YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[russ_watters]

And your first image confirmed another suspicion I had, as to why edward's air conditioner was so poorly designed, yet were only two years old. They're made in China. What do they care about how efficient they are for the American market. And the contractors who build the hotels probably don't care either, as long as it's the cheapest thing on the market.

Well, they care enough to meet the federal efficiency standards. They don't have a choice. Unfortunately, efficiency is a function of heat exchanger size, which is limited by sleeve size, so that type of air conditioner is significantly less efficient than a residential, free-standing condenser.

In this case, the problems were entirely due to the installing contractor's ineptitude.

 

[Wes Tausend]

Gentlemen,

I did finally get a chance to review the http://video.pbs.org/video/1855661681/ PBS video. Although Richard Alley presents it, the writer and director was Geoff Haines-Stiles (52:42) who is ultimately responsible for included content and it was produced by Erna Akuginow (52:47). See Erna Akuginow and Geoffrey Haines-Stiles for more.

Even after reading some criticisms here, I am still quite impressed by the comprehensive info addressed in an only one hour video on such a complicated concept. Having oft struggled to shorten much simpler forum posts on logical argument, I believe it was quite a feat to squeeze as much logic as they did into such a short synopsis.

I'm going to guess that the numbers Richard comes up with, such as the 0.01 percent (39:40) of available solar power that could provide in excess of current planet use, are not just his own, but part of a general professional consensus borrowed from published studies reviewed by the IPCC of which he is a "proud" member (01:35).

What Dr.Alley is proposing is modifying our present division of energy/power use to another that is more conducive to sustainability and ultimate human survival.

He presents some figures here (03:22 & 51:08) for present planetary use:
Fossil fuels...78%
Nuclear....5%
Hydro......6%
renewables...1%
wood & dung...10%
TOTAL....100%

And he suggests we set a 2030 goal (51:08):
Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Geothermal...13%
Biomass fuels...4%
Hydro...5% (reduced from 6%??)
SubTotal...61% renewable

And adding existing and new nuclear making up the other non-renewable 39%:
Nuclear...26%
Fossil fuel...13% (reduced from 78%!)
SubTotal...39% non-renewable fission/carbohydrates

Note that Richard Alley has assigned a high importance to nuclear power after all.

2030 Total:
renewable...61%
non-renewable...39%
2030 TOTAL...100%

I recently had a new V-10 engine installed in our thirsty Ford Excursion (Sierra Club Valdez award winner). I picked the best mechanic I could find with the full realization that he wasn't perfect. I would pick somebody like Richard Alley as my Earth mechanic. BTW, we more than make up for the thirsty Excursion with our hybrid Prius. The Excursion is a great HD tow vehicle and the Prius unbeatable as lightweight people transport.

Speaking of hybrids, here is an interesting link for the hybrid USS Makin Island (LHD-8). It's diesel-electric option is not much different than my locomotives that I used for the railroad. Somewhere back in the early '90's Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) was second only to the U.S. Navy in fuel usage. Since then this railroad merged with the old Santa Fe to become BNSF and include even more track and a larger fuel budget. BN was a pioneer in converting brush type DC locomotives to solid state brushless AC locomotives in North America and much of the beta testing was done between Mandan, ND and Glendive MT where I worked. The testing was done by German Siemen EE's as we made our trips. Siemens also certainly provides the solid state high efficiency DC power line system touted in Brazil in the video. I guess Edison and DC won afterall.

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[mfb]

Hydro...5% (reduced from 6%??)

The total demand is rising, a slightly reduced fraction can still mean a larger absolute value.

Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Nuclear...26%

This would mean we have to use electricity to heat buildings on a large scale. That is possible, but it will further increase the total consumption. And I guess we need a lot of electric cars as well to get that.
Nuclear power is quite unpopular in many countries, I don't see how this is supposed to happen (to have it available in 2030, site-specific planning would basically have to start now).

 

[AlephZero]

Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Nuclear...26%

This point has been made before, but it's worth asking the question again:

If the average output from Solar and Wind combined is 39%, what provides that 39% share of power when it's dark and the wind isn't blowing?

If it's nuclear, the installed capacity needs to be 65% not 26%. And you have to figure out a way to start up and shut down nuclear generators once per day, without compromising safety and plant reliability, to cover the solar load - even if you make the optimistic assumption that it's always windy somewhere in a big country like the USA.

And even assuming an optimistic 12 hours of sun per day averaged over a year, the installed solar power needs to be 52% to reach the 26% average...

 

[Wes Tausend]

Hydro...5% (reduced from 6%??)

The total demand is rising, a slightly reduced fraction can still mean a larger absolute value.

mfb,

I assume the proportions can be scaled up/down and even modified by experimentation. My guess, to meet projected energy needs, is that the suggested drastic drop to 13% of fossil fuel use is the key and this is only a demonstration model. I say key because due to various bootstrap greenhouse effects, CO² may already take the reaction of an over-reduction of fossil-burn to remove excess CO² from the atmosphere, as the current level seems already detrimental to continental weather in both structure damage and crop friendliness.
This seems a little unfriendly to long term fossil-fuel investors, though.

Solar.....26%
Wind.....13%
Nuclear...26%

This would mean we have to use electricity to heat buildings on a large scale. That is possible, but it will further increase the total consumption. And I guess we need a lot of electric cars as well to get that.
Nuclear power is quite unpopular in many countries, I don't see how this is supposed to happen (to have it available in 2030, site-specific planning would basically have to start now).

BUILDINGS
I owned a small home construction company in the mid '70's. Our major product was subcontract drywall and interior coatings. The 1973 OPEC Oil Crisis caused major changes in home construction. I got a sincere education in home air exchange vs trapped humidity when windows and doors suddenly met stringent new Federal requirements for air leakage to the exterior. Humans exude about 1 gallon of water per day per person and it was tough on my wall and ceiling warranty when damage from the trapped moisture proliferated.

About that same time some experimental homes in Saskatoon, CA were built so well insulated that they supposedly initially required no heating system whatsoever. IF I recall, the thick-walled home theoretically heated itself by the 100+ watts each, given off by the occupants. In reality, they skipped the double entry in most and installed 20KW heaters in each home (miserly portable 110v milk house heaters approach this 20KW). They, too, found the homes worked in principle until occupied, and then the stark need for air exchange arose. There still appears a rendition of the original experiment here and here.

The point is that electric heat is not expensive if one does not use much of it. Once it enters the dwelling, it is 100% efficient. All the energy is converted to heat and none is vented out as in combustion systems.

CARS
There appears to be a confusion as to what power will be used when (such as at night).

Currently, the answer is more simple. Electric grid requirements drop off late at night, so all powerplant investments are primarily daytime investments. There is a requirement surge mostly during dim mornings due to industrial coming on line as many are waking up in the dark hours, especially in northern states. Industrial use tapers off as evening approaches but humans turn on stoves and televisions, then suddenly it is lights out, A/C relaxes and power requirements sag by midnight. This inherent sporatic power use allows for moderate electrical grid structure, and low amp loads, to charge electric vehicles over night with less chance of overload. Thus the future answer is not so simple, but quite possible.

Electric cars for local travel are great, and fortunately the cars will require heavier after-sunset power at an opportune time. Solar PV cells cannot ever directly do this "night-job" in spite of the claimed fact that 80% of the planet could run from them just using American SW desert acreage... during the day (Unless we had trans-atlantic power cables), an unlikely scenario.

At night, hydroelectric power can supply the missing solar energy without exhausting water-shed resources during the day. Rather than build more dams, we must find a way to get by with what we have. I can suggest one way to do this would be to heavily drain these few dams during the night, then pump the water back up hill using solar power during the day. After all, it is the sun that makes the water "go uphill" in the first place. It would take a major dam redesign with upper and lower reservoirs, or at least adding a lower retention reservoir to existing dams. If this is possible, how might this otherwise be eloquently accomplished?

