters

Jul5-11, 01:09 PM

Because it violates the laws of physics and discussing it attracts crackpots.

timthereaper

Jul5-11, 02:56 PM

General rule: if you think you've disproved the second law of thermodynamics and can get free energy, it's best to just keep that a secret.

As for the energy topic, has anyone done any significant fact-finding into this new thorium-based nuclear reactor business? I've heard it touted as the new "holy grail" for nuclear energy. Also, I've heard that Paul Pantone's GEET system is supposed to revolutionize fueled vehicles. A friend of mine really believes in it, but then again, he's a website designer with no engineering experience. I would like to know if anyone can show that these systems aren't all that they're cracked up to be.

johnbbahm

Jul6-11, 10:14 AM

I like the idea of PV collectors, and looked into it several years ago. At that time many energy saving items were a better value than PV. Windows, Radiant barrier, better insulation, ect.... . I see part of the issue with PV is the payback curve. You are trying to get your house's power usage down to where the area of the roof can collect the average usage. By the time the usage and surface curves cross, the payback is past the life expectancy of the panels.
Another issue I found with PV was purely accounting. In the late 90's none of the factories making panels, were running the factories with their own panels.
If they could not save money by using panels that only cost them their "cost of goods sold--less marketing" How could a homeowner save money paying the full price.
Prices have been coming down, and panels would shade the roof, Grid tied solved the peak vs average issue. Maybe time to revisit.

OmCheeto

Jul6-11, 03:42 PM

I like the idea of PV collectors
As do I, and my father before me.
, and looked into it several years ago. At that time many energy saving items were a better value than PV. Windows, Radiant barrier, better insulation, ect.... .

This is why I invested in OC. :wink:

I see part of the issue with PV is the payback curve. You are trying to get your house's power usage down to where the area of the roof can collect the average usage. By the time the usage and surface curves cross, the payback is past the life expectancy of the panels.
Another issue I found with PV was purely accounting.
As it should have been, and should be.
In the late 90's none of the factories making panels, were running the factories with their own panels.
Location, location, location. Solarworld built the largest solar manufacturing plant (http://www.solarworld-usa.com/news-and-resources/news/solarworld-opens-north-americas-largest-solar-cell-manufacturing-facility.aspx) in North America in Oregon. Why? Oregon has abundant fresh water. (That's the reason I heard anyways)

It would be great to make the panels in New Mexico, or southern California, where the sun always shines, but where would you get the water from?

If they could not save money by using panels that only cost them their "cost of goods sold--less marketing" How could a homeowner save money paying the full price.
Prices have been coming down, and panels would shade the roof, Grid tied solved the peak vs average issue. Maybe time to revisit.

Check out Artman's thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=324207).

I would explain to him an engineering modification to his existing array to improve his overall system efficiency by 300%, but that would steal all of his fun.

99% of the fun of science is figuring things out for yourself. :smile:

---------------------------------
Spock: He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.
The Borg Queen: You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become.
Me, interpreting how Capra (http://www.fritjofcapra.net/) thinks: Imagine the universe, interconnected, in a poly-dimensional web, where everything affects everything.

edpell

Jul13-11, 07:19 PM

has anyone done any significant fact-finding into this new thorium-based nuclear reactor business?

I have been looking into this for a few months. I have posted a link to a good site on the subject. I can not post the link a second time here because it violates PF rules.

The energy from thorium forum has a lively discussion of thorium reactors. Oak Ridge operated a small thorium reactor for several years in the 60s. The Chinese are currently building a proof of concept thorium reactor. In the US a new company Flibe Energy has been formed to provide thorium reactors to US military bases that want "base islanding" (there own power supply). Two researcher one from Brookhaven National Labs and one from Israel have gotten money from the US Israeli National Science Foundation to study thorium reactors.

So the net is it is an active field. We will see what comes of it in five years.

DrClapeyron

Jul19-11, 11:56 AM

I was discussing with a co-worker her desire to trade in her mid-size crossover SUV for a full-size SUV. I think she and other people go with the SUV and large vehicles generally because the seats are at hip level and it makes getting things (i.e. kids, etc) in and out easier. Try designing a car, maybe with Goldwing doors or something that allows more access inside the car. That and people are fat here, and here in America that makes SUVs the defacto means of transportation since it is the only way for most people to avoid the humiliation of having to tell your boss you were late to work because you got stuck in your seat while trying to exit your car.

Ok, that was senile.

Red tape. Government puts too much red tape around nuclear power. Sensationalism from Chernobyl, 3 Mile and now Japan means it will not happen in this country. People have too much fear of nuclear power to prevent sending 19 year old kids to their death in Iraq. Ok, a little senile as well.

Maybe congress should take the restrictions off more effecient reactor designs like breeder reactors. I think all the red tape is there to prevent a collapse of the coal industry and, what would be far worse for their pocketbooks, a contraction in the oil industry. Outside of a great new breakthrough in fusion technology all the "alternatives" we have are not alternatives.

They are the status quo. Nuclear energy and PV cells are nothing new so why would anyone consider them "alternatives"?

Greg Bernhardt

Aug12-11, 04:36 PM

mheslep

Aug12-11, 04:43 PM

U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/8-grams-of-thorium-could-replace-gasoline-in-cars-20110812/

A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.
i.e. 336 thousand HP? Under the hood of the Space Shuttle more like it. Sounds like a crackpot link.

RonL

Aug12-11, 06:36 PM

This is an interesting improvement for transfer of power, the oscillating ring reduces friction to a minimum, close to an electric motor.

http://www.engineair.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=9

30 seconds into the video, channel 10, an actual unit shows the bearings that push the ring into the motion that engages the sliding vanes.

http://www.engineair.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=2&Itemid=11

Ron

OmCheeto

Aug12-11, 08:46 PM

i.e. 336 thousand HP? Under the hood of the Space Shuttle more like it. Sounds like a crackpot link.

Oh stop exaggerating.

Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser, Stevens tells Ward’s. These create steam from water within mini-turbines, generating electricity to drive a car.

It's probably only 25% efficient, so it won't generate any more than 84,000 hp.

Though I was just thinking about such a thing today; "My investment is almost risk free. Unless of course, someone actually does invent a Mr. Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Fusion#Mr._Fusion) device"

:eek:

Topher925

Aug14-11, 10:41 AM

Despite Secretary Chu and President Obama looking to drastically cut and slow down the development of fuel cell and hydrogen technology, fuel cell vehicles seem to be growing and progressing faster than ever. Mercedes-Benz recently bumped up their FCV release date to 2014 from 2015 stating,

We have proven that by sending three vehicles with a fuel cell around the globe without any relevant problems. The issue is infrastructure. We made this trip to prove technology is ready and we need partners to take care of infrastructure.
http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-fuel-cell-car-ready-for-market-in-2014.html

Toyota is still planning on mass producing their FC Highlander in 2015 and GM and Honda have stated that they will follow and be releasing vehicles in the same time frame.

It appears that the fuzzy future of alt fuels for transportation applications is becoming more clear. The only problem now is developing the infrastructure. While the US is doing diddly-squat to create a hydrogen fuel infrastructure Europe and Japan are well on their way to support hydrogen technologies.

