A gentle and sane debate on energy sources

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a lot of talk and writing lately on the state of our energy/fuel/alternative energy/harebrained energy resources.

1st. Does anyone have the percentages of fossil fuel used by: Total USA consumption.
    Private vehicle use
    Commercial vehicle use,i.e trucks, semis, farm machinery, railroads, construction machinery, production of ethanol and other bio-fuels, fertilizers, water movement, fire fighting, law enforcement, paper mills,smelters,refineries etc.
    Aviation fuel, i.e. commercial and passenger planes, military etc
    Home heating fuel/oil/natural gas/propane etc.

There is also a lot of talk now about running vehicles on: compressed air, water(conversion to hydrogen and oxygen while driving), biofuel(homemade or commercial), ethanol production disaster/ and you name it. Not to mention conservation by downsizing all vehicles.(How do you downsize a locomotive or airplane)

  Seems to me that hybrid/electric,wind,solar,magic batteries, etc. are not very conducive to solving any problems to overcome the "so-called" fossil fuel crisis. I believe it'll be a long time before a break-through in energy production (fusion/super storage batteries/water conversion etc.) will be realized. Maybe a few generations from now  we can look forward to having a thermo-nuclear device in every case.

  My intent here is to solicit a gentle/sane debate by folks who can contribute a few apoliticall ideas in the scientific arena. If you have any comments to make  from your particular field of expertise, I am sure many of us will be extremely enlightened.

  My prediction is that fossil fuels are here to stay for a very long time. Now it is your turn to chime in.

  I also know that there are no easy answers, so take your time. Perhaps pick a subject at a time and discuss it.  This may turn into a record length thread. The last post will get a prize;10 gal. of gasoline.

carson FL





 

One of the things that is going to come up with altenative power sources for vehicles is the payment of road taxes.

There was guy in Washington who was running used cooking oil and now the state is coming after him for several thousand dollars in road taxes that he would have paid for at the pump.  I can see the same type of red tape problem with a guy who plugs his car into the wall to recharge the batteries........the government is really not on board with alternative uses.

Hi Dave, yes I read that too. The law of unintentional consequences is going to play a big part in all this. Just look at the ethanol mess. Seems to me that the folks who make the decisions (pols) haven't a clue on foreseeing the LOUIC.

    We need 5000 opinions on this matter.

carson

Dave Stringham said:

One of the things that is going to come up with altenative power sources for vehicles is the payment of road taxes.

I can see the same type of red tape problem with a guy who plugs his car into the wall to recharge the batteries........the government is really not on board with alternative uses.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, it's only a matter of time...

Steve

Hi  After I got back from Fla. this winter I decided to do my own test on E-85 fuel. I installed a ScanGauge 2 in my 07 F-150 so I could get better MPG info. Right now it's $.65 cheaper than regular in my area (Michigan). Indeed you don't get as good of mileage, but not exactly like I'd read. For local driving I loose about 10%, it's higher for freeway driving. I've not been able to do a good highway test as I don't know the locations of stations and the further south you get the less there is. There is a station about 1/2 mi from where we go shopping a couple times a week so It's not hard for me to find. On some internet site I found there are 79 E-85 stations within 100 mi of where I live.
My truck seems to run a bit better with it, it's 105 octane. It definitely doesn't loose any power I can notice. Right now it's bit of a pain to use, but it works. From what I've learned so far it seems I can use it for local driving and maybe save a bit of money or break even. The good news is you can grow more corn or whatever you use & you can't grow more oil. I know it's not the end all awnser, but it's another step to reduce oil dependency.
Another thing I've noticed is on a cold start in the morning it smells like you've been drinking all night. Also you sure don't need any Drygas.

It would be interesting to collect ideas from everyone on saving fuel.

From my "area of expertise," I can pretty well assure you that there won't be any "thermo-nuclear" powered vehicles in our lifetimes or our grand-children's lifetimes.    That term applies to nuclear reactions occurring at very high temperatures and that's not a process that has been harnessed for peaceful purposes, yet.

However, there may a time in the not-too-distant future where many vehicles are largely powered

• by batteries that have been charged by electricity produced at new generation nuclear power plants or
• by hydrogen that is produced using power from nuclear or other non-fossil power sources.

