A scary strategic problem - no oil
- Thread starter redleafjumper
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Here ya go ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
I build furniture. And in doing so, I use a lot of tools. Whenever possible, I opt for air powered tools.
I do so because there is only ONE machine doing all the work (the compressor). Air tools need very little maintenance (clean 'em up and throw a drop of oil in once in a while), have fewer moving parts than their electric counterparts, and have a failure rate to die for.
I don't see why the concept couldn't be successfully morphed over to vehicles. As far as hurting the environment goes - I suppose that depends upon the power source used to run the air compressor.
I do so because there is only ONE machine doing all the work (the compressor). Air tools need very little maintenance (clean 'em up and throw a drop of oil in once in a while), have fewer moving parts than their electric counterparts, and have a failure rate to die for.
I don't see why the concept couldn't be successfully morphed over to vehicles. As far as hurting the environment goes - I suppose that depends upon the power source used to run the air compressor.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Exactly! Out of sight, out of mind doesn't mean that the air is compressing itself (same deal with hydrogen, electricity or any other "zero pollution" solution). There's no free lunch.Roy Harding said:
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Alternative energy advocates need to be aware of the facts:
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/stat2003en.pdf
The big problem is many people want to do the right thing, but are not aware of the science. Politicians are particularly susceptible, since these schemes sound good, and offer a way to feed friends at the public trough without too much opposition. Saying ethanol and wind turbines are "Green" (to use two examples) makes for a good sound bite, demonstrating ethanol uses more energy to make than you ever get back or the pitfalls or wind turbines takes lots of time and effort.
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/stat2003en.pdf
The big problem is many people want to do the right thing, but are not aware of the science. Politicians are particularly susceptible, since these schemes sound good, and offer a way to feed friends at the public trough without too much opposition. Saying ethanol and wind turbines are "Green" (to use two examples) makes for a good sound bite, demonstrating ethanol uses more energy to make than you ever get back or the pitfalls or wind turbines takes lots of time and effort.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Cheshire said:
But that same vehicle would consume far less fuel!
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
A novel non thermal means of generating electricity. As far as I can understand this, it is similar to a fuel cell and would be ideal for laptops and other small scale applications (for now). Assuming there are no scaling issues (big if), these devices could be ganged together to produce electric power for larger scale applications as well.
http://www.neofuel.com/nanotech/index.html
http://www.neofuel.com/nanotech/index.html
I think the next 50 years will see us moving to depend more on Nuclear. But Nuclear Energy cannot make up 100% of our energy. Our Energy demands fluctuate throught the day and Nuclear powerplants are not very good at varing their output. And it can take days to stop and restart a reactor. Nuclear is good for base load electricity ~70% of our power. Ontario already uses 50+% nuclear power. The rest will have to come from more variable sources of power (hydro electric, wind, solar, biomass).
In the future we I think we will see more solar and wind generation at our own homes. This has two bennifits. 1. Green electricity 2. Less electrical transmission issues (i.e. 2003 Blackout). Especailly since the components to do this are starting to come down in cost and are becoming more efficent.
For portable devices such as laptops, cars, power tools you will see a vast improvement in battery technology.
A123 Systems has developed a nanophosphate Li-Ion battery.
http://www.a123systems.com/newsite/index.php#/technology/
It's safe (unlike the panasonic laptop batteries). Dewalt is already using them in their cordless power tools. GM will be using this battery in the Chevy Volt Electric Car and in future hybrid vehicles.
These batteries are designed to last 10 years and work fine in hot and cold climates.
Electric motors are far more powerfull than Internal Combustion Engines and far more effecient.
If people think an electric car is slow. Boy are you in for a suprise.
http://www.killacycle.com/
The motorcycle even got into an accedent and the battery was damaged but there was no fire and everything stayed safe.
Also for alternative fuels you have Ethanol and Biodiesel. This would be a good intrm measure. There are now ways to produce these fuels without using crops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture (process that can make biodiesel and hydrogen)
In the future we I think we will see more solar and wind generation at our own homes. This has two bennifits. 1. Green electricity 2. Less electrical transmission issues (i.e. 2003 Blackout). Especailly since the components to do this are starting to come down in cost and are becoming more efficent.
For portable devices such as laptops, cars, power tools you will see a vast improvement in battery technology.
A123 Systems has developed a nanophosphate Li-Ion battery.
http://www.a123systems.com/newsite/index.php#/technology/
It's safe (unlike the panasonic laptop batteries). Dewalt is already using them in their cordless power tools. GM will be using this battery in the Chevy Volt Electric Car and in future hybrid vehicles.
These batteries are designed to last 10 years and work fine in hot and cold climates.
