YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[AJacq]

JP7 is about 43,000 mj/kg.

You seem to appreciate energy density.

Perhaps with today's satellite and radar weather airships will return.

I went to a wind energy conference last year.
One of the exhibits was promoting ammonia based energy
it'll flow through existing pipelines
it's a known chemistry
and this morning i learned of a green way to make it.
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-ammonia-holy-grail-for-renewable.html

At this point it's just an idea to be aware of and watch.

i don't know anyting about its energy density

I may be wrong but I believe JP-7 fuel is 43.5 MJ/kg

The ammonia article is very interesting... will read up more on it... thanks !

The airship is making a come back... but no more of those hydrogen filled balloon-bombs though

 

[jim hardy]

I may be wrong but I believe JP-7 fuel is 43.5 MJ/kg

You're exactly right
i had originally used 18000 BTU/lb and forgot to delete the zeroes .. duuhh, plain absent mindedness..

 

[johnbbahm]

JP7 is about 43,000 mj/kg. Edit oops, strike those zeroes ( thanks Ajacq)

You seem to appreciate energy density.

Perhaps with today's satellite and radar weather airships will return.

I went to a wind energy conference last year.
One of the exhibits was promoting ammonia based energy
it'll flow through existing pipelines
it's a known chemistry
and this morning i learned of a green way to make it.
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-ammonia-holy-grail-for-renewable.html

At this point it's just an idea to be aware of and watch.

i don't know anyting about its energy density

The ammonia idea is interesting!
Wiki says ammonia has 22.5 MJ/kg, so roughly half of that of JP7.

 

[mheslep]

Gonna be a period of adjustment...
People will adjust to a smart grid saying what smart appliances can run when.

I'm curious why instructions on new human behavior so often appear in technical energy threads, especially when history indicates otherwise, and reliable clean power technology is available.

Demand shift schemes have been around for decades. They help a little at the margin, but they've never significantly moved peak load times.

 

[mheslep]

But what about something like air travel without fossil fuels ?

Batteries. See electric aircraft studies. The technology for intracontinental air travel via batteries and electric fans is just becoming theoretically possible, if not yet intercontinental travel. One interesting possibility is that ceiling driven engine limitations disappear, opening up operation in the stratosphere.

 

[mfb]

There is also no need to push for electric aircraft soon. If we want to replace fossil fuels, we can start at power plants and road vehicles, and go to the <3% CO2 emissions from airplanes once battery technology improved. The chemical industry can be last, because for that we literally have to produce hydrocarbons in large amounts, which makes no sense as long as we also burn hydrocarbons (apart from load balance considerations).

 

[AJacq]

Batteries. See electric aircraft studies. The technology for intracontinental air travel via batteries and electric fans is just becoming theoretically possible, if not yet intercontinental travel. One interesting possibility is that ceiling driven engine limitations disappear, opening up operation in the stratosphere.

Looked it up... NASA has a small study project on such an airplane... "The drawback with electric propulsion is energy storage—dramatic improvements in battery energy density are essential before they can be used in large aircraft"

We are back to energy density and specific energy... Lithium-ion battery 2.63 MJ/L and 0,875 MJ/kg... with these numbers, the plane won't travel very far, or very fast, or with much passagers/cargo.

I'm always skeptical when I read or hear about the need for dramatic improvements.

 

[AJacq]

There is also no need to push for electric aircraft soon. If we want to replace fossil fuels, we can start at power plants and road vehicles, and go to the <3% CO2 emissions from airplanes once battery technology improved. The chemical industry can be last, because for that we literally have to produce hydrocarbons in large amounts, which makes no sense as long as we also burn hydrocarbons (apart from load balance considerations).

I though the objective was to determine a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy : e.g. if we knew for sure that there would be no more fossil fuels in 100 years , what would we do today and in the next hundred years to have an alternative to fossil fuels.

What you are suggesting has more to do with the impact on environment than on energy requirements... albeit without a livable environment, it might all be for nought.

 

[AJacq]

I'm curious why instructions on new human behavior so often appear in technical energy threads, especially when history indicates otherwise, and reliable clean power technology is available.

Demand shift schemes have been around for decades. They help a little at the margin, but they've never significantly moved peak load times.

I'm curious as to which human behaviour and what history you are referring to ?

If we are referring to changes that suited human behaviour, than yes, history has shown time and again that humans embraced them readily... but when changes go against human behaviour, than change can be very difficult and painful.