Here is how. My locomotives and my Prius use the same basic hybrid solid state systems. Both make use of the exchangability between motors and generators. The drive motor for the Prius can recharge the storage battery as a generator during deceleration. The locomotive uses the traction motors (one per axle) to regenerate electrical current during dynamic braking. The locomotive motors-turned-generators provide high resistance to rotation (brakes) when in generate mode. The kiloamps are dissipated as wasted heat through large fan driven "toaster grids" near the top of the body rather than recovered. So why couldn't properly designed dam generators be run backward as pump motors, during the day, using purposed excess renewable solar power?

NUCLEAR
I previously mentioned using mass produced nuclear microplants modeled after Navy vessels. Give homeowners a choice. Bury one in the neighborhood or run with a reduced power clamp if they won't "pay the not-in-my-back-yard bill." Kinda mean, I know. Heh, heh.

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[OmCheeto]

...
One good point, though, is I definitely like what the military is doing with alternate energy...notwithstanding the joke last month about generating fuel from seawater that got a lot of airtime.

It seems the Europeans are doing their own version of this comedy routine.

Synthesized 'solar' jet fuel: Renewable kerosene from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide
Date: May 3, 2014
Source: ETH Zürich
Summary: With the first ever production of synthesized "solar" jet fuel, the EU-funded SOLAR-JET project has successfully demonstrated the entire production chain for renewable kerosene obtained directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, therein potentially revolutionizing the future of aviation. This process has also the potential to produce any other type of fuel for transport applications, such as diesel, gasoline or pure hydrogen in a more sustainable way.

Ironically, I found this on EARTH-The Operators' Manual's Facebook page. It's actually quit good. I've shared many of their findings:

A High-Renewables Tomorrow, Today: El Hierro, Canary Islands
FEB 13, 2014
...
El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores over 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW.

The entire project, expected to come online this year, is projected to generate three times the island’s basic energy needs—for residents, farming cooperatives, fruit and fish canneries, and the 60,000 tourists who visit every year. Any excess electricity will be used to desalinate water at the island’s three desalination plants, delivering almost 3 million gallons of water a day, enough for drinking water and to cover part of the irrigation needs.
...

Though some people are upset by some of the stuff he posts, as in the one regarding predicted sea level rise:

Двигатель Измененией; I followed this page for the cool off-grid living tips you USED to post. Lately, all I've seen is uncorroborated pseudoscience and it's driving me crazy. Consider yourselves unfollowed.
Like · Reply · 29 April at 09:50

Jay Kanta; Well, Bye.
Like · 29 April at 11:51​

I tend to ignore uncorroborated pseudoscience.

...
The point is that electric heat is not expensive if one does not use much of it. Once it enters the dwelling, it is 100% efficient. All the energy is converted to heat and none is vented out as in combustion systems.

It's even cheaper, when you're more than 100% efficient:

Aug25-10, 08:09 AM
...

I did an experiment last summer using 1/2 inch 100' long black irrigation hose and a $22 bilge pump. The system collected ~2.3 kwh of thermal energy in about 3.5 hours.
...
Some numbers:
flow: 1.6 gpm (~ 24 watts pump)
area of hose: 0.27 m^2
system fluid capacity: 32 gallons
max delta T / hr: 11 'F
To = 61.7'F
Tf = 90.9'F

Eek! Late for work. BBL.

Let's see... 24 watts of electrical input over 3.5 hours yields 84 watt hours consumed.
Energy gained by the system was 2300 watt hours.
2300 - 84 = 2216 net watt hours
system efficiency: η = P_out / P_in
= 2216/84 = 2338% efficiency

Ha! Take that wikipaedia!

Efficiencies may not exceed 100%

Dullards have apparently never heard of the Kobayashi Maru. When in doubt, cheat.

Thanks,
Wes
...

You're welcome.

 

[Wes Tausend]

...

OmCheeto, thanks for responding. I am happy to see that I did not kill a healthy thread... as sometimes seems to happen.
...

...
One good point, though, is I definitely like what the military is doing with alternate energy...notwithstanding the joke last month about generating fuel from seawater that got a lot of airtime.

It seems the Europeans are doing their own version of this comedy routine.

Synthesized 'solar' jet fuel: Renewable kerosene from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide
Date: May 3, 2014
Source: ETH Zürich
Summary: With the first ever production of synthesized "solar" jet fuel, the EU-funded SOLAR-JET project has successfully demonstrated the entire production chain for renewable kerosene obtained directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, therein potentially revolutionizing the future of aviation. This process has also the potential to produce any other type of fuel for transport applications, such as diesel, gasoline or pure hydrogen in a more sustainable way.

OK. I finally had to look for what joke Russ was talking about. It is obvious that water and CO² are the byproducts of carbohydrate combustion, and the combustion process could theoretically be reversed. So my first thought was that it was simply one of the sensational claims often found on "propoganda airwaves" to influence the unwary. There is often an element of truth to these claims, the problem being that the fuel is not free, but requires an input of more than a gallon to make a gallon. The worst ones make use of the automobile alternator to form hydrogen which may then be burned by the attached combustion engine. The wit-challenged that believe this is helpful, do not recognise that the drag of the alternator cancels the tractive power produced, plus adds whatever efficiency losses are wasted getting there.

But if one does not "spend" a gallon+ to make a gallon of fuel, and uses free (otherwise wasted) solar energy instead, the loss doesn't count. So your link points out that the military benefit to the scurrilous seawater/fuel story that circulated is possibly true. It may use the Fischer–Tropsch process and is very similar to the synthesis work done by Dakota Gasification Company (DGC) since 1984 (whom I mentioned previously). A gentleman who works at the DGC plant mentioned that they have already done some preparation to produce diesel (from coal rather than water) in addition to the products mentioned on the wiki link. Rather than solar, they likely use dirty coal for energy conversion power, probably the next-door Antelope Valley Station, not so good. But the research is theoretically good.

There is one major flaw, for the purposes of this thread, in using seawater to extract the H, O & CO² to build a carbohydrate. Large portions of the greenhouse carbon gas are presently somewhat sequestered in the seawater if the temperature of the seawater does not rise, or somebody take it out by extraction. Our best science today begs that as possible, we keep as much CO² cornered anywhere, except in the upper atmosphere, as in after combustion. So while military fuel may be handily produced on site rather than by precarious shipping, it does not ultimately help save the world, and is of only short-term marginal benefit.

Ironically, I found this on EARTH-The Operators' Manual's Facebook page. It's actually quit good. I've shared many of their findings:

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_02_13_high_renewables_tomorrow_today_el_hierro_canary_islands
FEB 13, 2014
...
El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores over 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW.

The entire project, expected to come online this year, is projected to generate three times the island’s basic energy needs—for residents, farming cooperatives, fruit and fish canneries, and the 60,000 tourists who visit every year. Any excess electricity will be used to desalinate water at the island’s three desalination plants, delivering almost 3 million gallons of water a day, enough for drinking water and to cover part of the irrigation needs

Thanks for providing an example of hydro storage at work. It appears to be the most likely practical candidate for mega energy storage, although I have heard of a small power station using lead-acid batteries as an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS). An acquaintance bought discounted used batteries for his own off-grid project from the source.

I'm not sure what all must be done to make huge generators reasonably interchangeable as drive motors to pump water back uphill, but it would help solve a packaging problem in existing hydroelectric power houses. I know that one may take a common induction motor (old wash machine), turn it at 3450 rpm, and derive inefficient 110v 60 cycle ac from it. The easiest back-yard experiment would be to use an induction motor to drive another precisely at the correct rpm and use the driven assembly to light incandescent bulbs as a test load.