The European Union and the world’s largest automakers have stated that they will be ready with hydrogen cars and H2 fueling stations by the year 2015. Meanwhile the Federal Government of the United States has stated they have no intention on being ready and are most willing to be followers instead of leaders in these emerging technologies.
http://www.icinola.com/hydrogen-cars/denmark-and-germany-open-new-hydrogen-fueling-stations/

I think the answer to the question "What will replace the ICE powered car?" is quickly becoming Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles (FCHEV's) with a mix of a BEV's owning a small portion of the market. Now if we could just get our act together maybe we can make this transition quick and painless.

mheslep

Aug14-11, 02:19 PM

On Mercedes FCV round the world tour this year (http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-benz/b-class/mercedes-benz-b-class-f-cell-set-for-trip-around-the-world.html):
"On remote routes a tank vehicle will be on hand to supply the fuel cell vehicles with the necessary hydrogen," said [Mercedes Benz]That doesn't sound like a build out of the H2 infrastructure is well on its way.

Topher925

Aug14-11, 02:58 PM

That doesn't sound like a build out of the H2 infrastructure is well on its way.

That's a rather naive statement. Its obvious that there are remote locations in the world that won't have H2 fueling stations just as there are routes that don't have gas or diesel stations.

mheslep

Aug14-11, 03:12 PM

...just as there are routes that don't have gas or diesel stations.In the US? What routes would these be?

Brian H

Aug15-11, 01:01 AM

Wires are cheaper than hydrogen pipelines.

moejoe15

Aug17-11, 08:22 AM

Seems to me there is a good solution if you believe in our ingenuity. I personally believe we can solve almost any engineering problem if we put enough will, brains and money into it. We had a smart president once who believed that and we went to the moon. There were probably many nabobs of negativism then who were against it or didn't believe it was possible. I am sure many of those same types will pan this idea too. I will say right now they are wrong.

Every single person on this planet is standing on top of an unlimited clean source of power. Geothermal energy if exploited would solve almost all our energy needs essentially forever. All we need is another Kennedy to focus the national will and resources and all the obstacles could be solved. I KNOW that is true.

mheslep

Aug17-11, 02:40 PM

...

Every single person on this planet is standing on top of an unlimited clean source of power. Geothermal energy if exploited would solve almost all our energy needs essentially forever.Do you know how you know this is true, and can explain how, or is that statement a matter of faith?

All we need is another Kennedy to focus the national will and resources and all the obstacles could be solved. I KNOW that is true.The Moon landing was a spectacular achievement, yet it still amounted to sending only three men there a few times over. Constructing a mechanism that can provide something like energy cheaply to billions of people is an entirely different venture.

SystemsEngr

Aug18-11, 12:29 AM

For start, force people to switch from incadescent lightbulbs to fluorescent ones. In USA fluorescent bulbs are still BIG news.Small steps like this can make big difference.

Actually, LED bulbs are starting to be available that are lower power input, longer-lasting and not subject to breakage and mercury leakage. These need to be better - right now LEDs available are too expensive, too heavy for some applications, and not bright enough (I looked recently for a 100W replacement, and didn't find one).

moejoe15

Aug18-11, 09:49 AM

Do you know how you know this is true, and can explain how, or is that statement a matter of faith?...

I was under the impression that there is molten core at the center of the earth? Not true? You don't have to dig far in some places to tap heat and heat is energy. Geothermal is already used in places where the heat is close to the surface and easily tapped. It's there everywhere if you dig deep enough and think it is just an engineering problem and if there is anything we do well it is overcome engineering problems. There are places in the US where it isn't far under the surface. Yellowstone for one. We routinely drill over a mile down now, I think we can get much farther down if we tried. The point is the energy is there, all we have to do is figure out how to get it instead of throwing up our hands and saying it's impossible as people like you want to do.

Ryan_m_b

Aug18-11, 11:13 AM

I was under the impression that there is molten core at the center of the earth? Not true? You don't have to dig far in some places to tap heat and heat is energy. Geothermal is already used in places where the heat is close to the surface and easily tapped. It's there everywhere if you dig deep enough and think it is just an engineering problem and if there is anything we do well it is overcome engineering problems. There are places in the US where it isn't far under the surface. Yellowstone for one. We routinely drill over a mile down now, I think we can get much farther down if we tried. The point is the energy is there, all we have to do is figure out how to get it instead of throwing up our hands and saying it's impossible as people like you want to do.

Nobody was suggesting it was impossible but there are huge technical challenges with widespread geothermal power. Suggesting it as an option without providing good explanation as to why and how is as sensible and productive as saying "if we had lots of solar power we could cheaply power the Earth". It's superficially true but working out the science and engineering of how to make it work is a different story entirely.

mheslep

Aug18-11, 11:54 AM

... The point is the energy is there, all we have to do is figure out how to get it instead of throwing up our hands and saying it's impossible as people like you want to do.Yes and the energy of the Sun is there, all we have to do is figure out how to send spaceships to the sun and get it. Look, this is an engineering forum. It seems to me you have two options: actually engage in investigating the possibilities of energy sources such as geothermal, if that is your interest, or preach dogma (to an appropriate audience somewhere else).

moejoe15

Aug19-11, 04:22 AM

I see, so I should either go out and drill or shut up. Thanks for clearing up the purpose of this thread.

Ryan_m_b

Aug19-11, 04:49 AM

I see, so I should either go out and drill or shut up. Thanks for clearing up the purpose of this thread.

It's not just the purpose of this thread it is the purpose of this entire forum to provide thorough and well reasoned explanations in as much detail as possible using sources from peer-reviewed literature. Initial ideas are fine but when questioned you should be prepared to back up a claim with detailed data and if you read the first post in this thread you will see that the specific purpose here is not to throw around initial ideas but to present fully thought out proposals.

So please don't think there is anything wrong with posting initial ideas such as "I think we should use more geothermal energy" but when somebody asks you to elaborate you should provide proper and thorough explanations and proposals rather than becoming defensive and dismissive.

Redbelly98

Aug19-11, 07:18 AM

I see, so I should either go out and drill or shut up. Thanks for clearing up the purpose of this thread.
You could provide an estimate of how much power geothermal energy can provide. How many kW per square meter? How many square meters are required to power the United States (or the world, or other country of your choice)? Without doing that, you don't really know if geothermal is viable or not.

If we had those estimates, we could have a discussion about the merits of geothermal power.

[EDIT added:]
And if you can't provide the estimates yourself, you may simply ask "What about geothermal power? How many kW per square meter could it provide? etc. etc."

edpell

Aug19-11, 04:26 PM

OmCheeto

Aug20-11, 10:26 AM

wikipedia gives us

"Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25–30°C per km of depth in most of the world."

Seems like a great source for a community heat pump for heating in winter.

We talked a bit about this on page 35 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632239&highlight=kilauea#post2632239).

Ha ha! I was just joking about the gold, and here I found someone who thinks there is a pot full down there!

Earth's Inner Fort Knox (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/innerfortknox)
Wood has calculated that 1.6 quadrillion tons of gold must lie in Earth's core.

Let's see, at the current spot price, that's $53,968,760,000,000,000,000,000, which works out to about $7.7 trillion per earthling.

Finally, I'll be able to afford an electric car, without having to make the damn thing myself. :smile:

But anyways, geothermal is a good idea. I'm curious why no one has tapped the energy from the deep water vents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent) yet. No drilling required. And if you have a blow out, the worst thing you get, is a bunch of seawater.

OmCheeto

Aug21-11, 12:26 PM

Of course, I'm a huge fan of solar, and think I may have a convert:

http://home.europa.com/~garry/20110820_Cals_solar_cart_n_pump.jpg

http://home.europa.com/~garry/20110820_Cals_Vballcourt_water_hoses.jpg

I constructed a solar powered volleyball court watering system a couple of years back, out of 3 panels, 3 bilge pumps, and a slew of garden hoses, to get the water from the river, to the furthest court, about 100 yards away.

My friend Cal, who had a gas powered version, (which I have never seen), constructed the above system over the last year. I was quite impressed when I saw it yesterday.

