YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[parkland]

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...

 

[OmCheeto]

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]

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]

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.

That sounds like something the Germans might say, but where did you read that?

 

[parkland]

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, that's 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]

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]

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 (http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/homeenergy/freewatt.aspx" ) is targeted at places like Germany.

 

[Brian H]

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]

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

Hopefully we can stick to ENERGY topics in this thread.

 

[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!