Can Alternative Energy Sources Meet Future U.S. Power Demand?

[damgo]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I think the USA's reason for rejecting it (it being vastly unfair to the US) was a good one.

I have heard this, but I have also heard knowledgeable people (not green-freaks ) claim that it was clearly an unreasonable move on the US's part. Can you elaborate on how it was unfair?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
I have heard this, but I have also heard knowledgeable people (not green-freaks ) claim that it was clearly an unreasonable move on the US's part. Can you elaborate on how it was unfair?

Sure. HERE is a link listing the targeted emissions. Essentially the US would agree to produce 7% less of a number of gases than it did in 1990. All of Europe would reduce its level by 8% below 1990.

What makes it unreasonable is that developing countries such as China have no emissions targets at all. With their rate of economic growth, their pollution rates are expected to rise very quickly in the near future.

So actually, the treaty is about as unfair to Europe as it is to the USA. It also would allow these countries to use substances like CFS's that western countries have already completely eliminated. It heavily favors developing countries.

 

[XX]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Lurch, since it requires ELECTRICITY to make hydrogen, fuel cell cars actually make our overall energy situation WORSE.

No, it doesn't: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid304.php

And those values/efficiencies are consistent with what professors have told me.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by XX
No, it doesn't: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid304.php

And those values/efficiencies are consistent with what professors have told me.

Where exactly on that site do they explain how to MANUFACTURE hydrogen without electricity?

A fuel cell itself is pretty efficient - it turns nearly 100% of the energy from burning hydrogen into electricity. But those sites never explain where the hydrogen comes from. Its a crock.

 

[FZ+]

I think you can use the reaction of methane with steam, but that too produces carbon dioxide gas...

CH₄ + H₂O -> CO + 3H₂ (Ni catalyst)

So... in the end, the net pollution may be the same as straightforwardly combusting methane gas, but in two stages.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think you can use the reaction of methane with steam, but that too produces carbon dioxide gas...

CH₄ + H₂O -> CO + 3H₂ (Ni catalyst)

So... in the end, the net pollution may be the same as straightforwardly combusting methane gas, but in two stages.

Also, in a situation where methane gas is already being combusted for some other porpose, this technique could be employed without adding to the CO₂ output.

 

[FZ+]

Huh? What do you mean?

I am saying that in the long term, this equates to normal methane combustion (and I don't know how much methane we have left...)

see:

CH₄ + H₂O + 2O₂ -> CO + 3H₂ + 2O₂ -> 3H₂O + CO₂

is identical in terms of pollution to:

CH₄ + 2O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂O

Simply adding a H₂O that is returned at the end.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by FZ+
Huh? What do you mean?

Only that the process requires burning methane at 1100^{oC, which produces a lot of heat. This heat could be used to heat water, or perform any other function for which methane is normally used (even to generate electricity!). The Hydrogen would then only be released as a byproduct of methane-burning that was going to take place anyway. Yes, it will produce some CO₂, but only as much as would have been realeased by burning the methane in the first place. Meanwhile, the amount of CO₂ that would have been released to produce electricity in the usual way is not because the electricity is produced through fuel cells.}

 

[FZ+]

Wait... I don't quite agree. With Hess's law, you can't get more energy out of the reaction by spacing it out. In fact, you end up losing more because you have inefficiency at each step in the process...

 

[username]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Fission is NOT dangerous

Fission and fusion are both very dangerous they both produce large amounts of waste for starters. I just hope the fusion reactor experiments going on around the world are not to help make more neutron bombs :(

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by username
Fission and fusion are both very dangerous they both produce large amounts of waste for starters. I just hope the fusion reactor experiments going on around the world are not to help make more neutron bombs :(

Actually, fusion only creates helium.

And what do you mean by "dangerous"? A fission reaction creates heat and undesirably waste products. So does a chemical reaction involving coal. The difference is the waste from fission is contained.

 

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by username
Fission and fusion are both very dangerous they both produce large amounts of waste for starters. I just hope the fusion reactor experiments going on around the world are not to help make more neutron bombs :(

I think you are mistaken. Fission is potentially dangerous and fusion isn't unless you start doing stupid things with it. Most fusion experiements use a tokamak configuration to contain the plasma. If fo some reason the containment failer then you would just end up with the plasma dispersing. You may end up with some damage to the reactor but this is only a financial issue not safety. However fusion will produce some waste from neutron absorbtion. The reactor walls will absorb the neutrons so the reactor itself may become mildly radioactive but this I think is only a concern when it comes to decommisioning. As for neutron bombs - not going to happen from a fusion reactor.