 

[jim hardy]

We assume PV is the only direct conversion to useable energy because we're all famliar with it
i'm not chemist enough to know what this stuff is but if it's related to ammonia and would burn

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adsc.201400556/abstract

If the chemists come up with some nitrogen-hydrogen bond that's more benign to breathe than ammonia
and can use solar energy in its production
that'd solve the solar energy storage problem of PV without batteries.

Using johnbbalm's ammoia energy density ~half jet fuel's
and aerodynamic drag in proportional to speed squared
airliners cruising at 318 knots on ammonia instead of 450 on jp7 would have the same range
seems a small enough inconvenience on intracontinental flights.

 

[mheslep]

Looked it up... NASA has a small study project on such an airplane... "The drawback with electric propulsion is energy storage—dramatic improvements in battery energy density are essential before they can be used in large aircraft"

That quote comes apparently from an aviation week writer, not NASA.

We are back to energy density and specific energy... Lithium-ion battery 2.63 MJ/L and 0,875 MJ/kg... with these numbers, the plane won't travel very far, or very fast, or with much passagers/cargo.

I'm always skeptical when I read or hear about the need for dramatic improvements.

A Future with Hybrid Electric Propulsion Systems: A NASA Perspective
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150000748.pdf

Electric aircraft max range = battery mass fraction * L/D * propulsive efficiency * battery energy density. With a battery mass fraction of 0.8, efficient air frame and L/D=35, battery density of 400 Wh/kg (1.4 MJ/kg), propulsive efficiency of 75%, then range is 3000 km, per figure 15 here. Lithium sulfur is demonstrated at 500 Wh/kg.

Comment from a well known speculator here:

 

[mheslep]

I'm curious as to which human behaviour and what history you are referring to ?

If we are referring to changes that suited human behaviour, than yes, history has shown time and again that humans embraced them readily... but when changes go against human behaviour, than change can be very difficult and painful.

Well, changing our tools over time, from horse to car or train, sure, agreed. But I'd not label that behavior. The human behavior that wants to eat, drink and, say, post on the internet on its own schedule and not when told to do so, I think that won't change. That desire I think is likely to largely reject the notion that "People will adjust to a smart grid saying what smart appliances can run when."

 

[AJacq]

That quote comes apparently from an aviation week writer, not NASA.A Future with Hybrid Electric Propulsion Systems: A NASA Perspective
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150000748.pdf

Electric aircraft max range = battery mass fraction * L/D * propulsive efficiency * battery energy density. With a battery mass fraction of 0.8, efficient air frame and L/D=35, battery density of 400 Wh/kg (1.4 MJ/kg), propulsive efficiency of 75%, then range is 3000 km, per figure 15 here. Lithium sulfur is demonstrated at 500 Wh/kg.

Comment from a well known speculator here:

Gave the article a quick read (will read more attentively when I can focus on it)... It's very interesting and 2 paragraphs caught my attention :

" For application in aircraft the most important parameters are the energy per mass E* and to a lesser extent the energy per volume V* . These specific values are shown in Figure 6 for various energy storage systems. It can be seen that even the most advanced current battery storage systems fall short of the parameters of Kerosene. While the factor in specific volume is only about 18, the factor in mass specific energy density is in the order of 60."

A factor of 60 between Wh/L of batteries versus kerosene !... that's seams like a very wide chasm to bridge (to me at least)

Hyper-performance batteries may be developed successfully, but that does not mean they will be used in aircrafts... how many plane crashes were caused by a cargo of lithium-ion batteries that caught fire ?... aren't these batteries banned as cargo on passenger flights ?

"In order to power larger aircraft a dramatic improvement in battery technology would be required. Comparing with today’s technology with specific energy values of 150 to 200 Wh/kg, the mass specific energy density would have to be increased at least by a factor of 5 to become useful. More realistic this factor would have to be in the order of 10 to attract commercial interest for larger (regional) aircraft. In this context we must note that all numerical studies presented in this paper did not consider reserves as required for commercial aircraft."

When paradigm-shifting developments are promised 30-40 years in the future I'm reminded of scientists in the 50s, 60s and 70s telling people that by the year 2000 we would all be living in Jetsons-type houses powered by mini-nuclear plants in the basement, commuting in flying cars, living on the moon, etc.

... don't mean to sound pessimistic or cynical but I don't want to be overly optimistic.

 

[AJacq]

Well, changing our tools over time, from horse to car or train, sure, agreed. But I'd not label that behavior. The human behavior that wants to eat, drink and, say, post on the internet on its own schedule and not when told to do so, I think that won't change. That desire I think is likely to largely reject the notion that "People will adjust to a smart grid saying what smart appliances can run when."