Most well designed solid state brushless ac motors can be driven at any rpm as long as the computer matches the correct cycle phase to motor speed, exactly as modern locomotives do at hundreds of volts and thousands of amps. Locomotives are really mega-watt power stations and their German developer, Siemens, most certainly can design high power solid state power-plant devices as evidenced by their DC power line systems as used in Brazil etc. This is a far cry from the puny, unreliable 30 watt output transisters that frequently failed on 1970's audio stereos, for those that are old enough to remember.

Though some people are upset by some of the stuff he posts, as in the one regarding predicted sea level rise:

I followed this page for the cool off-grid living tips you USED to post. Lately, all I've seen is uncorroborated pseudoscience and it's driving me crazy. Consider yourselves unfollowed.
Like · Reply · 29 April at 09:50

Jay Kanta; Well, Bye.
Like · 29 April at 11:51

I tend to ignore uncorroborated pseudoscience.

I am not on Facebook and am unaware of this, but I can appreciate the humor in the terms, "uncorroborated pseudoscience". I do know the U.S. Navy is quite concerned about rising sea-levels since 100% of their bases will eventually flood world-wide. For myself, I will move my fuel-thirsty camper, and drag my fishing boat anchor up the beach to a dry spot.

...
The point is that electric heat is not expensive if one does not use much of it. Once it enters the dwelling, it is 100% efficient. All the energy is converted to heat and none is vented out as in combustion systems.

It's even cheaper, when you're more than 100% efficient:

According to the video the Chinese are way ahead of us here. They have solar hot water heat devices on many roofs now.

Let's see... 24 watts of electrical input over 3.5 hours yields 84 watt hours consumed.
Energy gained by the system was 2300 watt hours.
2300 - 84 = 2216 net watt hours
system efficiency: η = P_out / P_in
= 2216/84 = 2338% efficiency

Ha! Take that wikipaedia!

Cheater.

Dullards have apparently never heard of the Kobayashi Maru. When in doubt, cheat.

Being a dullard, I had to look it up. I will have to review my Star Trek collection.

Thanks,
Wes
...

You're welcome.

Now I feel as though I have been pre-welcomed for my thanks in my signature. It is something like pre-retaliation, only on the friendly side of the scale.

My local library had the book https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393081095/?tag=pfamazon01-20, so I checked it out and am in the process of reading it. It is very good and Richard does have more to say. He talks about everything from nuclear worth and politics, to the reason humans have the brain size that they do, due to "burning stuff".

We, as a species alone, dedicate our food intake and minimal digestion to brainpower, not the energy consuming long-gut digestion as does every other animal. The invention of fire and cooking (pre-digestion) allows us the smallest digestion tract on the planet, leaving more resources for thinking power as opposed to a cow eating raw vegetation and digesting it with four stomachs.

And that is just the first few pages. If, "genius is 99 perspiration and 1 inspiration", as Edison said, Richard is a genius. He doesn't just make this stuff up. There are 111 pages of the 479 page book dedicated just to professional reference notes and of course it was a remarkable team effort to package it.

At this point, I will say that Richard Alley is the best answer to Russ's original query about solving the world energy crisis. Russ, thanks for reminding me why I saved it on my DVR before retirement.

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[OmCheeto]

...It is obvious that water and CO² are the byproducts of carbohydrate combustion...

You are the first person to have ever used the word "carbohydrate" in this 9 year old thread.
hmmmm...

-----------------------------
ps. I have a full time job, and my responses are usually very short, M-F.
pps. I responded to someone on the NRL site, regarding "carbohydrate" production from seawater. They allow user comments. I did some math, and showed that a 500 megawatt nuclear reactor, could theoretically, create enough fuel, for all the planes on the ship, in ≈24 hours. In the back of my mind though, my lizard brain was laughing.

 

[Wes Tausend]

You are the first person to have ever used the word "carbohydrate" in this 9 year old thread.
hmmmm...

-----------------------------
ps. I have a full time job, and my responses are usually very short, M-F.
pps. I responded to someone on the NRL site, regarding "carbohydrate" production from seawater. They allow user comments. I did some math, and showed that a 500 megawatt nuclear reactor, could theoretically, create enough fuel, for all the planes on the ship, in ≈24 hours. In the back of my mind though, my lizard brain was laughing.

Whoops. Well, ok, I should have properly used the term hydrocarbon instead of carbohydrate. Sorry. I tend to do that.

In another thread, I recently used the term "finderscope", instead of "goto scope", to otherwise carefully describe (to a NASA engineer mind you) how Ptolemy's math is all that is needed (barring escape/re-entry) for NASA to shoot a rocket to Mars. Embarrassing.

My point was supposed to be that Ptolemy's geocentricity differs from Copernicus' heliocentricity only by intuition, not the math, which was/is nearly identical. But the point was undoubtedly somewhat lost by my incorrect use of the term "finderscope". A finderscope is a small wide-angle "rifle" scope used to aim a more powerful narrow field-of-view scope. OTOH, a goto scope has a built-in computerized calendar, clock and map to find which "sky-spot" Mars will be on any given night. The cheap, tiny goto computer differs little from the planetary prediction of Ptolemy's map of relativity which is all NASA needs to aim with (unless they slingshot a path near another planet).

So we could make food from seawater and CO² also.

P.S. It could be that the roots of laughing reside in the lizard brain. Laughing appears to be a form of regurgitation of unsavory logic.

Thanks, I think,
Wes
...

 

[OmCheeto]

...
So we could make food from seawater and CO² also.
...

Well, from what I've read, we've had a similar technology in use for over 10,000 years. It's called agriculture. And some smart people, as recently as 200 years ago, figured out how to turn wood into automobile fuel. Though I don't think the automobile existed back then. Probably why it took nearly another hundred years for there to be a market for the stuff.

The French chemist, Henri Braconnot, was the first to discover that cellulose could be hydrolyzed into sugars by treatment with sulfuric acid in 1819. The hydrolyzed sugar could then be processed to form ethanol through fermentation. The first commercialized ethanol production began in Germany in 1898, where they used acid to hydrolyze cellulose. In the United States, the Standard Alcohol Company opened the first cellulosic ethanol production plant in South Carolina in 1910 during WWI. Later a second plant was opened in Louisiana. However, both plants were closed after WWI due to economic reasons.

Yup

The year 1886 is regarded the year of birth of the modern automobile - with the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, by German inventor Karl Benz. Motorized wagons soon replaced animal-drafted carriages, especially after automobiles became affordable for many people when the Ford Model T was introduced in 1908.

hmmm... I just had a great idea. But like all my great ideas, someone else beat me to it.

The spouse of one of my coworkers, works for a company called Agilyx. I don't think I'd ever heard of the process that they used, but it sounded like it solved several problems, all at once.

They turn waste plastic, into fuel. I don't know where you are from, but in these parts, we recycle everything, with the possible exception of certain types of plastic. It sometimes takes me 3 months to fill my 20 gallon garbage can.

Anyways, my idea merged three things together.
Aircraft carriers not at war looking for fuel
Plastic to fuel
The Great Pacific garbage patch

and maybe some nets...

But...

Research of cleanup...
At TEDxDelft2012, Dutch Aerospace Engineering student Boyan Slat unveiled a concept for removing large amounts of marine debris from the five oceanic gyres. With his concept called The Ocean Cleanup, he proposes a radical clean-up that would use the surface currents to let the debris drift to specially designed arms and collection platforms. This way the running costs would be virtually zero, and the operation would be so efficient that it may even be profitable. The concept makes use of floating booms, that won’t catch the debris, but divert it. This way by-catch would be avoided, and even the smallest particles would be extracted. According to Boyan Slat's calculations, a gyre could realistically be cleaned up in five years' time, collecting at least 7.25 million tons of plastic combining all gyres. He however does note that an ocean-based cleanup is only half the story, and will therefore have to be paired with 'radical plastic pollution prevention methods in order to succeed'.
...

