YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[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

 

[mheslep]

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

Misinformation

 

[kjsigpa]

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

 

[mheslep]

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 anyone of those subjects - nuclear, gas, France, wind, coal gasification, etc, etc, AND your basis for making that assertion, I'll respond in kind.

 

[gmax137]

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]

The HHO systems have been pretty well debunked.
https://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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...hanical-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-works/
As you say it would be safer to keep the gasses produced separate 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]

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/...hanical-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-works/
As you say it would be safer to keep the gasses produced separate 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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326816&postcount=11" systems before.

 

[bonzoboy]

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]

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.