Ok... I misunderstood your meaning in your original post... I agree

 

[mheslep]

...

A factor of 60 between Wh/L of batteries versus kerosene !... that's seams like a very wide chasm to bridge (to me at least)...

That 'gap' does not have to bridged. Liquid hydrocarbons are impressive energy carriers, sufficient in fact to allow an aircraft to fly nonstop around the globe. But we don't need to fly around the world nonstop, or anything close to it. It's overkill. We do need things like affordability in aviation, lower noise production, shorter runways, reduced emissions. Electric aviation might well make possible in some decades.

Also, an electric propulsion system is more efficient than cumbustion, so one might cut the gap in half immediately.

 

[mheslep]

This trend is in renewable energy interesting, and predictable:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56ec643d22482eaae2bb99c2/t/57264b6df85082b93e0ed663/1462127473844/?format=500w

 

[AJacq]

That 'gap' does not have to bridged. Liquid hydrocarbons are impressive energy carriers, sufficient in fact to allow an aircraft to fly nonstop around the globe. But we don't need to fly around the world nonstop, or anything close to it. It's overkill. We do need things like affordability in aviation, lower noise production, shorter runways, reduced emissions. Electric aviation might well make possible in some decades.

Also, an electric propulsion system is more efficient than cumbustion, so one might cut the gap in half immediately.

Considering the growing demand for international travel and human behaviour, I'm not sure people having to fly across the world would be willing to make 10-15 stops to refuel... I don't see where the "overkill" is... perhaps you could elaborate.

I'm not sure how "affordability, lower noise, shorter runways, reduced emissions" play a role in solving the energy crisis and finding a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are fantastic energy carriers and allow for a multitude of fantastic derivative products (plastics, fertilizers, etc.)... the question is not is there a bad side to fossil fuels, because the answer is most definitely yes (pollution, global warming, etc.)... the reality is that our society is dependant/addicted to fossil fuels... so the questions becomes what are we to do when we run out of fossil fuels.

 

[AJacq]

This trend is in renewable energy interesting, and predictable:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56ec643d22482eaae2bb99c2/t/57264b6df85082b93e0ed663/1462127473844/?format=500w

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56ec643d22482eaae2bb99c2/t/5728d8a71bbee0a94c5ec3fa/1462294702830/?format=500w

BP statistical review... as in British Petroleum ?

If these numbers are correct... not a good sign IMO

 

[mheslep]

Considering the growing demand for international travel and human behaviour, I'm not sure people having to fly across the world would be willing to make 10-15 stops to refuel... I don't see where the "overkill" is... perhaps you could elaborate.

I'm not sure how "affordability, lower noise, shorter runways, reduced emissions" play a role in solving the energy crisis and finding a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are fantastic energy carriers and allow for a multitude of fantastic derivative products (plastics, fertilizers, etc.)... the question is not is there a bad side to fossil fuels, because the answer is most definitely yes (pollution, global warming, etc.)... the reality is that our society is dependant/addicted to fossil fuels... so the questions becomes what are we to do when we run out of fossil fuels.

Above I literally meant it is possible to circumnavigate the globe, nonstop, on a (big) tank of hydrocarbons. It's been done. Batteries won't allow jets to cross the Pacific any time soon, but one could fly, say, DC to Boston now with existing battery technology. In any case the first aircraft on the table would be hybrids, electric and jet combustion, per the NASA n Boeing studies above.

As for the energy crisis, as others have pointed out, with 3% of the energy use aviation is not going to run short of hydrocarbons in the foreseeable future. Hydrocarbons (or alcohols) can also be synthesized using other energy sources.

 

[mheslep]

BP statistical review... as in British Petroleum ?

If these numbers are correct... not a good sign IMO

The BP stat review is the authoritative source for basic energy consumption statistics.

The developing world is driving energy growth, and they inevitably choose the least expensive, unsubsidized source. Wood. Coal. Gas. Until and unless nuclear power becomes the world's primary power source, the trend is bound to continue, absent some new innovation like cheap and long term energy storage.

 

[OmCheeto]

The BP stat review is the authoritative source for basic energy consumption statistics.

The developing world is driving energy growth, and they inevitably choose the least expensive, unsubsidized source. Wood. Coal. Gas. Until and unless nuclear power becomes the world's primary power source, the trend is bound to continue, absent some new innovation like cheap and long term energy storage.

Ah ha!
Those must be global numbers.
Can someone please confirm, that the title of this thread is "YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis".
Just trying to keep us on topic.