I think I like Boyan's idea better.

 

[Wes Tausend]

...

so we could make food from seawater and co₂also.

well, from what I've read, we've had a similar technology in use for over 10,000 years. It's called agriculture. And some smart people, as recently as 200 years ago, figured out how to turn wood into automobile fuel. Though i don't think the automobile existed back then. Probably why it took nearly another hundred years for there to be a market for the stuff.

Agriculture is really slow. I was thinking of a pizza Replicator.

the french chemist, henri braconnot, was the first to discover that cellulose could be hydrolyzed into sugars by treatment with sulfuric acid in 1819. The hydrolyzed sugar could then be processed to form ethanol through fermentation. The first commercialized ethanol production began in germany in 1898, where they used acid to hydrolyze cellulose. In the united states, the standard alcohol company opened the first cellulosic ethanol production plant in south carolina in 1910 during wwi. Later a second plant was opened in louisiana. However, both plants were closed after wwi due to economic reasons.

yup

the year 1886 is regarded the year of birth of the modern automobile - with the benz patent-motorwagen, by german inventor karl benz. Motorized wagons soon replaced animal-drafted carriages, especially after automobiles became affordable for many people when the ford model t was introduced in 1908

hmmm... I just had a great idea. But like all my great ideas, someone else beat me to it.

Speaking of great ideas, my great grandfather invented a transmission in 1902 and sold it to Henry Ford for mega $. So he was pretty cool. But he spent most of his free time planning to harness perpetual motion which is why he was probably fooling around with the gears. He wasn't fazed in 1905 by the craftiness of an exasperated swiss patent clerk. That clerk was finally able to point out to a long line of various obnoxious perpetual motion inventors why even the sun wasn't a good example of perpetual motion. Popular Mechanics was full of perpetual motion schemes in the late 1800's, early 1900's. By then everybody knew the sun lasted way, way longer than an ordinary coal fire and crackpots weren't invented yet. 'Til later.

Which occasionally worries me that my gravity-powered perpetual motion theory may be wrong too. It's absolutely ingenious, classic, wonderfully absurd and I'd tell you about it, but then the mentors would have to kill me.

the spouse of one of my coworkers, works for a company called agilyx. I don't think i'd ever heard of the process that they used, but it sounded like it solved several problems, all at once.

They turn waste plastic, into fuel. I don't know where you are from, but in these parts, we recycle everything, with the possible exception of certain types of plastic. It sometimes takes me 3 months to fill my 20 gallon garbage can.

Anyways, my idea merged three things together.
Aircraft carriers not at war looking for fuel
plastic to fuel
the great pacific garbage patch

and maybe some nets...

But...

at tedxdelft2012, dutch aerospace engineering student boyan slat unveiled a concept for removing large amounts of marine debris from the five oceanic gyres. With his concept called the ocean cleanup, he proposes a radical clean-up that would use the surface currents to let the debris drift to specially designed arms and collection platforms. This way the running costs would be virtually zero, and the operation would be so efficient that it may even be profitable. The concept makes use of floating booms, that won’t catch the debris, but divert it. This way by-catch would be avoided, and even the smallest particles would be extracted. According to boyan slat's calculations, a gyre could realistically be cleaned up in five years' time, collecting at least 7.25 million tons of plastic combining all gyres. He however does note that an ocean-based cleanup is only half the story, and will therefore have to be paired with 'radical plastic pollution prevention methods in order to succeed'.

i think i like boyan's idea better.

Boyan's perpetual ocean currents. I agree his idea is better. Unless they stop flowing when the arctic waters are sufficiently polluted with light-weight fresh icemelt water.

P.S. I'm kind of new here. Are we supposed to be doing this to Russ's thread? Not that perpetual motion wouldn't be a great energy source in a crisis.

As a token of on-topic compliance, I should mention that I was disappointed to find we only have a thirty year supply of recoverable fissionable nuclear material at current production rates... according to Richard Alley and his sources. We are now using surplus cold-war materials, not activly searching for more, and there is certainly more, but not nearly to the plentiful extent of harmful carbon fuels. So besides the nasty world politics involved, the resource appears basically too scarce for major practical implementation.

Fusion, which is not susceptable to limited U-235 reserves, inspires an inside energy industry joke that "fusion is the energy of the future and always will be". Fusion is not presently a chicken that Richard, or his international cohorts, will count.

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[mheslep]

As a token of on-topic compliance, I should mention that I was disappointed to find we only have a thirty year supply of recoverable fissionable nuclear material at current production rates... according to Richard Alley and his sources.

Sounds like Alley is dabbling in social policy more than geology. Known land based reserves, today, are 5 million tons of Uranium; consumption is 68,000 tons/year or 73 years. Likely reserves are 7 million tons, or 102 years, and that is with no increase in reserves. Yet reserves have increased ~0.1 million tones per year on average over the last 35.

We are now using surplus cold-war materials, not actively searching for more, ...
...

Uranium exploration is certainly ongoing, as indicated by the steady increase in known reserves.

There are still other fission energy alternatives.

• Breeding fertile fuels, i.e. U238, into fissionable isotopes, in which case the supply of fissionable material multiplies ~150 times instantly, with the couple decade's of supply already mined, processed, and set aside.
• Thorium is also a fertile fuel.
• Seawater based Uranium and Thorium

 

[mfb]

The costs of uranium are a small part of the overall costs - I remember something like 5%. Give or take a factor of 2 for this value, a doubling of the uranium price would still be a small effect on the costs of nuclear power and change the amount of available uranium significantly.

 

[gmax137]

The costs of uranium are a small part of the overall costs - I remember something like 5%. Give or take a factor of 2 for this value, a doubling of the uranium price would still be a small effect on the costs of nuclear power and change the amount of available uranium significantly.

...This is the total annual cost associated with the "burnup" of nuclear fuel resulting from the operation of the unit. This cost is based upon the amortized costs associated with the purchasing of uranium, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services along with storage and shipment costs, and inventory (including interest) charges less any expected salvage value.

For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling cycle.

The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2012 was 0.75 cents / kWh.

from
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center...ts-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle

If the generation cost is say 5 or 6 cents/kw-hr, then the fuel would be about 15% of the cost.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
P.S. I'm kind of new here. Are we supposed to be doing this to Russ's thread?

What are we doing to to Russ's thread?

Thanks,
Wes
...

You're welcome.

 

[Wes Tausend]

As a token of on-topic compliance, I should mention that I was disappointed to find we only have a thirty year supply of recoverable fissionable nuclear material at current production rates... according to Richard Alley and his sources

Sounds like Alley is dabbling in social policy more than geology. Known land based reserves, today, are 5 million tons of Uranium; consumption is 68,000 tons/year or 73 years. Likely reserves are 7 million tons, or 102 years, and that is with no increase in reserves. Yet reserves have increased ~0.1 million tones per year on average over the last 35.

I think you are correct, Alley is dabbling in social science a least as much as geology, in his video and his book. But social acceptance may be the real underlying concern regarding what Russ's engineering theme in Post #1 boils down to. And perhaps addressing social science should be the first point in Russ's post #2. So Alley, and all of us, must attempt to address social issues if we are to succeed in making a difference.

Another way to put it, I think we all here agree the technology, and dire need for solution exists, so just why is it taking so long to implement? As a concerned individual and able scientist, I believe Alley is well aware that he must approach with social caution. I will venture to say that Russ also realizes this, but purposely avoids being immediately mired in social controversy (post #1, first sentence second paragraph). My opinion is Russ took his time, in being very careful and quite courageous, in starting this thread.