I don't really know what this has to do the the US Energy Crisis, but I thought that maybe if people understood their options, it might be a good start.

Sometimes, it's not about brute force. Sometimes, it's about going with the flow. :tongue:

(my Sunday Zen moment of the day.^.^.
Ommmm..........
Thank you Astro!)

ps. Some of those eco-terrorists came through town the other day......

pWkHh4THIVc

Astronuc

Sep14-11, 10:23 AM

The American Energy Innovation Council is pushing for more government and private investment in energy innovation.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/14/am-bill-gates-on-the-importance-of-energy-research-for-the-future/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/full-report

Interestingly, there are several organizations that use the phrase Energy Innovation or Energy Innovations in their title, e.g.,

http://www.energyinnovations.com/
http://www.seiinc.org/

mheslep

Sep14-11, 04:19 PM

The American Energy Innovation Council is pushing for more government and private investment in energy innovation.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/14/am-bill-gates-on-the-importance-of-energy-research-for-the-future/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/full-report
...Bad timing on their part for a PR campaign

Solyndra Bankruptcy Reveals Dark Clouds in Solar Power Industry
(http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/06/06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark-clouds-in-sol-45598.html?pagewanted=all)
Solyndra had received $527 million in federal loans authorized by a program in the 2009 stimulus act.

OmCheeto

Sep14-11, 08:48 PM

Bad timing on their part for a PR campaign

Solyndra Bankruptcy Reveals Dark Clouds in Solar Power Industry
(http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/06/06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark-clouds-in-sol-45598.html?pagewanted=all)

Running a new business. :eek:

I plan on starting one when I retire. (1021 days. tick. tick. tick.)

SolarWorld
Revenue €1.305 billion (2010)
Operating income €192.8 million (2010)
Profit €87.3 million (2010)
Total assets €2.635 billion (end 2010)
Total equity €922.9 million (end 2010)
Employees 2,380 (end 2010)

Of course, it will not be based on 20th century thought processes. :wink: :rolleyes:

And of course, I will require the services of a chemist, a mathematician, an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a marketing expert, an accountant, several software engineers, and a small army of technicians.

Astronuc

Sep14-11, 08:49 PM

mheslep

Sep15-11, 08:08 AM

Spectrawatt also closed down.Yes there are others, but they didn't take half a billion in government loans down with them. AEIC is calling for "more government" on the tail of that lost taxpayer money, seemingly oblivious to the the Solyndra case.

OmCheeto

Sep15-11, 08:39 PM

Yes there are others, but they didn't take half a billion in government loans down with them. AEIC is calling for "more government" on the tail of that lost taxpayer money, seemingly oblivious to the the Solyndra case.

They should just give me all the goodies. I know how to run a business. (well, ok, not yet)

But it's difficult to analyze the problem in a mixed socio-economic mode world.

the Chinese government provided more than $30 billion, billion with a B, to their solar companies. (ref) (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/14/140477571/how-to-u-s-solar-companies-compare-to-chinas)

How does an upstart U.S. company compete with 50 cents an hour wages, and getting 1/20th the financial backing that China provides?

This is actually why I posted the financial statistics for Solarworld, the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar panels: Profit €87.3 million (2010)

Hardly the profits of Exxon($11 billion), GE($14 billion), or a multiple of seasoned companies.

Some may question whether a communist country can compete with a capitalist country, but I have to ask, can our companies compete in such an environment?

mheslep

Sep15-11, 09:20 PM

They should just give me all the goodies. I know how to run a business. (well, ok, not yet)

But it's difficult to analyze the problem in a mixed socio-economic mode world.

(ref) (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/14/140477571/how-to-u-s-solar-companies-compare-to-chinas)

How does an upstart U.S. company compete with 50 cents an hour wages, and getting 1/20th the financial backing that China provides?Couple responses:

I have little faith in the accuracy of the finance figure from that source on China, and in any case the claim is collective to all Chinese solar, not one company.
The Solyndra case is a showcase example of why government should be at least reticent about funding industry.
In answer to your main question, see Apple. Do the high margin smart work here in the US, do the low margin repetitive labor there. Comparative advantage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) For instance, you could be a $9B manufacturer of very expensive semiconductor and solar panel manufacturing equipment (http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAMAT&hl=en), by far the largest in the world, and sell to the Chinese and every body else in the world who wants to make silicon wafers.
Keep Chinese job competition in mind the next time you see a politician who thinks the best thing for Fish and Wildlife Service armed federal agents to do is raid US a guitar company and shut it down for awhile. (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=gibson%20guitar%20raid&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=ea9a26852ee014a8&biw=1280&bih=939&pf=p&pdl=500)

This is actually why I posted the financial statistics for Solarworld, the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar panels: Profit €87.3 million (2010)See the '€' there? That's a German based company.

Ivan Seeking

Sep16-11, 10:01 PM

Couple responses:
[LIST=1]
I have little faith in the accuracy of the finance figure from that source on China, and in any case the claim is collective to all Chinese solar, not one company.

Winning will require substantial investments. Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers," Poneman wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/

The Solyndra case is a showcase example of why government should be at least reticent about funding industry.

Why? Start-up industries always have a high failure rate. It doesn't matter if the investments are public or private. It is unfortunate but not earth-shaking that they bet on the wrong horse. Also, 0.5 billion of the 25 billion that went to renewable energy companies, is about 2%. Are you really surprised that we would lose 2% in high-risk investements? If the news doesn't get much worse, say if 5% of the total is lost to failures, 95% is a strikingly good success rate. Even 90% success would be a fantastic hit rate.

In answer to your main question, see Apple. Do the high margin smart work here in the US, do the low margin repetitive labor there.

I have been in the thick of eliminating labor jobs with automation for the last fifteen years. When you automate, you create fewer but better jobs. Many forms of industry lend themselves to nearly complete automation. There are even "lights out" plants where, in theory, the plant can operate without any workers, however these have been problematic. But the point is that the relationship between production and labor continues to evolve. As this happens, foreign producers lose some of their advantage.

As for your comments about enforcing laws against the use of illegal and protected wood products, are you suggesting that the same law doesn't apply to imports from China? What IS your point here; that we should lower our standards to those of foreign producers?

Allenman

Sep17-11, 02:51 AM

I didn't finger through this entire thread yet, but wanted to see what you guys think about this for a plan.

-There are roughly 160 million telephone poles in the united states. If we were to begin trying to retrofit each one with either a small solar or small VAWT power station on top, that would be a substantial gain in renewable energy, even if they only produced 1kw each (they should be sized for the pole they are mounted on though). I'd estimate over the course of 10 years, this would cost roughly $500mil a year.

-Place electrolysis stations at various points on the grid to separate water and produce hydrogen for fuel in case there is an overload of renewable power. Over 10 years this may cost about $500mil a year.

-Require that all fossil fuel plants and waste-to-energy plants retrofit their exhaust to aid in the growth of algae for biofuels by the year 2021.

-Utilize some desert from Arizona and New Mexico to do large scale algae farming for biodiesel and ethanol. I don't know how much that would cost

-Subsidize the implementation of (more) biofuel gas stations, or conversion of existing gas stations to sell biofuels.

-Provide government research grants to those who are developing new energy saving devises and new ways of producing renewable energy. At least $200mil/year.

This is mostly on top of what is already being done.

russ_watters

Sep17-11, 12:03 PM

How big of a solar panel are you talking about? I'm seeing a typical price for a 1.5 sq meter panel at about $330. 160 million of them over 10 years is $5 billion a year, just to buy the solar panel: no installation, no controls or inverter to connect it to the grid. So you'll probably need to double or triple that.