Electric motors are far more powerfull than Internal Combustion Engines and far more effecient.
If people think an electric car is slow. Boy are you in for a suprise.
http://www.killacycle.com/
The motorcycle even got into an accedent and the battery was damaged but there was no fire and everything stayed safe.
Also for alternative fuels you have Ethanol and Biodiesel. This would be a good intrm measure. There are now ways to produce these fuels without using crops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture (process that can make biodiesel and hydrogen)
- Reaction score
- 7,347
- Points
- 1,160
MechEng:
I agree with much of your posting but I am still not sold on "organic" energy sources. The conversion processes are way to inefficient and slow and you always have to deal with the problem of expending energy to separate your "power source" from water which can make up more than 90% of your raw material (80% if it is an animal, 90% if it is an oil bearing plant, 95% if it is a leafy green or an algae).
We are much further ahead digging the carbon out of the ground from rich sources and recapturing it all for reuse later, than we are trying to capture carbon from air and trying to turn it into energy.
You have gold in nuggets in the stream bed. You have gold in seams in the rock. You have gold in flecks in the mountain.
Which are you going to go after first. Personally I would go after the placer gold in the river before I started to worry about demolishing and sieving mountains.
Coal fired plants and greenhouses - there is a successful combination.
I agree with much of your posting but I am still not sold on "organic" energy sources. The conversion processes are way to inefficient and slow and you always have to deal with the problem of expending energy to separate your "power source" from water which can make up more than 90% of your raw material (80% if it is an animal, 90% if it is an oil bearing plant, 95% if it is a leafy green or an algae).
We are much further ahead digging the carbon out of the ground from rich sources and recapturing it all for reuse later, than we are trying to capture carbon from air and trying to turn it into energy.
You have gold in nuggets in the stream bed. You have gold in seams in the rock. You have gold in flecks in the mountain.
Which are you going to go after first. Personally I would go after the placer gold in the river before I started to worry about demolishing and sieving mountains.
Coal fired plants and greenhouses - there is a successful combination.
Kirkhill said:MechEng:
I agree with much of your posting but I am still not sold on "organic" energy sources. The conversion processes are way to inefficient and slow and you always have to deal with the problem of expending energy to separate your "power source" from water which can make up more than 90% of your raw material (80% if it is an animal, 90% if it is an oil bearing plant, 95% if it is a leafy green or an algae).
We are much further ahead digging the carbon out of the ground from rich sources and recapturing it all for reuse later, than we are trying to capture carbon from air and trying to turn it into energy.
You have gold in nuggets in the stream bed. You have gold in seams in the rock. You have gold in flecks in the mountain.
Which are you going to go after first. Personally I would go after the placer gold in the river before I started to worry about demolishing and sieving mountains.
Coal fired plants and greenhouses - there is a successful combination.
I will agree that biofuels are not a long term solution but not for the reasons you listed.
There are already cellulostic ethanol plants up and running in the US producing ethanol cheaper and more efficient than crop based ethanol (cheaper than gasoline too). And their are plans to build dozens of these plants in the near future.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070927005865&newsLang=en
Biofuels should only be temporary to ween us off gasoline.
The problem is if you burn anything at high temperatures you don't just get CO2. You get many other pollutants like Nitrous Oxides which are far worse than CO2.
And this is why burning coal is a bad idea. Carbon recapturing is actually further away than most people think and is far from perfect.
Solar panels have made huge gains in becoming more efficient (but still have a ways to go). But their are many other promising technologies on the horizon.
I personally can't wait to get my Chevy Volt in 2010. GM has already signed the supplier contracts, selected the assembly factory and it has been officially on the production schedule for a year now.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
WRT Nuclear energy, we need to look at more advanced systems. Very high energy density and high conversion efficiency will make nuclear energy more economical: http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/non-classical_reactor_systems.pdf
Of course, people need to realize nuclear is green..........
Of course, people need to realize nuclear is green..........
- Reaction score
- 7,347
- Points
- 1,160
MechEng said:
Not much of anything is perfect - everything has a cost, and a risk.
As to the plans to build dozens of ethanol plants - those dozens of plant need either straw (which is currently left lying on the fields in order to stop the dirt blowing away), fresh green stuff (which is wet and needs space to grow - space that could be used for food crops or just to supply habitat for spotted and burrowing owls and Kemodi bears) or waste bark (which could be better employed being mulched and shipped to Afghanistan so that they can put a bit of carbon back into their environment and grow things).
TANSTAAFL - everything has a price including your Chevy Volt - Even if you are operating it from a pedal-driven dynamo while watching reruns of the Nature of Things - You're going to get awfully hungry and won't some productive Green Space -
Of course, ethanol and pedalling would make an interesting mix.