Ten years ago, I never would have believed that there would be the possibility of a revival of nuclear power in the United States of any significance, but it looks like it might just happen.  If it does, there will likely be some sort of impact on transportation, such as a reduced need to use fossil fuels for power production.

I work in the fuel cell industry. Although I don't see a short term economically sound car-sized fuel cell, I do think the larger versions which we build will aid in distributed energy. Co-generation(using the waste heat) greatly increases the efficiency. These powerplants can be located where the heat can be utilized.As an example, Seirra Nevada Brewing utilizes fuelcells for their electricity, the heat brews the beer and the gas from the brewing helps fuel the fuelcell...Almost a perpetual motion machine....If you drink enough beer!

Has any one watched this?



Jerry

Joe's video has some points but it fails to understand several concepts as well.. I don't bother listing them as I suspect you folks are smart enough to figure out that his suggestion to use the national reservers, built up at a time when oil cost was lower, is not an answer to the problem it would simply delay the problem a couple of months.

The solution is lower cost power or reduction in use


As for Thermo-nuclear  being harnessed for peace.. Depends on how you define it.. If you define it as "Atom bomb" true.  If you define it as heat producecd by nuclear reaction being used to generate power.. Then you have your basic power plant.

Scale down a power plant (if it is possible to do so) so you have say a 500 KW to one MW plant that is oh, say about the size of a Ford Triton V-10.. and you have a great RV engine.. Assuming you can make it safe (BIG ASSUMPTION!!!!, Very big assumption)

The problem is the folks who do that kind of work are constantly thinking bigger is better.. I'm not sure that's the case at all

And of course making it safe means it has to be not only bomb proof  but stupid semi ran the red light proof as well.


In the world of Science Fiction.... Someone did make a nuclear powered Steam train.  That might be possible.  again if the issues of a crash can be over come

The size of nuclear power plant used in a submarine may be small enough for a locomotive, but subs have the advantage of an infinite supply of water for coolant, steam generation, etc.  And a  highly trained engineering crew to monitor and control it 24/7.  They are steam turbine power plants - the nuclear energy just supplies heat.

Electricity is one of the easiest forms of energy to distribute and the infrastructure already exists, so nuclear power is most easily applied that way. Same for massively large solar arrays. I figure nuclear powered electrical plants will get popular quite suddenly when the electric bills go sky high with fuel adjustment costs and/or the lights start going off because of lack of petroleum based fuels for the plants. Coal will make a big comeback too - we have a gazillion tons of that once we overcome our fetish about smoke and strip mine damage. The nasty side effects can be managed safely, especially at the today's energy prices

I have always been an alternative energy fan and indeed had a solar domestic hot water system over twenty five years ago. It was a dual loop system (primary freon and secondary water) and worked quite well as a supplemental system. It provided some help even in the gray NH winter.

I am a little confused by the environmental groups that tout the use of  alternative sources such as wind and solar and then want to block the installation of any large scale projects.

I can't cite any specific instances of this but I recall reading about objections from some groups to solar because of disruption to plant and animal life and wind due to bird kills.

One thing for sure, for solar or wind power to be be generated in quantities large enough to have much of an impact on our hydrocarbon use it's going to take massive amounts of real estate for the installations.

RV Roamer said:

The size of nuclear power plant used in a submarine may be small enough for a locomotive, but subs have the advantage of an infinite supply of water for coolant, steam generation, etc.  And a  highly trained engineering crew to monitor and control it 24/7.  They are steam turbine power plants - the nuclear energy just supplies heat.

Click to expand...

A submarine nuclear power plant reactor has the power output of 15 or so locomotives.  And while the water supply may seem infinite, the water used for cooling the reactor and the water used for steam -- two different systems -- has to be pure, distilled on board from sea water.  We had to go back to port early once when our distilling system was out of service and the parts to fix it were not on board.  The distilling system was also where we got our water for human consumption.

There are several obstacles to new nuclear power that will have to be overcome.  The manufacturing facilities that fabricated the large components needed for the plants no longer exist in the US. The engineering programs that educated the nuclear engineers are far fewer today.  Because of relatively low attrition in nuclear power, the average age of experienced workers is higher than many other fields.  This has now reached a threshold where a significant number are able to retire early and many are opting to do just that. Thus, there are fewer experienced workers to entice from existing nuclear plants as the foundation for the new plants' workforce. And, of course, there is the issue of what to do about the fuel once it's expended (another failure of government to live up to the obligations it committed to in the 60s and 70s).