Such panels have a peak power of 230W. The sum of all the peaks would be 36,800 megawatts. Spread out and not tracking the sun, you'll probably really max out at a third of that; 12,000 megawatts, which is roughly equal to 12 nuclear reactors, at a cost of perhaps 15 nuclear reactors (which, of course, generate energy 24/7, not just during the day). It still might be worth doing, but it is marginal.

OmCheeto

Sep17-11, 01:20 PM

....

See the '€' there? That's a German based company.

A German based company that a while back invested, um, $500,000,000 in my state.
They recently announced that they were shutting down their California based production facility, for financial reasons of course.

SolarWorld beams all production to Hillsboro (http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2011/09/solarworld_beams_all_productio.html)

And what was it I just posted on facebook?

Solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity was added in more than 100 countries during 2010, ensuring that PV remained the world’s fastest growing power-generation technology.
ref: REN21 (2011). "Renewables 2011: Global Status Report". page 22. (http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf)

Solyndra cost the average American taxpayer about $5. Just imagine if everyone had invested $100 in the company. Then maybe China wouldn't be the worlds biggest manufacturer of solar panels. I'm glad Obama invited some kids to the white house who are smart enough to invent new things, rather than stand around with their thumbs up their wrasses (http://www.whitewatercharters.co.uk/wrasse-fishing-photos.htm), like so many people seem to do nowadays.
(profanity toned down ala LisaB mode)

Almost all of my investments are in "Gore" like technologies. It pains me to see other countries leading the way.

http://home.europa.com/~garry/renewable_energy_top_5_countries.jpg

But I would like to thank you for the AMAT tip. I've never seen a 102,000% increase in a stock before.

http://home.europa.com/~garry/AMAT_2011_09_16.jpg

danielandpenn

Sep17-11, 11:57 PM

Allenman

Sep18-11, 04:23 AM

OmCheeto

Sep18-11, 01:17 PM

Not all of them would require a solar panel. In most places it would be beneficial to find or test which would be more cost effective (solar or wind)..... But yeah you're right; I think I did really low-ball that one....

Ha ha! It does pay to do the math once in a while. 3 days after the start of the 2003 Iraq invasion, I wrote a one page, dual time-line, future history story, about how things might turn out. Here is a small excerpt:

January 17, 2009
.....
Fearing another "War for Oil", as he termed it, President Powell funneled billions into photovoltaic technology companies. This, along with a $3/gallon gasoline tax, weaned America off of its foreign oil dependency within one year. Being able to travel for virtually nothing, the American people quickly amassed trillions of dollars in excess wealth. The rest of the world quickly followed America's lead.

President Powell, fed up with the politics of Washington, refused to run for a 2nd term.

.....

I just ran the calculations, and a $3/gal gas tax would have generated $225 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. This would have paid for ~30 billion watts of PV panels back then. I just checked wiki, and the 10 largest PV manufacturers in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies)(most of which are Chinese btw) only delivered about 10 billion watts of panels last year.

ps. My story was never meant to be made public, nor should you take it seriously, as it was just a stress reliever for me. But it is funny how many things I wrote have come to pass. "A black president? Get real......"

OmCheeto

Sep19-11, 08:51 PM

I think it would be beneficial to use third world nations' agriculturally-poor land to construct energy fields, like CST fields or wind turbine fields. This way, they can trade energy for food and we have a fix for poverty and starvation, as well as improving environmental conditions.

It is interesting to see how symbiotic we are, as an economically disparate species. I might need you on my staff within the next 5 years.

Started in 1996, the programme has come as a god-send in a country of 145 million, where 80% people live in poverty and 70% have no access to grid electricity. They have to rely on highly polluting Kerosene oil and diesel generators for lighting and depend on bio-mass, wood, cow dung and crop residue for cooking, which not only create indoor pollution but, through misuse of resources, lead to deforestation, soil erosion and floods.

From a humble beginning of 228 homes in 1997, Grameen Shakti now powers over 135,000 homes, currently adding 5,000 homes every month using photovoltaic technology. Three million trees have been planted under the plantation scheme.
bolding mine

!!!!

I have to go quickly, as my laptop is behaving quite as though as if it is possessed!

Ciao!

sketch

Oct11-11, 02:33 PM

Groups of houses or apartments to share high power appliances such as vaccum cleaners, tumble driers, fridges and freezers etc.

More internal electrics to run on 12v, with the power supplied via small windmills and solar arrays.

Larger windmills to store higher voltage using capacitors or flywheels to store energy for use in the higher-powered equipment.

Allotments/vegetable patches/chickens/etc.

If you yield more produce then a reduction in rent or mortgage owed applies.

Simple really.

Pkruse

Jan16-12, 07:53 AM

I see lots of suggestions that fit with sketch's ideas above, things that are all within our current level of technology. While these are technically feasible, I think we need to be realistic as to what is politically acceptable. (That also implies economically viable.) Engineers can develop all sorts of good ideas, but if the market can't sell it, it goes nowhere. Nothing that restricts our growth in living standard is acceptable to the majority of people today, and I don't see that changing.

So perhaps we can start with the assumption of how can we provide ever increasing amounts of energy at a reasonable cost and minimum or no effect on the environment. I see a huge amount of money being spent today researching many ideas that could bring that holy grail a little bit closer, but any research that is potentially economically viable is kept secret. The developers take great pains to make sure that nobody knows about it until they are ready to go to market, and even then they hold the details very close to their chests. Ideas with little or no potential economic potential get published freely, but that stuff just is not going to sell.

I personally would be very interested in carbon sequestering proposals, some of which look like they could very well result in a coal fired plant with near zero emissions. Some propose to completely redesigning the nuclear power plant to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown or other serious hazard, the recycling of nuclear fuel so it need not be stored for such a long time in large quantities, and how to make power with the spent fuel so it need not be stored at all. The power industry is currently investing heavily in gas turbines. How can we make those more efficient or less expensive? How can we use very low grade fuel, like land fill gas with only five percent methane? What about these new plasma systems for completely breaking down hazardous and non-hazardous wastes into clean fuel? All this represents research currently under way, but it is very difficult to get information on it. If anyone in this forum has expertise in these or similar ideas, let’s talk about it.

This thread is just too big to be useful. What do you folks think about starting separate threads for separate ideas?

sketch

Jan16-12, 09:26 AM

Unless someone cracks cold fusion then there is a finite amount of energy and sorry but people will have to take a blow when it comes to the amount of power they use.

The fact that many live in apartment blocks in the US almost makes it easier in some ways than in other places and tbf we will all probably be fuc*ed when the gas hydrates go up anyway...

In the UK the massive rise in fuel prices should hopefully lead people to look for more green alternatives but the point is to respond to shortages and price rises before they reach the point where so many are in fuel poverty.

mheslep

Jan16-12, 10:46 AM

Unless someone cracks cold fusion then there is a finite amount of energy and sorry but people will have to take a blow when it comes to the amount of power they use. ...A blow? Unlikely.

Topher925

Jan16-12, 11:31 AM

Sharing appliances and micro generation is all well and good initially on paper but people aren't willing to put up with the cost or tolerate the inconvenience. Between nuclear, solar, and wind, the entire planet could have a carbon free existence. There are currently no major technical barriers that say we can't. The reason we don't is because the economics and logistics don't make sense.