Kirkhill said:Not much of anything is perfect - everything has a cost, and a risk.
As to the plans to build dozens of ethanol plants - those dozens of plant need either straw (which is currently left lying on the fields in order to stop the dirt blowing away), fresh green stuff (which is wet and needs space to grow - space that could be used for food crops or just to supply habitat for spotted and burrowing owls and Kemodi bears) or waste bark (which could be better employed being mulched and shipped to Afghanistan so that they can put a bit of carbon back into their environment and grow things).
TANSTAAFL - everything has a price including your Chevy Volt - Even if you are operating it from a pedal-driven dynamo while watching reruns of the Nature of Things - You're going to get awfully hungry and won't some productive Green Space -
Of course, ethanol and pedalling would make an interesting mix.
The volt has an electric only range of 62kms and would only use the ICE if I go further than that (very efficiently I might add). My daily commute to and from work is only 40kms. And to recharge the Volt That is where far cleaner electricity comes in. Currently Ontario only gets 18% of it's power from burning fossil fuels. And in the future under current plans in 20 years it will be less than 5% (which will only be Natural Gas). http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=6222
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=english.news&body=yes&news_id=162
Now I don't think that ethanol is a long term solution. But cars with an ICE will be with us for at least another 20 years. And Biofuels look like a good fuel to use in the transition.
There is no such thing as perfection. Everything we do will have some impact on the environment around us. But what people don't understand is we don't need perfection. The environment has a certain capacity to clean up after us. The problem is we are currently living beyond that capacity. This is not about saving the environment. Us humans do not have the power to completely destroy the environment. But we do have the power to destroy ourselves. What we need to do Is find a way to live sustainably.
- Reaction score
- 7,347
- Points
- 1,160
MechEng - I sense rapprochement here.
I think the only thing we are now really discussing is the scenario for dealing with the next 20 to 50 years. I DON'T happen to think that we as a species, or the planet, is at risk. I DO believe that there are always better ways to do things.
Amongst my many lives I remember one of them lived as a 6 year old kid in London, being walked to school in the smog, not knowing if we were on the road or the pavement (street or sidewalk to you) and be very surprised to find a Big Red Double Decker bus approaching us. I know what pollution looks like and I am glad we cleaned it up (perversely however I have an ongoing love of the smell of coal fires and diesel fumes while I find pine forests overpowering - go figure). Back to point.....
As you rightly state, the planet can handle a lot. It is constantly experimenting on itself and leaving uninhabitable areas - deserts, oilsands, arsenical creeks, pitchblende and radon contaminated ground..... So if we want to do something we can take our time and play a bit.
I would start off by saying that the fastest way anywhere is to start from the existing position and improve what we have - hence my preference for coal and scrubbers and biofilters (containerized or artificial peat bogs) and green houses and ponds and CaCO3 etc. It is all known technology that has a track record and is relatively easy to implement. If you are prepared to spend 100s of Billions on a completely new industry with unproven suppliers and a poorly developed infrastructure, why not consider 10s of Billions to get 80% of the way there faster. (Aside from the novelty aspect).
The resulting plants will be at least as environmentally friendly as your new ethanol plants (just consider all that energy you are going to spend manufacturing all that lovely high-priced stainless steel equipment for the plants - how does that figure into your cost/benefit analysis?).
Actually I like the idea of electric cars. Heck I am looking forward to the day I can whistle up my publicly funded pod and have it deliver me to my destination in one, direct, trip. If they can run autopilots and GPS trackers and parallel my car for me then they can manage that. A few buried magnets and a battery would do the trick for power management. Then I can keep my gas-guzzling SUV for heading out to the flatlands (hills induce claustrophobia - and trees? ugh - nasty things that block the view).
But by all means - envisage an electrical future. But hydrocarbons will continue to be the most stable method of storing usable energy for a long while. And the Germans were making Diesel from Coal years ago.
Now figure out how to run a closed-cycle engine and rapidly pump out my "waste" carbon at the same time as you are pumping in my "fresh" hydrocarbons. You can have my waste for regeneration to hydrocarbons, plant food or people.
Cheers.
I think the only thing we are now really discussing is the scenario for dealing with the next 20 to 50 years. I DON'T happen to think that we as a species, or the planet, is at risk. I DO believe that there are always better ways to do things.
Amongst my many lives I remember one of them lived as a 6 year old kid in London, being walked to school in the smog, not knowing if we were on the road or the pavement (street or sidewalk to you) and be very surprised to find a Big Red Double Decker bus approaching us. I know what pollution looks like and I am glad we cleaned it up (perversely however I have an ongoing love of the smell of coal fires and diesel fumes while I find pine forests overpowering - go figure). Back to point.....