As I have already commented fission is currently very very safe in developed countries. It would take a very determined individual to cause an accident as there are so many safety overrides in place. Admittedly the waste issue is a problem but given the leaps we have made in the last 100 years I am fairly confident that we will find a solution to the waste problem in the next few hundred.

 

[username]

The US DOD has poured billions into so called fusion reactor experiments now they have there very own, I guess this is to study fusion reactions for devloping ever more lethal neutron bombs.
btw: they still have a stockpile of neutron warheads for artillary shells from the 80's. Let's hope they don't make (have not made) any more of these enhanced radiation weapon's (ERW's)!

 

[damgo]

^^^ Hey, all USA-bashing is required to go in the Politics forum... it's in the PF charter. Personally, I don't care how many more neutron bombs the DoD invents. Once you have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate entire countries, a few more are no big deal.

Back on the point, listen to russ & sir-pinksi ...

 

[username]

Originally posted by damgo
^^^ Hey, all USA-bashing is required to go in the Politics forum... it's in the PF charter. Personally, I don't care how many more neutron bombs the DoD invents. Once you have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate entire countries, a few more are no big deal.

Back on the point, listen to russ & sir-pinksi ...

Neutron bombs only destroy organic life ( not like thermonukes and fission bombs ) they do not leave much residual radiation. You could say a small neutron bomb would be more humane? than say a daisy cutter. It's a slippery slope in my opinion.

I agree that in theory a fusion reactor could be ALOT more enviromentally friendly than a fission reactor and eleminates dangers of meltdowns etc. I think what is happening with ITER is amazing, and I can't fault it.

 

[FZ+]

Actually, I'd prefer the nukes to be as messy as possible. The cleaner our opportunities for mass destruction become, the worse off the world is in terms of stability. If I had my say, we would install bombs to automatically launch at the president's exact location the moment we launch the missiles at anybody else. Then we can be sure the folks in charge would be a lot more careful...

 

[damgo]

Yes, cleary we must construct... a Doomsday Machine!

 

[sir-pinski]

mmmmmm ... Doomsday machines . How about a black hole generator? Might not be so quick though (depending on the size of the black hole). A good one would be an airborn version of something like Ebola but of course that would most likely kill us all. Although it's not a doomsday device I like the idea of Tesla's Deathray - we could point it at our leaders instead of the bombs. .

Back on the topic of the thread :) : Personally I think hydro is probably the best bet for electricity generation. It's usually more predicatable than most alternative sources and can generate a lot of power. Of course you have ecological damage with the dams but then almost anything like this will do. I don't think most people consider this issue when they consider alternative sources i.e. the ecological damage. It's a balancing act really I think.

 

[russ_watters]

North America is pretty well hydro'd out. Its a real battle to get even one more small dam built. We could dam up Niagra though...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
mmmmmm ... Doomsday machines . How about a black hole generator? Might not be so quick though (depending on the size of the black hole). A good one would be an airborn version of something like Ebola but of course that would most likely kill us all. Although it's not a doomsday device I like the idea of Tesla's Deathray - we could point it at our leaders instead of the bombs. .

Just a note here: I recently saw a documentary about information uncovered since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It seems that Kruchev [spelling?] wanted to build a doomsday machine - a nuclear bomb the size of the Queen Mary; a ship that is one giant bomb. It would automatically detonate if radiation levels were detected in excess of some limit. Luckily the people around him talked him out of the idea.

Back on the topic of the thread :) : Personally I think hydro is probably the best bet for electricity generation. It's usually more predicatable than most alternative sources and can generate a lot of power. Of course you have ecological damage with the dams but then almost anything like this will do. I don't think most people consider this issue when they consider alternative sources i.e. the ecological damage. It's a balancing act really I think.