People think nuclear is too dangerous and its a big financial risk to build a plant. Plus we have a limited supply of Uranium and for what ever reason Thorium fueled reactors aren't being built. Solar is nice except you can't farm it where the demand is and its too economically and resource intensive to transport it great distances. Wind is great, especially off-shore, but people would rather accept the wrath of climate change than see a wind farm on their way to work in the morning. The cost of energy storage (be flywheel, hydraulic, or w/e) is very high and is also very necessary for non-baseload energy sources.

mheslep

Jan16-12, 05:03 PM

russ_watters

Jan16-12, 11:25 PM

I know it's late but since you replied recently....Groups of houses or apartments to share high power appliances such as vaccum cleaners, tumble driers, fridges and freezers etc. How would that help any? Sharing a vacuum cleaner or drier doesn't make you vacuum less or dry your clothes less, so it doesn't decrease the amount of energy you use. More internal electrics to run on 12v, with the power supplied via small windmills and solar arrays. What does running at 12V have to do with anything? It won't decrease the power used... Larger windmills to store higher voltage using capacitors or flywheels to store energy for use in the higher-powered equipment. Windmills don't store anything and voltage isn't something that is stored.
Simple really. I'm sorry, but that post reads mosly like gibberish.

russ_watters

Jan16-12, 11:29 PM

Pkruse

Jan17-12, 05:56 AM

Yes, Russ. We as engineers need to become very creative to develop new solutions that are politically and ecconomically acceptable. We need to figure out what the people want, and then give it to them. They want an every increasing standard of living with zero impact on the planet. We will never attain that idea, but I believe we can approach it much more closely than we in the past have thought possible. We do know how to resolve all the World's problems from a technical point of view, but rehashing what we already know endlessly with little chance of actually selling it is not productive. We need to find simething that sells.

I have zero hope that fusion will solve our problems within my life time. When I talk about nuclear, I don't even bring fusion up. But our old plants were developed as they were because at the time we needed to make bomb fuel. We could have designed them differently, but we did not for that reason. Some of my friends in the industry talk about all sorts of wonderful ideas whereby they could develop entirely new designs from the ground up that would have zero possibility of a melt down, which would eliminate the problem of storing spent fuel, and which would be many orders of magnitude safer and less expensive than we have today. All this is technology that we could jump on and develop today, but first we need to develop the political will with funding that follows. It would be great if some of those working along these lines would post their ideas here, where we could develop a critical mass of thinking to stimulate further development, but they keep to themselves because their ideas are potentially very profitable and they don't want anyone to steal their ideas.

I myself work for a company that would fire me if I posted proprietory material here. So I'm one that is limited in that same way. But I'm seeing much more funding cut loose to develop these ideas, some of which will change the whole tone of this thread if we repeat it ten years from now. Between the various parties seeking new green technology, more than a billion dollars of research money is being spent in this direction. Some of it is government money, but much of it is private venture capital. When you see private sources funding research, you know it has at least a good probability of becoming productive and profitable--ideas that we can actually sell and the people will use.

Topher925

Jan17-12, 08:47 AM

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

I'm in favor of a 100% solar powered hydrogen economy. But since we have to live in the real world a combination of nuclear and solar (but mostly nuclear) is the best bet for the near term. I think 20 years from now hydrogen fueled plug-in hybrids will become the staple for transportation with the source of hydrogen coming from high temperature electrolysis, solar thermochemical hydrogen generation, and natural gas.

Astronuc

Jan26-12, 06:29 AM

Interesting read concerning the economics of renewable energy: "Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust".
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_solyndra/

I thought that the first photo might be photoshopped, but if one searches Google images for "wind turbine fire", one fines some numerous images of wind turbines on fire.

Ryan_m_b

Jan26-12, 07:01 AM

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?
If we can get artificial photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis) to operate on an economically viable industrial scale we could produce carbon-neutral oil by combining carbon from CO2 with hydrogen from water. This would have the advantage of not requiring a large retooling of our existing oil-based infrastructure.

mheslep

Jan26-12, 11:06 AM

Yes I've been following some of the efforts: inorganic w/ Lewis (CalTech) and Nocera (MIT); biologic w/ Joule Unlimited and Venter. Lewis has already identified materials efficient and cheap but not robust to the corrosive environment of hydrolysis. Nature deals w/ the same problem by continually rebuilding the photoplasts, if at some energy cost.

For this reason I favor the biologic solution from Joule w/ its direct hydrocarbon engineered organism. Their approach eliminates the harvest and lipid conversion step (direct conversion), eliminates the 'gunk' build up associated with algae that has crashed some prototype systems, eliminates biomass feed stock transport problems, eliminates the fresh water resource problem (at least 19 mbbl/day) associated with all other biofuel efforts. Joule claims they can do 20,000 gallons/acre-year of hydrocarbon in a peer reviewed journal. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21318462) They rely on bio-solar enclosures which has proved too expensive in the past, so they have that hill to climb.* If they succeed, then 7 million acres replaces all US oil imports, 15 million replaces all US oil period. That's a fraction of the land dedicated to just US corn ethanol in 2011.

*For instance, if the cost target is $2/gal, then they have to build an acre of enclosures, operate, and pay land taxes off $40,000/acre/year. If the cost of the enclosure is only $2/sq ft then an acre of enclosure costs $86K. Of course farmers make a living off $1000/acre/year, but they don't have to cover the dirt with plexiglass.

PS: The above is, I think, the best approach for liquid fuels. I still favor electrified, battery based, transportation over combustion and its inevitable byproducts whenever possible.

turbo

Jan26-12, 12:14 PM

My wife and I are "fixing" the energy crisis in our own way. We burn properly seasoned wood in an efficient steel, fire-brick lined stove. I have never had to clean the chimney, because the hot fires strip out all the tar and creosote.

This weekend, we are replacing the last two problematic windows with brand-new double-hung windows with vinyl frames and IR-reflective glass. Winter is a good time to do such replacements, since the companies that do that sort of work are always looking for ways to keep their employees busy in the slack season.

My wife and I bought this place 6 years ago and had the oil tank filled because we didn't have a decent supply of seasoned hardwood at the time. We still have over 1/4 of that tank of oil, and I have been nursing it along with 911 to avoid sludge. We are using the furnace on cold nights (especially when I'm not feeling well, which is frequently recently) trying to draw down that tank. Eventually, I'll order maybe 100 gallons of oil, and who knows how long that will last...

mheslep

Jan26-12, 12:31 PM

turbo

Jan26-12, 01:35 PM

What kind of wall construction/insulation do you have? Any upgrades planned? I've upgraded my windows too, and air sealed the attic, but I can't find away to easily upgrade 2x4 framed w/ cedar shingle walls to the new super insulated design (double wall or 2x6). Might as well knock the place down first. Meanwhile an IR temperature gun shows a lot cold temps on those walls.
We live in a house made of ~6" poplar logs. We added 1" of foam insulation to the roof before installing a metal roof.

Sometimes, it would be nice to have the place a little bit warmer in the winter without stoking the stove, but adding studs and insulation to the outer walls would destroy the appearance of the place. As it is, I have to be careful not to stoke the stove when the outside temperature is freezing or higher, because it gets really hot in here. Extra insulation would require us to buy a much smaller wood-stove to avoid getting roasted out.

I enjoy splitting, stacking and seasoning hardwood that has only sequestered carbon for maybe 40 years instead of burning #2 heating oil (~$3.60/gallon right now). I could cut the wood off our 10 acres, but I prefer to buy the wood from my niece's husband, who runs a bulk-firewood operation in the spring/summer. That saves me a lot of work and risk. My footing is not so great after I had a stroke, so running a screaming chainsaw on steep side-hills (about the only terrain on our property) is not an attractive option.

mheslep

Jan26-12, 01:43 PM

As it is, I have to be careful not to stoke the stove when the outside temperature is freezing or higher, because it gets really hot in here. Extra insulation would require us to buy a much smaller wood-stove to avoid getting roasted out.