I made a grave error in assessing what Alley meant by originally assuming his statement on using cold-war materials constituted a current lack of robust uranium exploration. Alley didn't actually say that there was no significant active search. I made the unfortunate hurried assumption there may not be, and that error is on me.

I'm not sure why Alley said that we have 30 years of uranium left. His exact sentence reads, "The proven reserves of uranium available at modern prices are quite limited, enough for only about thirty years at current production rates". Perhaps he meant at the accelerated use rate of his 2030 goal plan, but he did not directly say that either.

As I indicated in post #1002, Alley's video advocates increasing the world use of nuclear from current 5% to 26%, so he does not appear negative to the use of nuclear power to me. (I have also seen a 6% current use figure, bandied about in his book pages.) So now we could possibly take his 30 year estimate to be the result of dividing your 73-102 year supply by 4 or 5 because of escalated nuclear implementation and then slightly improving procurement to arrive at 30 years. His "30 year" footnote reference is this Stanford pdf, but I did not see a 30 year figure mentioned in an initial quick scan of the 26 page document. A media expansion list of the document is here.

I did see one negative fact about nuclear reactors that I didn't know, in the above mentioned Stanford PDF (pdf page #19 under 9. Energy supply disruption). Apparently several reactors were shut down in France in the 2004 European heat wave. I assumed the reactors always worked, even in hot weather. Maybe it was a super-cautious safety issue, and/or inadequate design.

We are now using surplus cold-war materials, not activly searching for more...

Uranium exploration is certainly ongoing, as indicated by the steady increase in known reserves.

There are still other fission energy alternatives.

• Breeding fertile fuels, i.e. U238, into fissionable isotopes, in which case the supply of fissionable material multiplies ~150 times instantly, with the couple decade's of supply already mined, processed, and set aside.
• Thorium is also a fertile fuel.
• Seawater based Uranium and Thorium

Earlier, I mentioned (posts #994, #1005) micro reactors as a possible solution to increasing nuclear power. One 2014 source, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/, comes from the same World-Nuclear.org link as your chart image above. Another 2013 NPR link claims the U.S. is already investing in these small, mass produced units. Wikipedia has a brief mention of Micro Reactors. These can be cooled by gravity-fed coolant water, eliminating pump failure.

Do you think they could be sufficiently cooled just anywhere after sustained operation? How? Secondary geothermal transfer? That would immediately involve pumps, even if a limited reservoir of gravity-fed emergency coolant was available. One might think that nuclear submarines might have solved heat containment, or else they are leaving a tell-tail non-stealthy thermal trail behind them. Anybody?

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[Wes Tausend]

The costs of uranium are a small part of the overall costs - I remember something like 5%. Give or take a factor of 2 for this value, a doubling of the uranium price would still be a small effect on the costs of nuclear power and change the amount of available uranium significantly.

I believe you are correct, present cost is not the main objection.

I think Alley's primary objection to expanding nuclear any more than 4 or 5 times, is that it is not now at all apparent that it is sustainable (renwable) over the long haul.

The secondary objection is that he (and Russ) are mainly concerned with world energy needs because that is eventually the only way Earth will be at peace. But sharing nuclear tech does represent a major security risk in this regard. Alley has gone to lengths to point out that the world doesn't need proliferation if we all both increase efficiencies and harness various renewable solar powers.

I believe Alley has taken a rational world position and is a viable candidate for leadership. OTOH, I think the U.S should increase nuclear energy use and quit burning dirty ND lignite coal, or clean it up, including sequestering CO₂. There will always be some CO₂emmissions, but we need to get our own house down to a low roar.

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[Wes Tausend]

What are we doing to to Russ's thread?

Yeah. I guess you are right. I was drifting off topic, but you remained on energy production and use. My bad. Sorry.

Thanks for welcoming me,
Wes
...

 

[mheslep]

...
I think Alley's primary objection to expanding nuclear any more than 4 or 5 times, is that it is not now at all apparent that it is sustainable (renwable) over the long haul.

With breeder reactors, using known technology, yes its sustainable for a 1000 years or so.

But sharing nuclear tech does represent a major security risk in this regard.

Perhaps.

Alley has gone to lengths to point out that the world doesn't need proliferation if we all both increase efficiencies and harness various renewable solar powers.

There I strongly disagree. He's made claims. As this has never been demonstrated at scale, and given the intermittent nature, he has a rather large burden to even show how this *might* be done.

 

[Wes Tausend]

mheslep,

You may feel that I don't trust or like nuclear power, but I assure you that I do. Take note of my enthusiasm for exploring Micro Reactors. (Feel free to think and comment about them.) In realising that there are some serious problems with large plants and NIMBY, I suggested that small, safely below ground reactors could be quick and easy to manufacture and provide additional power to just those that are willing to accept them in their own backyard, whatever radiation or other hazards remain. It seems an extreme conditional measure... but what else is to be done considering the current stand-off? My dear wife has a saying she hangs on the wall: "Around here, after all is said and done, more gets said than done."

In an earlier post you suggested that the Alley video was too "hand wavy", while I got the impression that he knew and understood the big picture far more than he could squeeze into a 55 minute documentary. He makes vast use of independant professional references in his book, something I appreciate.

When I look at the http://www.world-nuclear.org/ industry website, I get the impression they are quite "hand wavy" (optimistic) and I fear you might be getting a large part of your info from this single source. A quick check around the net does not turn up any other site quite so optimistic, but I could be wrong. I am a bit reminded of the API website, where the motto effectively is, "Drill, baby, drill". I think you would agree it is important that we be discriminating in our sources of information. Now, otherwise, such enthusiast sites are great pools of info, but one must realize the spin and bias of advertising.

But I could be wrong about my website assessment. At any rate, Alley does promote the world stepping up to using nuclear for over 25% it's needs. He just maintains that it is certainly not thee sole answer.

...
I think Alley's primary objection to expanding nuclear any more than 4 or 5 times, is that it is not now at all apparent that it is sustainable (renwable) over the long haul.

With breeder reactors, using known technology, yes its sustainable for a 1000 years or so.

[critical hat on]
We have suddenly gone from 102 years to a 1000. Where did you get this 1000 from? Even if this is straight up, do we divide the 1000 by 4 to meet Alleys expanded 26% projected use by 2030? That nets us 250 "hand wave" years tops. What about growing world needs after 2030? Does exponential use after that reduce the 250 to less? What happens if we replace coal at present 78% use with just nuclear? How long will reserves last then? At least one of the alternate fission elements you mention, such as http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/, are not quite hatched yet:
''The use of thorium as a new primary energy source has been a tantalizing prospect for many years. Extracting its latent energy value in a cost-effective manner remains a challenge, and will require considerable R&D investment. This is occurring preeminently in China, with modest US support.
[/critical hat off]

But sharing nuclear tech does represent a major security risk in this regard.

Perhaps.

The judicious use of buried Micro Reactors might mitigate this, even if pre-packaged units are loaned to another country. If the property they are buried on constitutes sovereign territory like an embassy, we could possibly watch them like a hawk with satellite monitoring and take police action if they become threatened. Extreme, yes, but what else?

Alley has gone to lengths to point out that the world doesn't need proliferation if we all both increase efficiencies and harness various renewable solar powers.

There I strongly disagree. He's made claims. As this has never been demonstrated at scale, and given the intermittent nature, he has a rather large burden to even show how this *might* be done.

That is true. All he has done is make calculations and study some working isolated power plants. But so far all he claims is apparently in operation somewhere. None of it seems to depend on getting lucky in the laboratory. But I haven't finished the book yet either.

I do wish he would expand on the greater use of nuclear energy. The video was short on nuclear and he does not devote a lot of pages to it in the book either (I read ahead). Why did he pick 26% for 2030? Are wiser heads really of the consensus that nuclear is too limited to play a greater part, or does he, or they, have a bias?