As you rightly state, the planet can handle a lot. It is constantly experimenting on itself and leaving uninhabitable areas - deserts, oilsands, arsenical creeks, pitchblende and radon contaminated ground..... So if we want to do something we can take our time and play a bit.
I would start off by saying that the fastest way anywhere is to start from the existing position and improve what we have - hence my preference for coal and scrubbers and biofilters (containerized or artificial peat bogs) and green houses and ponds and CaCO3 etc. It is all known technology that has a track record and is relatively easy to implement. If you are prepared to spend 100s of Billions on a completely new industry with unproven suppliers and a poorly developed infrastructure, why not consider 10s of Billions to get 80% of the way there faster. (Aside from the novelty aspect).
The resulting plants will be at least as environmentally friendly as your new ethanol plants (just consider all that energy you are going to spend manufacturing all that lovely high-priced stainless steel equipment for the plants - how does that figure into your cost/benefit analysis?).
Actually I like the idea of electric cars. Heck I am looking forward to the day I can whistle up my publicly funded pod and have it deliver me to my destination in one, direct, trip. If they can run autopilots and GPS trackers and parallel my car for me then they can manage that. A few buried magnets and a battery would do the trick for power management. Then I can keep my gas-guzzling SUV for heading out to the flatlands (hills induce claustrophobia - and trees? ugh - nasty things that block the view).
But by all means - envisage an electrical future. But hydrocarbons will continue to be the most stable method of storing usable energy for a long while. And the Germans were making Diesel from Coal years ago.
Now figure out how to run a closed-cycle engine and rapidly pump out my "waste" carbon at the same time as you are pumping in my "fresh" hydrocarbons. You can have my waste for regeneration to hydrocarbons, plant food or people.
Cheers.
Kirkhill said:
We are not at risk in the next 20-50 years I agree. But the more steps we make now the less we have to deal with in the future.
I agree we have to use what we have now to our benefit.
According to the Coal industry in the US the fastest they could get a commercially viable power plant to use clean coal technology is 2020. Why should we wait that long when there are plenty of other commercially viable and cleaner sources of energy at our disposal now?
Now we are running out of oil. Coal can be used to substitute (It's already used in South Africa). But it too is far from clean. Cellulosic Ethanol does not use crops for production. It uses biomass waste products. And does not use much energy to produce compared to coal based fuels.
Algaculture uses Algae on wastewater treatment ponds to produce biodiesel and hydrogen. Now this technology only recently became viable thanks to a huge breakthrough only a few months ago. So it's a little ways off. But there are now plans to implement this in 15 locations.
Now saying all this I don't see Coal as a clean alternative. And I think electric cars are the future (for reasons previously stated). But even if all the automakers stop selling ICE cars and started selling electric cars today it would take a while for ICE's to make their way out of society. And I fell that non crop based biofuels would be the best alternative for this problem.
- Reaction score
- 7,347
- Points
- 1,160
Are we talking about high efficiency burners here - which I believe they are - or putting the types of scrubbers common at incinerator plants in Europe, being currently applied to western Canadian plants or intended for those that were destroyed for McGuinty's photo-op.MechEng said:
How long do you think it is going take to get all those dozens of ethanol plants on line when China is sucking up all the available supply of industrial metals for the dozens of coal and hydro plants it is building. You can't get a titanium heat exchanger without a two year delay. And bundles of them - forget it. Not to mention all the harvesting and transportation. It will take you at least until 2020 to get your ethanol plants up to anything like a useful capacity.
Yes we are depleting the known resource. No we are not running out. Lots of time left yet before we get through current gas, current oil, heavy oil, tarsands and shale oil. Then we can start working on oil from coal ( Which is actually hydrogenation of the coal, IIRC).
Stipulated.
There are no biomass waste products. That material is far too valuable where it is. And if there is a surplus it would be better being transported to places like Afghanistan and Darfur where there is a deficit. They need it to stabilize soils, hold water, provide humus and to degrade and create a local CO2 rich atmosphere that will support plant growth. If you have surplus biomass give it to me and I will blow lovely warm CO2 rich coal stack air through it and feed lots of lovely bacteria until the bed is saturated then pack it up and ship it to Afghanistan to grow trees.