You might consider an HRV for that problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
Sealed up homes still need to turn the air over, and I expect you'll get a more even room temp as a benefit. Not sure how much duct work you'd need to add.

turbo

Jan26-12, 02:21 PM

The only duct-work we have is connected to the oil furnace, and this place is so small that ducting would be overkill. We burn less than 5 cords of seasoned hardwood/year, so our heating energy costs are negligible. As summers have gotten hotter and hotter, we need more air-conditioning, but hopefully the new windows will cut back that cost, too.

My youngest uncle is a (semi-retired) HVAC guy, and he's pretty darned sharp. When he saw these last two problematic windows, he said "Replace them, and they'll pay for themselves in a few years." I know he's right, and shouldn't have waited this long to swap them out, but there always seemed to be other priorities cropping up. Still, replacing drafty old windows pays more than keeping money in savings accounts.

Artus

Feb2-12, 04:26 PM

It's official now. We have passed the Peak Oil and there is not evident solution:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/nature-journal-study-peak-oil/

Ryan_m_b

Feb2-12, 04:32 PM

It's official now. We have passed the Peak Oil and there is not evident solution:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/nature-journal-study-peak-oil/
It is neither "official" nor clear. These arguments have happened before, we should wait until it is clear to conclude or discuss the rationale for the recent conclusions, not take them as fact.

Most Curious

Feb8-12, 06:51 PM

Lift ALL restrictions on oil and gas production / refining nationwide.

CEASE all exports of energy. To include crude and refined product as well as gas. Possible exception for batteries.

Eliminate trading of ALL futures contracts of energy.

Defund the EPA and scatter those responsible for the outrageous damage they have done!.

Cease all "alternative energy" dreams and subsidies, including tax breaks. All research to be privately funded. I wish them well but see no need to fund their pipe dreams.

Kill all building of hybrid cars which in fact ADD to pollution.

Suspend the clean air act until such time as all job killing, cost increasing provisons are removed.

Eliminate all efficiency standards for things like vehicles, light bulbs, home heating etc.

Remove alcohol contamination from gasoline and bio contamination from diesel fuel.

Give a tax break for construction of new coal fired generating plants and advanced nuclear plants. To aid construction, eliminate income taxes for those working on the projects.

IMMEDIATELY resume nuclear fuel reprocessing for the valuable material otherwise wasted and to reduce the volume of high level waste to be stored.

Build such new electrical transmission lines as necessary. Grant maximum of 14 days for all NIMBY actions and hearings. No more roadblocks to sighting of transmission lines, coal and nuclear plants, refineries and nuclear waste disposal sites to name only a few.

Am I serious?? You better believe I am!! Our "energy crisis" has been created by politics. Our current economic funk can also be traced to the treasonous acts of the EPA, DOE and congress to mention only a few of the crimminals involved.

Abraham

Feb8-12, 07:06 PM

Topher925

Feb8-12, 07:29 PM

An important question is why we have a looming energy crisis at all. Perhaps we should find an answer to a lifestyle crisis that is clearly driving an energy crisis. Just a thought.

I've thought about this a lot. There was never an energy crisis 200 year ago because people lived different lifestyles and the technology which consumes large amounts of energy hadn't been created yet. Solving the energy crisis is rather simple, just revert back to the lifestyles of Ben Franklin and its problem solved. This would obviously never happen but I think it is a very practical solution.

This of course raises another question; is it really worth doing? Man kinds time on earth is finite no matter which way you look at it. Is it better for humanity to exist as long as possible, or to achieve as much as possible. Without the consumption of energy and pollution of the planet we would never go to Mars, there would be no LHC, and we would have to give up on our search for a theory of everything.

I think there's a practical solution somewhere there in the middle but there's no telling if we'll ever find it.

mheslep

Feb8-12, 07:54 PM

There were energy crises hundreds of years ago. People denuded the forests of Europe for fuel and building materials, and were well on the way to doing so in the Americas until Coal came along. In the early 19th century it was said that a man had to travel 50 miles from Boston center to find a tree fell-able for firewood.

Ryan_m_b

Feb9-12, 03:15 AM

This of course raises another question; is it really worth doing? Man kinds time on earth is finite no matter which way you look at it. Is it better for humanity to exist as long as possible, or to achieve as much as possible. Without the consumption of energy and pollution of the planet we would never go to Mars, there would be no LHC, and we would have to give up on our search for a theory of everything.

I think there's a practical solution somewhere there in the middle but there's no telling if we'll ever find it.
I think the interesting point to think about is if it is possible to build a clean, sustainable, high energy civilisation without going through the dirty, non-sustainable phase. I'm not so sure however we could have done a better job already, we could have converted mainly to nuclear power and mass produced renewables for example.

Inevitably we will have to convert to a clean, sustainable and high energy system. Clean because we don't want to cause any more ecological damage (for practical and aesthetic reasons), sustainable because if not we just delay the problem and high energy because we have to maintain our current level of infrastructure as well as coping with the developing world electrifying.

On the subject of growing levels and ease of renewable power according to this new scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328505.000-indias-panel-price-crash-could-spark-solar-revolution.html) the cost of solar panels have quartered in the last four years. This doesn't surprise me as in the UK there's been something of a gold rush for home solar power, a few years ago the only solar panels I saw on buildings were corporate show-offs or university institutions. Now there are solar panelled roofs everywhere, there are probably a few dozen in my small town alone. It doesn't sound like much (and it's not) but the cost is now low enough for the above average wealth family and if they keep coming down soon it will be affordable for the majority of people. Obviously there are problems with solar power like not producing power at night or on a cloudy day but it is a great supplement and an intensive for people to nail the storage problem.

mheslep

Feb9-12, 12:47 PM

Part of that solar expansion in the UK must be due to the UK's large solar feed-in tariff. (http://solarfeedintariff.co.uk/) The cost of PV panels have dropped by ~half in the developed world (http://www.solarbuzz.com/sites/default/files/facts_figs/modules_trend_01.png) over the past four years, but not the installed cost and not the cost per kWh (though they too are falling), especially not in the higher latitudes. London's year round average daily insolation is ~2.7 kWh/M^2, compared to ~7-8 kWh/M^2 in Phoenix. Furthermore London gathers most of that energy during its long summer days, and in the winter collection falls off to nothing, up to 40X less than in the summer, unlike Phoenix. I agree the solution is storage as Ryan says, but currently long term storage is much more cost effective with solar thermal-hot water than PV. (http://www.dlsc.ca/)

Topher925

Feb13-12, 08:18 PM

Topher925

Feb13-12, 08:24 PM

I think the interesting point to think about is if it is possible to build a clean, sustainable, high energy civilisation without going through the dirty, non-sustainable phase. I'm not so sure however we could have done a better job already, we could have converted mainly to nuclear power and mass produced renewables for example.

I think converting mainly to nuclear and mass producing renewable energy farms is what we should have been doing once we realized the implications of fossil fuels. It would be nice if we could even start doing that now but things seem to be going in the opposite direction. Japan and Germany are planning on completely eliminating nuclear power and replacing it with coal for the short term. I wonder what their plan is if renewable sources don't come to fruition in the next 15 years.

mheslep

Feb14-12, 01:18 PM

I did not know this. OK, guess there's only one solution then. Massive population reduction of man kind. So who wants to start WWIII?Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:GBR:JPN&ifdim=region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

Jakoeb

Feb28-12, 07:56 AM

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:GBR:JPN&ifdim=region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

Yeah maybe the WW3 is not a real option here. But the fact is that there's just gonna be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, thats the way to go.