 

[AJacq]

Ah ha!
Those must be global numbers.
Can someone please confirm, that the title of this thread is "YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis".
Just trying to keep us on topic.

... but is there truly such a thing as a geographical circumscribed crisis when dealing with energy ?... isn't a US problem a global problem and vice-versa ?

 

[mheslep]

This thread started years ago when both US oil and gas production were in decline, had been in decline for decades, with imports on the rise. Prices hit $150 a bbl. Now, the US is the world's largest producer of both. There arguably is no longer any energy crisis in the US, due to both the new production technology from shale deposits and the slowly declining US oil consumption. Since the US was also the largest consumer, the world is arguably no longer in an energy crisis. This might change, but the size of the shale (source rock) reserves push any new energy crisis out some decades.

Emissions from energy consumption are another matter.

 

[rootone]

... but is there truly such a thing as a geographical circumscribed crisis when dealing with energy ?... isn't a US problem a global problem and vice-versa ?

Not to mention China and others.

 

[Astronuc]

Map of US power generation and resource production.

http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm

I was surprised to see so many solar power plants in North Carolina!

 

[OmCheeto]

... but is there truly such a thing as a geographical circumscribed crisis when dealing with energy ?

Yes.

... isn't a US problem a global problem and vice-versa ?

Yes.

But things are already complicated enough, just considering the USA. We have 50 states. Each of them is unique. Some states are so large, that geographical circumstances change the the situation. Adding in the other ≈195 nations of the world, with their "side" problems, is going to turn this thread into an unmanageable mess, IMHO.

For instance, Anorlunda, a US citizen of Florida, powers his residence with 200 watts of solar panels.
I, being a resident of northwestern Oregon, would require about a bazillion dollars worth of solar panels, to do what he does.

This trend is in renewable energy interesting, and predictable:

Yes! As solar panels get cheaper, and people lose their fear of them, the growth rate seems to have, um...

Change in % of source of electrical energy in the USA. [ref]

Although solar still only accounts for less than 1/2 of 1% of the electrical generation in the USA, its growth rate seems to indicate that people are buying into the idea.

Map of US power generation and resource production.

http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm

I was surprised to see so many solar power plants in North Carolina!

I must have spent 3 hours looking at those maps this morning.
Now I know where the "Coal is the source of all our electricity!" comes from.

I live on the Oregon-Washington border. The two states have a total of two coal fired electric plants. Both are slated for decommissioning in the next 10 years.
To my knowledge, I have never seen coal, except on TV, and on the internet.

 

[OmCheeto]

... but is there truly such a thing as a geographical circumscribed crisis when dealing with energy ?...

To expand on this a bit more, there are probably some people who have vested interests in keeping "coal" the primary source of energy:

Coal price $40.50 $/short ton [ref: just google it...]

Top 5 coal producers in 2014 [ref]
state____________millions of short tons_____value
Wyoming_______395.7_____________________$16,025,850,000
West Virginia___112.2______________________$4,544,100,000
Kentucky_________77.3______________________$3,130,650,000
Pennsylvania_____60.9_____________________$2,466,450,000
Illinois____________58.0_____________________$2,349,000,000

Not sure about where you live, but $16 billion is not an insignificant amount of cash, around where I live.

-----------

On another "statistical tomfoolery" side note, I was going over my calculations from the last few days, and decided to look into what energy costs.
From the top down, it looks like only an idiot would invest in solar energy.
But from the bottom up, I decided only an idiot would cling to the past.

Your call.

edit: [ref] to $/million BTU in the above chart. Look for some graph on the right.

 

[jim hardy]

I must have spent 3 hours looking at those maps this morning.

me too. Now i understand all those wind farms i drive past in Kansas.
Blue is good, brown is poor. Green i didn't find but i'd guess it's "dont even bother" .

And those along I-80 a little west of Laramie..
Trouble with wind is it's mostly where people aren't.
How small is our "excellent" territory . Rocky Mountain High !

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Trouble with wind is it's mostly where people aren't.
...

I thought there were people everywhere? hmmmm...

Anyways...
One thing I discovered about that map is, as I live in a periodically perpetually high wind area, is that you have to zoom in really close to find those "7 Superb On Shore Wind Potential" areas.

Is 50 miles a long way to transmit electricity?

 

[jim hardy]

Is that blue lakes or great wind spots ?

Is 50 miles a long way to transmit electricity?

No. It's almost a short haul anymore. What is difficult is to get right-of-way for new transmission lines.

Watch as the mountaintops west of Denver sprout wind turbines over next ten years, starting along existing 230kv power lines. Wind up there is great .