Wes
...

 

[mheslep]

The supply figure of 100 yrs comes from the continued use of just known U reserves, without discovering anymore New, and with only existing reactor technology which burns mainly U235, and at constant rate of use ie no additional plants.

Allowing for four or five X growth in usage means a switch to breeder reactors which then can use the 99.3 percent of U which is currently tossed aside. Thus multiply the usable fuel reserves by 150 or so and divide by 5 or so for increased future rate of use. 3000 yrs.

 

[Wes Tausend]

The supply figure of 100 yrs comes from the continued use of just known U reserves, without discovering anymore New, and with only existing reactor technology which burns mainly U235, and at constant rate of use ie no additional plants.

Allowing for four or five X growth in usage means a switch to breeder reactors which then can use the 99.3 percent of U which is currently tossed aside. Thus multiply the usable fuel reserves by 150 or so and divide by 5 or so for increased future rate of use. 3000 yrs.

Ok, now I have a better idea what your viewpoint is. Breeder reactors are a reality in the sense that technology certainly seems to exist to make them a competitive source of energy. So we may say that the eggs are already hatched and the chickens may be counted in that case. On the other hand, so far nearly all the chicks have died before becoming useful poultry and it appears that Richard Alley has chosen not to count them as chickens for reasons he does not clearly divulge and I do not yet fully understand. He does advocate increasing nuclear power by a factor of 5 times, but relegates it to only 26% of total projected future needs.

Apparently, when it comes to nuclear fission power, it seems to be divided by beliefs of stark contrast. One group believes that it is the answer, while the other avoids it like the plague. Alley reflects this debilitating conundrum in these opening paragraphs on nuclear fission power.

Barring a typo on my part, a direct Alley quote:
Earth: The Operators Manual Page 278..." In my experience, the "nuclear question" is the most polarizing issue in energy. I have met many people, in venues ranging from Capital Hill to community gatherings, who will end the discussion if you give the wrong answer to the nuclear question. Unfortunately, any sizeable gathering of interested people may include some who disagree passionately on what is the right answer. If you offer the opinion that nuclear has a role in our future, some people hear you endorsing terrorism, and sickness and death for unborn generations. Say instead that nuclear has no role in the future, and other people hear you advocating black helicopters to take over the world and and establish a UN dictatorship, because no one who honestly fears global warming could possibly oppose nuclear. And these are not nutcases, but intelligent people who have thought about the issues.

First, please be assured that I strongly oppose terrorism, sickness for future generations, and world domination enforced by black helicopters, and you can quote me on that. Second, let me be clear that I am not going to solve the nuclear dilema for you or anyone else. Nuclear can be used, it is not a silver bullet, and simplistic answers ('Nukes forever' or 'No nukes anywhere ever!') will not get us very far."

I tend to agree with his "presented public persona" synopsis. One must envision Alley, or anyone, standing before a crowd trying to convince them to do something, anything, to correct a fatal path. I can see that a town meeting could easily collapse into not achieving any worthwhile goal. If one wants to continue selling and burning fossil fuel, an exploited nuclear debate is ones best friend... divide and conquer. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."

For what it is worth, mheslep, you, I and Alley are not so far apart.

I am constantly reminded of the critical statistic, 99% of the species that ever lived are now extinct. That is a sobering reminder when we consider that we share much of the same DNA core as a huge group of losers. There was a time I thought we might all die as a result of nuclear winter, and it still nags. Now my primary fear is that we will all perish because of nuclear indecision. Considering social science rules the day, I think what Alley is trying to do is the best current compromise to salvation. If a silver bullet pops it's head up, so much the better. But we need to get moving. We need your support, and soon. Thank you.

Wes
...

 

[mheslep]

"Considering social science rules the day..."

Not here at PF.

 

[Wes Tausend]

"Considering social science rules the day..."

Not here at PF.

Logic takes a second seat to human nature everywhere. Sorry.

Wes
...

 

[mheslep]

Logic takes a second seat to human nature everywhere. Sorry.

Wes
...

Human's are always subject to bias, but bias clearly does not always trump logic unless the bias is embraced as some sort of dogma. If bias always won homo sapiens would still be drawing on the walls of caves, and not even that for long.

 

[Wes Tausend]

Logic takes a second seat to human nature everywhere. Sorry.

Human's are always subject to bias, but bias clearly does not always trump logic unless the bias is embraced as some sort of dogma. If bias always won homo sapiens would still be drawing on the walls of caves, and not even that for long.

We agree.

Wes
...

 

[srfriggen]

Concentrated Solar Power Extreme Network CSPEN

What about the idea of using satellites to harness the power of the sun by concentrating rays onto specific towers all around the world.



That's great, but the problem is not every country has weather suitable for large panels like that. Obviously wouldn't work in countries with a lot of cloud cover.

If we had a network, around the world, of these towers, we could use satellites to be our collecting source and ping the sunlight from multiple (perhaps tens of thousands) of mirrored satellites to these towers.

The way I imagine it is thousands of mirror satellites in a stable orbit between the sun and earth. They would reflect all of their light to larger mirrored satellites that are orbiting earth, and from there the light would be reflected to the appropriate towers. If there was an incredible communicating network of these towers and satellites we could still power parts of the Earth that, at the time, are covered in bad weather. We could certainly reflect around the Earth to ping the towers on the night side.

The satellites themselves could be powered photovoltaically and use ion engines to make corrections in orbit, but that may be getting too detailed at this point.

Thoughts?

(I'm sorry if this idea has been posted already, there are a lot of threads and I haven't been able to go through them all).

 

[OmCheeto]

What about the idea of using satellites to harness the power of the sun by concentrating rays onto specific towers all around the world.



That's great, but the problem is not every country has weather suitable for large panels like that. Obviously wouldn't work in countries with a lot of cloud cover.

If we had a network, around the world, of these towers, we could use satellites to be our collecting source and ping the sunlight from multiple (perhaps tens of thousands) of mirrored satellites to these towers.

The way I imagine it is thousands of mirror satellites in a stable orbit between the sun and earth. They would reflect all of their light to larger mirrored satellites that are orbiting earth, and from there the light would be reflected to the appropriate towers. If there was an incredible communicating network of these towers and satellites we could still power parts of the Earth that, at the time, are covered in bad weather. We could certainly reflect around the Earth to ping the towers on the night side.

The satellites themselves could be powered photovoltaically and use ion engines to make corrections in orbit, but that may be getting too detailed at this point.

Thoughts?

(I'm sorry if this idea has been posted already, there are a lot of threads and I haven't been able to go through them all).

How much does each mirror weigh? And what is the current cost of getting 1 kg of cargo into high Earth orbit?

My guess is, that it would take all of Earth's current non-renewable energy resources to build such a system.
Just a guess though.

It's not a bad idea. It's just that we are about 200 years away from implementing your idea.
You can blame that on Mr. Kardashev.

ps. I like your video very much. Steam engines rule!

 

[myperfectworld]

To address coal reduction needs first: I think the new EPA rule is a good start. I believe it is a nearly fair compromise between the enviros and the coal lovers because just about everybody has a gripe with the new proposed rule. I think however that coal should have been thrown an easy to digest bone rather than forcing reliance on CCS technology that is in its infancy and not ready for prime time. They may have just said coal plants had to convert to fusion.

Step 1. Adopt a revised plan. New coal power plants are OK as long as they are efficient, and combined heat and power, or cogenerators. This means that if a new coal plant is to get a permit, they better plan on partnering with an industrial partner next door. A conventional supercritical coal plant at 40+ % Thermal efficiency and sending process heat next door to a paper mill, smelter, etc that would also be using a significant amount of natural gas if they were without a partner - Total CO2 is going to be significantly less than a coal fired generator, and a natural gas fired paper mill operating alone.