Algae are up to 95% water. A ton of algae (2000 lbs - forgive me I am old and worked with Americans) contains 1900 lbs of water. It requires 1000 BTU to evaporate each lb. Therefore it requires 1,900,000 BTUs of energy to drive off the water. One lb of Diesel contain 19,000 BTUs of heat. Therefore to extract the combustible portion of the algae and generate something dry enough to throw into a burner you need to invest 1,900,000 /19,000 or 100 lbs of oil (10 imperial gallons or 12 US gallons or about 40 liters) to get the algae to a useable form. And that assumes 100% energy conversions. Reality is more like 70% all told. But lets stick with the 10/12/40 numbers.
The 1 ton of algae will yield 100 lbs of matter roughly equivalent to wood or grass. Dry wood has a calorific value of about 8,000 BTU. Your ton of Algae with consequently yield 800,000 BTUs of heat.
So after you have invested surface, water, energy, capital, material and manpower in the growth of Algae you then have to invest 1,900,000 BTUs of heat in order to get 800,000 BTUs of heat. You are in deficit. And the more you do to the algae, to ferment it to produce a liquid fuel like ethanol, for example, the more you have to invest and the lower the return. Your deficit increases.
Biofuels are a way to use a surplus that has no other value, a waste. They are a lousy method of fueling an economy and can be put to much better use feeding plants and animals which will ultimately feed humans.
Coal is NOT clean. It IS an alternative, and a good one. Its waste stream is manageable with current technologies if society wishes to invest as much in coal as it is in the hare-brained notions of windfarms, tidal turbines and photocells. All it would require is jacking the rates to the consumer - and there is already a lot of room between the 8 cents per kWh that I believe Ontario pays and the 25 cents per kWh that you will find in MANY adjacent American locations.
Electric cars are indeed a viable alternative for short hops by urbanites to the nearest Starbucks. A golf cart would do as well. They are absolute non-starters in most of Canada, including much of Suburbia.
There are, however, better ways to use the hydrocarbons than in the current generation of ICEs. But that is a whole other story.
Cheers sir.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Speaking of electric motors, this is an interesting innovation taking advantage of electromagnetic motors to achieve better efficiency:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Axle_Corporation
The bike can travel around 180km on a single charge and reach speeds of 150km/hr , price wise it is the same as a scooter. The company is planning for a passenger vehicle as well. This is their YouTube demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trws3k9vq6M&mode=related&search
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Axle_Corporation
The bike can travel around 180km on a single charge and reach speeds of 150km/hr , price wise it is the same as a scooter. The company is planning for a passenger vehicle as well. This is their YouTube demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trws3k9vq6M&mode=related&search
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The problem with implementing these schemes is best summed up by Steven Den Beste (who is unfortunately no longer blogging). The first issue is the capital cost to replace various systems. The turnover rate for capital intensive systems is measured in decades, even relatively low capital intensive items like cars or refrigerators (to name two fairly common energy hogs) can last decades. Even if you wanted to, you simply can't replace every unit with the new model right away. Aside from issues like production bottlenecks, most utilities or users are still paying for the old unit, and can't afford a new one. Saying "make the government pay" can only lead to massive economic distortions or inflation (or both), since you still can't afford to replace the old unit, but now you must fork over the cost anyway in taxes, or the State imposes economic controls to get the new item, or they print more money.
This makes the issue of economic payback important. If you are going to spend a thousand dollars on a high efficiency fridge, you expect to save lots of money. If electricity costs you, the consumer $.08/Kw/hr, then you will not see significant impact on your utility bills. I did some calculations based on the idea that a solar shingle array would be able to provide @ 1/3 of my energy requirements; the saving was in the neighbourhood of $500/year. The cost of the array and associated power conditioning equipment was @ $70,000, payoff would take decades.
This brings up the next issue, which is weighted averages. As you can see, even a 33% reduction in energy use was not much in my case, and even massive gains in one area (like light bulbs) does not translate into killer gains elsewhere.
These posts explains these concepts far better (and there are lots of other exciting tidbits throughout his archive as well): http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/NomeansNo.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Obscureenergysources.shtml
This makes the issue of economic payback important. If you are going to spend a thousand dollars on a high efficiency fridge, you expect to save lots of money. If electricity costs you, the consumer $.08/Kw/hr, then you will not see significant impact on your utility bills. I did some calculations based on the idea that a solar shingle array would be able to provide @ 1/3 of my energy requirements; the saving was in the neighbourhood of $500/year. The cost of the array and associated power conditioning equipment was @ $70,000, payoff would take decades.
This brings up the next issue, which is weighted averages. As you can see, even a 33% reduction in energy use was not much in my case, and even massive gains in one area (like light bulbs) does not translate into killer gains elsewhere.
These posts explains these concepts far better (and there are lots of other exciting tidbits throughout his archive as well): http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/NomeansNo.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Obscureenergysources.shtml
Similar threads
