YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Relay]

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]

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.

Careful, I hear it hurts to hold contradictory ideas simultaneously.
We few, we precious few, who are pushing for Focus Fusion to succeed see a world-wide HIGH ENERGY lifestyle in the cards, because it will provide lots. Energy efficiency is nice, but energy surplus is better.

 

[Brian H]

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 realize 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!

 

[Brian H]

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?

 

[OmCheeto]

If the radiative and retained thermal balance of the planet doesn't have to do with energy, what does?

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).

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 https://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]

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]

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]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/energy-environment/02coal.html?_r=2&ref=us"

 

[MTurner]

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]

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]

Doh figures, I didn't copy it anywhere. I can try to rewrite, but not sure which forum would be appropriate...

 

[mrlaughingman]

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]

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.

So how exactly does one go about "changing radiation"?

 

[mrlaughingman]

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 don't know how one would be able to achieve that goal but that's what experimenting is for.

 

[MTurner]

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]

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...

You mean like in the chemical bonds of photosynthetic plants? I have read that H-fuel cells have that potential if solar energy is used to separate the hydrogen from its original state.

 

[Nspyred]

Solar thermal storage would be another option.

 

[rpm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Why ditch the Hummer??
I love my Hummer.

I just drop a small diesel engine in it and get 100 miles/gal. :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The HHO systems have been pretty well debunked.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304690

 

[Redbelly98]

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]

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]

WOW!

I guess this guys wrong??

[crackpot link deleted]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WOW!

I guess this guys wrong??

[crackpot link deleted]

Heh, that is Bob Lazar, who also claims to have reverse engineered alien spacecraft s at Area 51.

Bob Lazar is specifically cited in our banned topics list in the general guidelines.

 

[Redbelly98]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 believe 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