Could also look at combined cycle coal gasification fired cogenerators as a requirement to allow coal use. now instead of 40% efficient, you boost the gross power efficiency to 58% and possibly 54% net. Assume the industrial steam host can bring total efficiency up close to 85%, and now you are talking CO2 almost as low as two separate gas fired plants - especially if you consider methane losses in the gas processing and fracking.

 

[myperfectworld]

Step 2. What is the holdup on getting our trucking fleets, and then most fleet vehicles to convert to either liquified natural gas or compressed natural gas. Although compressed natural gas does not offer a high energy density, it would be easy to construct support infrastructure. Large centralized high pressure natural gas compressor stations would simply fill a fleet of compressed natural gas storage trucks around the clock. These trucks would drive to their designated truck refueling stations - i.e. rest stop or truck stop on the interstate, and fuel up truckers until empty. They could possibly use a gas fired booster pump so that as the storage vessels (long thick walled vessels) were drained, they could boost the gas pressure back up to 10,000 psi or whatever was required, so a significant amount of their load could be sold. Most trucks these days have a lot of unused space underneath, so I don't see a problem with several compressed natural gas tanks giving an 18 wheeler a potential 300 mile range.

 

[myperfectworld]

Step 3. Revive rail. Rail in transportation is super efficient. Even if burning diesel, a diesel train produces a fraction of the CO2 that 500, or 1000 semi trucks produce. My father's two most used sermons -rest his soul - always started with "there's nothing harder in life to pay for than a dead horse," and "they are eliminating rail and turning the job over to the truckers." "This will be a big mistake." Rail is good, we need more. Diesel fired trucks need to eventually convert to natural gas. The sooner the better. Then personal transportation should follow - gas or electric.

 

[Wes Tausend]

To address coal reduction needs first: I think the new EPA rule is a good start. I believe it is a nearly fair compromise between the enviros and the coal lovers because just about everybody has a gripe with the new proposed rule. I think however that coal should have been thrown an easy to digest bone rather than forcing reliance on CCS technology that is in its infancy and not ready for prime time. They may have just said coal plants had to convert to fusion.

Step 1. Adopt a revised plan...

What you say is likely true. Suggesting the adoption of a revised plan might, or might not, be rational, but the main problem is politics and any leader that solves politics will have my undying gratitiude. I believe there is more than enough engineering to solve the mechanics of the energy problem right here on these physics-forums, but even here folks do not apparently agree politically on what to do first.

A few posts back (#998) I suggested an "earth-saving" 60 minute video hosted by a fellow by the name of Richard Alley (http://video.pbs.org/video/1855661681/ ), and I think it briefly showed coal-plant carbon sequestration supposedly successfully being done overseas at the present time.

There is a coal (low grade lignite) gasification plant right here in North Dakota that http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/index.html (since 1984) and sells it to Canadian oil drilling where it is sequestered below ground after forcing tar oil up. I imagine a variation of the process could be used for coal electric generation plants. The sequesteration cost may be high and threaten profits, always a political concern.

Step 2. What is the holdup on getting our trucking fleets, and then most fleet vehicles to convert to either liquified natural gas or compressed natural gas...

I think truckers are concerned that they may not get the same btu's for their fuel money, especially after expensive truck engine conversion. Such a major change has to be a voluntary thing in a democracy. The huge infrastructure to transport petroleum products is well established and not too keen on being dismantled only to be replaced by gas pipelines. Storage and transport of liquids is so much easier than compressed gas.

In addition there are already problems in transporting NG such as getting it from open well vents to storage facilities instead of burning it off by flaring (about 1/3 in ND). Progress is being made.

A railroad has made use of NG but it hasn't gone viral yet. I worked for BN, then BNSF after the last merger, and BN had a pilot program using LNG locomotives. I wasn't an operator at the time, but rode and worked on trains using this tech. They seemed to operate OK. I don't remember where they fueled, but I believe sufficent fuel was carried in a tanker behind the locomotive to make a round trip all the way from coal mines to the plant and back. One concern: Usually the controlling locomotives and crew are protected by 5 buffer cars between them and highly volatile liquids. The diesel belly tanks of standard locomotives are not nearly as explosive as LNG tanks. Note that recent Bakken crude oil rail explosions are probably due to natural LNG in the crude mix. Other states, notably Texas, remove the gas before transport.

Step 3. Revive rail...

Rail has done well as of late. There was a time when the free public interstate system made trucking cheaper but RR's have made a comeback since the 1980's. Much long-haul trucking is now done by piggy-back rail and locomotives use clean burn technology just as do modern diesel cars and trucks. I believe LNG does produce less overall CO₂than diesel or coal. I'll surmise that the byproduct of burned NG contains a higher ratio of water vapor than heavier hydrocarbons, and therefore less CO₂. Railroading has recently suffered a downturn in coal hauling as U.S. plants burn NG. Many had converted to NG as starter fuel instead of fuel oil, and once piped-in, frugally mixing it with coal can come in just under the current EPA radars. Burning mostly, or all, NG is a natural evolution as EPA clamps down.

Wes
...

 

[billhen]

I must express some disappoint with the miss information and propaganda driven views demonstrated here. The US has energy development in place that will make us net exporters within five years. The only thing keeping the price of oil and gas up is the high price of alternatives due to developmental cost skewing the market through subsidies.

People who can demonstrate the actual role of humans in climate change are not allowed a voice, because they can prove that climate cycles drive climate change with such a heavy hand that human involvement is negligible.

Simple put; no such crisis exist. A crisis does exist for special interest lobbies delivering tax payer funding.

 

[mheslep]

The thread started in *2004*, when the idea of N. America as a net exporter of fuel was nowhere in sight.

 

[myperfectworld]

It absolutely is a political issue. However, for coal gasification with combined cycle power and a steam host VS carbon capture and sequestration, I believe there would be 100's or 1000's of more potential sites or projects than CCS - which better be near the sequestration site, or it is not even close to financially viable. Of course to gasify coal, you almost need similar technology to a refinery. Probably not too many takers there either. That is why I like throwing coal this bone - because it gives them a choice with mature technology to use coal, but there likely won't be many takers and if there is - those sites would produce only marginally more CO2 than using gas. Thus, if it sells the EPA plan, I believe everybody would benefit somewhat.

On a political note though. I have a real issue now with people that say it isn't worth reducing our CO2 output if China and India are building all those coal plants. After all, they claim, "China is now the number One polluter on the planet, so they need to lead and do their fair share." I don't normally respond to such people, but if I did - I would note that we had the "biggest waster and biggest natural resource consumer designation for many, many decades. Also, people who totally miss the per capita case and the irony of what they say either don't understand the math, or believe we as Americans are entitled to 5 times the natural resources per capita than other countries.

 

[billhen]

mheslep, thanks for pointing that out.

Directly on the point: I think we could do well to offer coal power generators tax (write off) benefits to retire coal operations in favor of Natural Gas.

The only real emission limitations we need are, IMO, in urban air as a local matter. So burning less gasoline and diesel in motor vehicles in favor of electric and natural gas would make the largest, most cost effective difference.

 

[myperfectworld]

I must express some disappoint with the miss information and propaganda driven views demonstrated here. The US has energy development in place that will make us net exporters within five years. The only thing keeping the price of oil and gas up is the high price of alternatives due to developmental cost skewing the market through subsidies.

People who can demonstrate the actual role of humans in climate change are not allowed a voice, because they can prove that climate cycles drive climate change with such a heavy hand that human involvement is negligible.

Simple put; no such crisis exist. A crisis does exist for special interest lobbies delivering tax payer funding.