Another issue is the electrical infrastructure .  The northeastern blackout on August 14, 2003, demonstrated how interconnected and fragile that infrastructure is.  Yet, despite the promises and good intentions of those in the industry and government, not enough has been done, in my view, to fix that.  Adding new power plants of any kind to supply the new demand created by powering electric vehicles will require a significant investment in the electrical grids.  Putting the new power onto the existing transmission lines will not work in the long run.

John, Re Joe's video.

  I don't think he talked about using our Reserves, rather the trillions of barrels of oil still in the ground still untapped. Anwar, continental shelves, shale, etc etc.

The company I work for is a green energy provider.  We have a couple of large solar facilities near the Barstow 4 corners Califronia area, 13 different wind sites from California to Minnesota, a large geo thermal site near Ridgecrest California and one in Nevada outside of Reno.  We have 3100 megawatts of wind power in the Tehachapi California area waiting for SCE to get their new infastructure in place so we can begin construction on that site (that site will be the largest single wind plant under 1 roof in the world).

As mentioned by another poster, wind sites do take some acerage, but not as much as you might think.  In the midwest, you can stand a wind turbine in a farmers field, that actaul base might take a 40' x 40' slab, but he just plants and plows his corn around that base.  There might be 20 such bases on his property but he is paid year round for the lease of property and he gets some pretty good revenues from that.  A lot more than he can get for the corn he may have planted in those spots.

I have seen 4 birds killed in the 15 years I have been in the wind industry, and not one was from a collision with a turbine.  All have been caused by electrocusion in a sub station.  Any power plant of any kind is going to have sub stations, so that cant be blamed on wind.

Of course in my postion, I am a big advocate of alternative energy........especially wind  ;D

Dave, can a wind turbine output be used to create hydrogen. If so, what is the conversion factor? in $$?

I dont know what a dollar conversion would be, but a wind turbine could produce the same electricity that you might get from another source that can produce hydrogen.......as long as you want to produce hydrogen in a windy area that is.

There is a large cement plant in the Tehachapi area, our company owns 8 very large 3 megawatt turbines that provide power "only" to that cement plant.  The power from those turbines cannot go on the grid by contract.  They pay us a fair rate for each kw produced by our machines and with the power from those turbines, they have reduced their electric bill (and usage from the SCE grid) a Quarter of a million dollars a month (their normal bill is about a million a month).

that is my understanding of the numbers, they may not be exact.

Thanks for the reply, Dave.

  Electricity comes from fuel powered plants, i.e. coal, oil and natural gas.
So in effect they use fossil fuels.

    And then there is the atomic generation. (Uranium/plutonium) ?

So I guess it comes down to capital asset and fuel expenditures vs Cap assets only with wind power "fuel".

  Maybe someone has the conversion ratio for us.

carson FL
 

carson said:

  And then there is the atomic generation. (Uranium/plutonium) ?

Click to expand...

Uranium in the new fuel assemblies.

Then, during the fission process, some of the uranium is converted to fissionable plutonium, which then contributes to the heat production by the reactor.

so the answer is both, kind of ...  ;D

I believe that Geothermal is probably the best alternative (both green and cost) for large scale fixed location electrical generating plants.  In Nevada we already have about 20 small ones.  Nevada is blessed  because the heat from the earth's core comes so close to the surface.

Furthermore, I believe that if Nevada's political leaders put their mind to it they could finance and build several MEGA-sized geothermal power plants, as Quebec did with hydro power, and sell it to the other western states.  For a big project like this Nevada needs someone like California's Pat Brown who foresaw the water shortages and built the Shasta dam and canals to bring water to Southern California.  Or Nevada needs someone like President Eisenhower who got the Interstate system started.

Nevada could even solve their water shortage using geothermal electric power.  The idea might be as follows:

Build a couple MEGA-sized geothermal electric power plants here in Nevada.
Build several GIANT desalinization plants in Southern California.
Build power lines to the desalinization plants in Southern California.
Trade the desalinized water to California for an equal amount from California's Colorado River allotment.

Just some thoughts.

JerryF 

Jerry, I like that idea.

  How do you foresee in the long term it could effect getting my gas tank filled without crying?

By the time all this happens I'll be flying on a cloud. probably most of us.

  I do realize that the future is much more important than I am.

carson