Ryan_m_b

Feb28-12, 11:21 AM

Yeah maybe the WW3 is not a real option here. But the fact is that there's just gonna be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, thats the way to go.
I doubt this will be necessary. Population booms and constant growth are a characteristic of developing countries. In undeveloped countries mortality is very high, in developed countries the need for many children, the price of raising children, widespread contraception and (most importantly IMO) equal rights for women.

All that is needed to decrease population growth to near nothing is to establish these things.

mheslep

Feb28-12, 11:48 AM

...But the fact is that there's just gonna be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, thats the way to go.

I disagree:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:DEU:ITA:JPN:ESP:RUS:HUN:GRC:CZE:PRT:R OM:POL:LVA:AUT:LIE:LTU:CHN:USA:MEX&ifdim=country&tstart=-310590000000&tend=1298869200000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

Replacement birth rate is 2.1

Topher925

Feb28-12, 11:51 AM

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:GBR:JPN&ifdim=region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

I was just joking about the WWIII thing. Obviously that would not be a good solution. But what do you mean by "developed" country? Are you referring to a developed country like France or a developed country like China?

Topher925

Feb28-12, 12:01 PM

I disagree:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:DEU:ITA:JPN:ESP:RUS:HUN:GRC:CZE:PRT:R OM:POL:LVA:AUT:LIE:LTU:CHN:USA:MEX&ifdim=country&tstart=-310590000000&tend=1298869200000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

Replacement birth rate is 2.1

Your graph only accounts for some of the worlds most developed countries, not all of them. Fact is that many researches in the field of sustainability anticipate the world population to be unsustainable around 2030.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56291000/gif/_56291306_seven_billion_count_464.gif

mheslep

Feb28-12, 12:10 PM

I was just joking about the WWIII thing. Obviously that would not be a good solution.
Yes I know, my target was more the often expressed idea that all would be well with energy needs if the world just returned to its 18th-19th century behavior.

But what do you mean by "developed" country? Are you referring to a developed country like France or a developed country like China?Developed, as in little or no abject poverty - France, not China.

brerabbit

Feb28-12, 12:17 PM

Set goals, ie:

1. Operating WarExperientialal Fusion Reactor near Hoover Dam grid by 2017 and ITER in France.

2. Ten updated Warm/Iron Fusion Reactors at Main Electrical Grid Nodes in US. 2027.

3. 75% Federal Energy Dept budget and Research Constructed to fund this effort.

4. Refunds to National Debt made if goals met by 2027.

HOW TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent
Bradenton, Fla.
http://www.american-reporter.com/4,403/458.html

...And like the Internet once did, they can save the American economy - this time for good. Now there is a greater imperative than there has ever been to adopt and fund them: without such a boon, we will become a bankrupt nation, unfathomably deep in debt to China and other trading partners. Those in power have a hard, cold choice: take what the good Lord has given us in these new technologies, and abandon those that have failed and polluted this lovely planet, or die as other civilizations have, in debt, desolation and disgrace. Those are choices that separate the real patriots from the flingers of rhetoric and defenders of the status quo.

Too many people presume that putting the oil industry out of business would be a terrible thing. That's not true. With a new source of electricity that is pretty close to free, hundreds of thousands of small businesses would spring up overnight, both to replicate the technology under license and to develop new applications for it.

In turn, that would stimulate jobs for hundreds of thousands of well-educated engineers and millions of people who will assemble these devices from newly-manufactured parts. Finally, energy-intensive businesses that have gone broke on $3 gas can spring back to life without that burden of cost and maintenance.

Ryan_m_b

Feb28-12, 12:23 PM

Set goals, ie:

Operating Warm Experental Fusion Reactor near Hoover Dam grid by 2017 and ITER in France.

Ten updated Warm/Iron Fusion Reactors at Main Elictrical Grid Nodes in US. 2027.
Somewhat unfortunately this is highly unlikely. By 2017 construction of ITER won't even be finished yet (http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond). Also ITER is only a step towards commercial fusion, it's meant to be followed up by DEMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO) that hasn't even started its design phase yet.

Sadly commercial fusion is still years away.

brerabbit

Feb28-12, 12:36 PM

Somewhat unfortunately this is highly unlikely. By 2017 construction of ITER won't even be finished yet (http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond). Also ITER is only a step towards commercial fusion, it's meant to be followed up by DEMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO) that hasn't even started its design phase yet.

Sadly commercial fusion is still years away.

thanx, Ryan

I absolutely agree. ...but that is the problem. Nobody has a sense of urgency! Pres Kennedy set us us on a impossible goal to go to the moon and return on the Soviet Union urgency of Sputnik. Now the urgency is mired down but is known that we are running out of fossil fuel and the other options are filthy. We need to kick the Universities and Government sponsored 75% of their research dollars are to be spent on Fusion until the goals are met.

Ryan_m_b

Feb28-12, 12:48 PM

Topher925

Feb28-12, 01:33 PM

thanx, Ryan

I absolutely agree. ...but that is the problem. Nobody has a sense of urgency! Pres Kennedy set us us on a impossible goal to go to the moon and return on the Soviet Union urgency of Sputnik. Now the urgency is mired down but is known that we are running out of fossil fuel and the other options are filthy. We need to kick the Universities and Government sponsored 75% of their research dollars are to be spent on Fusion until the goals are met.

The space race was largely fueled by fear, not ambition. That element of fear and communism isn't part of today's energy crisis. Everyone knew that the US was in an undeclared war of science with the USSR and that the development of nuclear arms and other advanced technological weapons would decide the victor. But with the energy crisis, people only care about how much cash they have to give to the Saudi's for their oil, not if they will get nuked by them. The majority of the population doesn't even think climate change is real. There's just not enough motivation form the general populous to pursue fusion at the same scale of the Apollo missions. But thats not to say that their shouldn't be.

If there was some sort of large catastrophic event, perhaps natural disasters, that could be directly tied to climate change or the energy crisis then you would probably see the government and the public show a serious interest in the situation. But we've already had massive oil spills and the warmest and coldest winter on record (depending on where you live) and all that came out of it is just some people complaining.

Ryan_m_b

Feb28-12, 02:03 PM

There's just not enough motivation form the general populous to pursue fusion at the same scale of the Apollo missions. But thats not to say that their shouldn't be.
Applying this to energy in general the majority of people probably do not even realise that there is an energy crisis to avoid. They may hear that we've only got X years of fossil fuels left but what they hear from the media is contradictory regarding how long left and what the alternatives are (witness the strong anti-nuclear sentiments that most western countries have).

What might change this is rising fuel costs. In the UK energy costs became a rather important political issue over the winter with several scandalous reports about the increase upon increase that consumers are receiving. A lot of the argument so far has surrounded the profit margins of the energy companies however it could be that as this trend continues eventually people put less energy into arguing about profit margins and face the inevitable issue of increasingly scarce and hard-to-reach fuels. Eventually the economic impact of this on the public may galvanise political opinion.

Regarding public opinion and politics in general on big issues I always feel that it's one of slow/no change followed by massive/quick change once critical mass of "something-must-be-done" is reached. Not enough people care and care not enough about tackling present and future energy demands for it to be a big political issue. That will change but unfortunately probably long after something could have been done to avoid hardship.

mheslep

Feb28-12, 03:08 PM

Ryan_m_b

Feb28-12, 03:21 PM

brerabbit

Feb28-12, 05:28 PM

Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas. We've got a whole lot of coal left that we never finished mining (because it couldn't economically compete) that we could use in the meantime, we've got new nuclear reactors on the way (albeit delayed) and there's been significant investment in other technologies like fracking and renewables but we need to press far more.