I don't understand your point completely, but still can tell I disagree with most of it! I agree we could be a net exporter in 5 years, but I believe it will be more like 10 - 15 years realistically. you say the price of oil and gas is being kept up? If you mean oil and gasoline, subsidies for alternative energy should be pushing price down through supply and demand. If you are referring to natural gas, yes - the price from a nearly 15 year low has come up to almost double - but I remember also paying nearly 4 times the going rate just 6 - 7 years ago. Keep in mind also that exporting natural gas will likely double the price it is now, because most countries are paying 3 to 5 times what it costs us right now. With regards to climate change, I believe there is enough evidence that we should be doing something - things with reasonable price tags - even if it may not be enough, and even if the 2 - 27%? is right, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

 

[mheslep]

... do their fair share...

Climate change abatement via CO2 reduction is not a matter of "fair", it is a matter of what is effective. Reduction of US CO2 emissions all the way to zero, by itself, will not be effective at changing significantly the date at which CO2 concentration doubles, given the emissions elsewhere, yes especially CO2 emissions in China.

 

[myperfectworld]

Yes, unfortunately you are right. May make more sense to start raising coastal cities by several feet.

 

[jim hardy]

Powerplants went from 40% to 60% efficient when we started building them "combined cycle", capturing waste heat from engine exhaust and extracting some more energy from it.

A tube boiler wrapped around a catalytic converter could make steam to run a small turbine connected to driveline via overriding clutch... but that's too much of a contraption to expect ordinary folks to put up with.
A fleet of over-the-road trucks however could save a lot of fuel .

.......................

GW = touchy subject.
Water vapor is a major player, perhaps more so than CO2, and i'll wait until they figure it out . http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Both articles conclude it's not yet well understood.

I do know this -
if you want to make something a certainty that's easy - just publicly declare it impossible and stake your reputation on it.
Probably that works both ways.

old jim

 

[alionalizoti]

Energy Crisis and World Hungry For Power

It is not only USA facing the energy crisis, but the whole world.
Actually, it looks like oil won't be enough for world technology.
So what are we going to do, get back to
1) massive hand work, kind of communist system working for capitalism
2) produce and use old second world war proposals on artificial oil,
3) or build up a new benefiting system

Suggestion: It may seem weird but new systems are better viewed by the world,
although they may not go along with disciplinary matters,
but they do with open ended issues!

 

[Mesafarmer]

We can do so much more for the quality of life in this country if we quit pouring new energy sources down a bottomless rat hole. It's time to plug some holes rather than increase the flow. Let's start with transportation. Convert existing roadways into a single lane for existing vehicles and the remainder of the roadway into a two way highway for vehicles of 1 horsepower or less. This would allow some real competition and reduce the energy used an order of magnitude. Reducing the need for autos will make the nation a better place to live where other wasteful energy uses will decline. Why drive that gas guzzler to the gym when there are pleasant places to walk? Why build large houses when the outdoors is not filled with those dangerous noisy steel boxes? The auto industry has had a century to provide a transport solution and failed. New energy sources should be for a new system.

 

[johnbbahm]

It is not only USA facing the energy crisis, but the whole world.
Actually, it looks like oil won't be enough for world technology.
So what are we going to do, get back to
1) massive hand work, kind of communist system working for capitalism
2) produce and use old second world war proposals on artificial oil,
3) or build up a new benefiting system

Suggestion: It may seem weird but new systems are better viewed by the world,
although they may not go along with disciplinary matters,
but they do with open ended issues!

Option 2) Does not have to be the WWII synfuel.
We have the capability to produce carbon neutral liquid fuels, and leverage
the existing infrastructure to produce, and distribute.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121013/NEWS/210130317/Navy-eyes-turning-sea-water-into-jet-fuel
The Navy times article in 2012 says about 10 years to be commercial,
But Audi is doing it today.
http://www.audi.com/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/energy-turnaround-in-the-tank.html
This technology is not that far off.

 

[WhatIsGravity]

Fix the US energy crisis? The only real way to do that is to get people to use a whole lot less energy. Or go fully nuclear... which probably 100 years from now is what the US (like some other countries now) will be doing anyway. Not to sound like a fuggin hippie, but I'd say you'd fire all the marketing, advertising and salesman folk; reduce the consumerism. And somehow get the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and most every economist since Adam Smith to realize that a continually increasing GDP is not sustainable.

 

[mheslep]

... continually increasing GDP is not sustainable.

Why not? Continually increasing the consumption of natural resources is not sustainable but that is not the same thing. Recycling iPhone 5's into 6's increases GDP but doesn't necessarily require any new aluminum. On the low end of the economic scale abroad increasing GDP means raising people out grinding poverty. Calling for the end of economic growth, at this point, is to condemn them to more of the same.

 

[WhatIsGravity]

If you equate inflation to an increasing GDP, you are right, the US can keep on printing money, and things become more expensive- ad infinitum. But to say that converting, or all of recycling, doesn't require more energy than you put in... with people always wanting more, especially cause of marketing and salesmanship... an increasing GDP means burning more resources.

 

[mheslep]

If you equate inflation to an increasing GDP, you are right, the US can keep on printing money, and things become more expensive- ad infinitum. But to say that converting, or all of recycling, doesn't require more energy than you put in...

I do not refer to inflation. Sure recycling requires energy. The point is that it does not require an ever *increasing* amount of energy given constant production. That is, given energy supply X, one can theoretically keep producing recycled a constant quantity of smart phone 1 ... 2 ... 3 etc forever without exceed X, and a constant supply of energy is sustainable. Also, we know that the amount of resource required to produce an electronic gizmo with a given capability has been on a steady and dramatic decline, all while the income and jobs generated by that industry increase.

...with people always wanting more, especially cause of marketing and salesmanship...

That's consumerism and a touch of misanthropy, which again is different from the requirements of economic growth. Growth may indeed consist of more cars, more neon signs and steel, more/bigger houses, which use ever more physical resources, and that can not continue forever. But this is one particular type of economic growth; it need not be that way.

an increasing GDP means burning more resources.

I just presented a case where this need not be, and not a fringe case: Apple has (or until recently, had) the highest market value of any company in the world.

 

[jlefevre76]

I started a similar thread with about 0% interest. However, I'll go ahead and post here:

I guess I have a funny answer on this one. I think as far as our short term (and long term) advancement of science, we should focus on fission. And, I think some kind of nuclear reaction will be our long term solution as far as energy needs are concerned. We have a long ways to go before we can control nuclear reactions as well as we can control chemical reactions. However, I think in the short term, carefully comparing the figures I collected, I think I like the idea of using wind turbines to bear the main load on our grid. There are still two problems with this:
1. EMI can mess with electronics, radar. They need to find a better way to shield the EMI from the generator and lines running from the turbine.
2. It is believed either the low frequency audio or low band EMI waves can cause illness in people and animals that are nearby. Studying this problem thoroughly and finding a solution seems important before wind can be listed as "the solution."
3. During the middle of the day, the winds die down, and can't carry the grid. This means, it needs to be combined with solar or natural gas fired turbines (that have a short start-up period).

So, that's my thinking. Research wind to overcome the last few obstacles with the technology, and once those are overcome and we have the needed infrastructure, focus our research efforts on nuclear energy and anything that has direct implications or applications on nuclear reactions.

Here are the numbers I used to come to these conclusions. If any of them are way off, you can feel free to point that out.

 

[johnbbahm]

If any of them are way off, you can feel free to point that out.

The only thing I can see that may be off is the installed price for the photovoltaic.
I got a quote last year, that came in at $3.125/watt installed.

 

[jlefevre76]

That could be the case, in Germany it's lower than $3 per watt for installation. By the way, when the heck did Germany go and get a huge semiconductor industry for their energy infrastructure? It's insane how much they seem to be out-competing the rest of the world in that area (at least it would seem, producing quality semiconductor products in large enough quantities to make a significant industry out of it, and using them practically and for many different applications).