Ryan:

Let there be no doubt that a few generations away, humans will consume all the energy resources we have. It will face us at a time if we are ready or not. If we are ready we survive. If not, those who have planned to do without will survive. As said above, we suffer because we need a catostrophe as the first responder to set in motion a staggering effort and catastrophe is a very poor red flag.

IMHO, Nothing but clean Fusion is on the horizon to replace Neuclear, coal and oil. So we can start aggressively now or pay much, much, more later.

mheslep

Feb28-12, 05:54 PM

Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas.
Yes I'll be curious to see which technical moves UK transportation makes.

We've got a whole lot of coal left that we never finished mining (because it couldn't economically compete) that we could use in the meantime,...Exactly. UK's coal mining era boom and bust is often used to illustrate peak energy arguments in an attempt to show the resource is depleted which is nonsense in this case. UK coal has been economically unavailable (for the moment), not geologically.

The UK also seems to have some of the best offshore wind resource in the world, which should eventually help if the cost can be driven down.

cmb

Feb29-12, 06:58 AM

Yes I think the UK is the country farthest out on point and will be the one to watch as a predictor of how to proceed. North Sea oil and gas has declined substantially. The UK was self sufficient in gas a few years ago and now imports 40%. UK energy imports tripled in a 5-6 year period.Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas.

On the contrary, I'm really please we're winding off production, but would feel much better if we turned it right down to 'idle' - there is still oil and gas out there and we bloomin' well should stop pulling it out the ground whilst other countries are still selling their oil! We need to keep our own oil for ourselves for when the real bad times come to hit the global economy, and I'm talking about commodities getting so expensive they are effectively barred from export to us by other countries.

If it was my country to control, I'd turn all production down to minimum to keep the engineering infrastructure of those production sites ticking over (even if that is an expense to the country) and buy oil from others while they are still selling. The black stuff will be worth an absolute fortune in the future, and right now we're selling it cheap when we could, instead, be buying it cheap. It's worse that Brown selling off the nation's gold - I mean, we'll really need this oil in the future!

Q_Goest

Mar21-12, 08:55 AM

If you have an idea (and resources) for a "transformational energy technology" you can apply for a grant through ARPA-E (US Department of Energy).
Deadlines:
Letter of Intent: March 30, 5:00 ET
Concept Papers: April 12 5:00 ET
Full Applications: TBD
Grant: $250M - $1MM
Recipient expected to cost share 20% minimum.
More information on the web at: http://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/media/news/tabid/83/vw/1/itemid/49/Default.aspx

Pkruse

Apr28-12, 07:06 AM

This note will start out summing up a negative situation, and then will then show reason for hope toward solving this mess and even growing to greater heights.

I’ve been a strong advocate of finding alternant energy sources since the early 1970’s. From time to time, I’ve had the privilege being a part of that effort. But time and again I keep running into two indisputable facts:

> For the time being, nothing will be as cheap as fossil fuel and nuclear.
>Science, engineering, and a deep love for Mother Earth aside, most people will always go with whatever is cheaper.

The following things further complicate the matter:

> While alternant sources have become less expensive, they will not be ready to compete with conventional sources for a very long time.
>Every time we think we are getting short of fossil fuel, someone discovers another huge and vast supply of it.
>The developing countries will continue to demand a larger share of the global energy market as they rapidly make up lost ground in economic development with the United States.
>Everyone’s energy demand will continue to increase.
>Recently and at various times in the past our government has made huge volumes of money available for research into energy solutions. It has never done much real good such that we can see evidence of it in our current energy market place.
>No rational person can argue that this world is not getting warmer. It is not profitable to argue as to if that is a good thing or not. (It can and has been in the past argued that throughout history periods of warming have always brought a higher level of peace, health, and prosperity for the humans; whereas we tend to see wars, famine, and plagues during periods of cooling.) It is also not profitable to argue the reason, whether the warming is caused by human or natural means. It is only important to accept that we are getting warmer and develop means of dealing with it rationally, while at the same time perhaps slowing it down a bit if we can.

I will always strongly support the spending of large amounts of research money. That is never a bad thing. Even if the original intention turns into nothing useful, research always improves our collective knowledge base and inspires new and creative ideas. That is how we evolve as a human race and culture. But to solve this problem quickly, we need much more than that.

Most of the companies who are best able to use this recent supply of green research money profitably have not touched it. Those who have taken it have done nothing to apply it to real solutions. For the most part, they spent it on making big things small, only using public domain knowledge—being very careful not to use public funds to develop any new technology that might solve anything. The reason is that anyone using public funds must turn what they develop over to the public domain. To the academic this is so routine and fair that they don’t even give it a thought, because it is deeply imbedded in their subconscious as being fair, just, and right. But to the business community it is the most evil and wicked thing possible as they seek the holy grail of energy, the solution that will solve everything and enable them to make Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Apple look like tiny mom & pop operations. Business guards their intellectual property with the highest degree of zeal. They are also very good at obtaining private funding for any idea that might be profitable.

In other words, we have all the resources in the business community to solve the energy problem; but the only way to make it happen is to make it profitable. That is exactly what is happening right now, but for the most part in the highest secrecy as they continue to guard their intellectual property.

But we can gain insight as to what they are doing from the rare media report that is actually useful, or from their business advertisements or marketing reports, or by noticing what skills they are hiring. They cannot be 100% secret when they are looking for investors or potential customers.

Here is what I see happing on a huge scale right now. The combined effect can very likely make this whole energy crisis a thing of the past:

 Carbon sequestration. Many companies and research organizations are collectively spending billions on research. A combination of the huge investment with in many cases a high degree of secrecy makes it likely that they see real solutions in sight. One very large and long established company is already looking for customers for a CO2 pump that will make it cheaper and easier than anyone else has dreamed possible. This can turn a fossil fuel plant into a zero emissions plant. How would that change the Big Picture?
 Companies that design nuclear power plants have made it clear for some time now that they now understand how to design a plant that has zero probability of a meltdown or any other serious accident. All safety controls are completely passive and depend on simple physics to be completely safe. They are now advertising that they have new designs on the books and are ready to build. All new power plants will incorporate this new technology. How will that change the picture? One of the commodities they need to build these plants is derived as a byproduct of natural gas production, and we now have plenty of that.
 We are worried about extremely long term storage of spent nuclear fuel. Yet it has always been possible to cheaply recycle it so that we have almost no waste at all. The road block is not technical. It has been done in the past. The current road block is political since Jimmy Carter signed legislation making the recycling of nuclear fuel illegal.
 The reason we selected our current common design of a nuclear plant is because our original objective was to obtain bomb grade Plutonium from them. It turns out that is one of the byproducts of recycling the fuel, which is the reason it is currently illegal. But one huge company that has always been a major player in nuclear power is currently looking for customers for a new process that will continue to extract usable energy from spent fuel for another 35 years. Once they are done with it, it will be relatively safe with no need to store it for hundreds of thousands of years. We currently have enough spent fuel in storage to supply power at the current world consumption rate for 1800 years--if that was our only source of power. None of our barriers to doing this are technical. They are all political.

So we have the ability in the near future to burn as much fossil fuel as we want with zero emissions, to build new nuclear plants that are 100% safe, and to eliminate our problem with spent nuclear fuel.

What else do we need to solve this problem?

What we need is the political will to do it. We lack nothing from the technical perspective.

Note: I have purposely not mentioned the names of any companies. I’ve not said anything that cannot be quickly found with Google searches. The reason is that the company I work for forbids me from mentioning the names of any of our current or potential customers or suppliers. You see, we also zealously guard our intellectual property.