I think low head hydro still offers potential...if you'll forgive the pun. I have a seasonal creek of significant size and have investigated this quite a bit. The Banki Cross Flow Turbine is inexpensive and relatively easy to build, and it yields pretty good efficiency even under very low head [the distance the water falls] conditions...as low as four or even three feet; As good as 70% efficient under ideal conditions such as with ten feet of head. It can be constructed out of steel pipes and other common fab materials. Information can be found at Oregon State University in the Civil Engineering documents. If anyone is interested PM me and I will get the document number for you. The northwest is riddled with low head 30 – 100 GPS water sources that it seems are going to waste. It seems to me that if done properly this energy could be tapped. But I can tell you that a lot of practical problems do exist. Getting permits is one of them. I needed no less than 27 permits for my own creek…whoops…if it was year round. It seems that seasonal creeks escape some of the problems. But then of course the pay off is extended and the economic justification becomes more difficult. There is one guy near Eugene Oregon that has his own power plant that uses a Francis Turbine - a serious investment but very efficient for the twenty foot range and high flow. He pulls down about $10,000 a month reselling power during a good winter. I am sure his bad months are also pretty good

EDIT: Also, if anyone gets interested in this, walk lightly. I found that sometimes if no one asks, no one knows "there should be a law". Asking too many questions can create obstacles. Do your own research and know the law yourself. Some people just love to make new laws.

 

[sir-pinski]

Just found out today that Norway generates about 80-90% of it's electricity from Hydro. Have to be fairly impressed with that :)

 

[sheldon]

I am trying to think of better or improved sources. I have been reading all of your ideas and they are great. I would like to add some of my ideas. I believe first of all, we are way too inefficient. We must find better ways to do things! I am not talking about your cell phone or your home refrigerator, I believe we are actually doing well in these areas. I am talking about industrial America. Electric motors, machine friction, transformer loss, Steel production, etc. These places could be more efficient but there are power contracts that lock these places in, so they just pay the bill. The only thing there really worried about is if they go over the kW max limit, then they will get penalized. There is nothing in place for them to be more efficient because their bill is the same every month no matter if they lower their consumption. If this were a different plan then the plants would try and be as efficient as possible.

My theory is this when you purchase electricity for a light bulb for example, you are using it for the light but you get an unwanted byproduct, which is heat of course. You paid for both and are only using one. The heat from that light bulb escapes back into the universe. Now that I have said that, I consider heat as a waste product that should be recycled rather than just allowed too escape. This theory goes across the field of devices and can work to improve our overall power consumption. This is the technology that I believe needs improved upon, http://www.hi-z.com/ there are some great examples of machines that can run more efficient.

But even if we become more efficient we still need to fix our pollution problem. I am still pondering that

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sheldon
These places could be more efficient but there are power contracts that lock these places in, so they just pay the bill. The only thing there really worried about is if they go over the kW max limit, then they will get penalized. There is nothing in place for them to be more efficient because their bill is the same every month no matter if they lower their consumption. If this were a different plan then the plants would try and be as efficient as possible.

That is flat out not true. When your bill is a quarter of a million a month you are VERY energy conscious. And there are no such constant use contracts. The only part of the rate that can be negotiated is the generation charge (in states with deregulation). But that's still a per kWh rate. Electric rates are published on the net. Look one up. ( www.peco.com for example)

My dad makes a living saving companies money on their utility bills and I worked for him during high school and college. Its an interesting business.

 

[sheldon]

I stand corrected, I was told about service contracts at a steel plant I worked at. What exactly does your father do to improve company energy consumption?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sheldon
I stand corrected, I was told about service contracts at a steel plant I worked at. What exactly does your father do to improve company energy consumption?

Not much. He deals almost exclusively with the billing aspect. For example, in the state of Pennsylvania, electricity used in manufacturing is sales tax exempt. If someone at a big plant doesn't know that (or they change their amount of manufacturing) that can equal a ton of money - and a 3 year refund of taxes paid.

Rates is another big issue - there is only one rate for residential users (not including generation choice), but for business, there are usually at least half a dozen plus other options. Most companies don't know the difference and have no idea if they are on the best one for them (do you really think PECO is going to tell you if you can save money on another rate?).

Then there's deregulation - the generation part of your bill can be paid to another company. At first, you could save a LOT of money by buying the power from another company, but not anymore. But if you are a big company, you can still have people bid on the generation rate. And coosing a different supplier is the one thing that residential users can do to lower their rates (in states with deregulation).

Finally, there's billing errors - utility companies make a LOT of errors. I recently had a client (I design HVAC systems, but because of my utility experience I answer questions about utilities too) send me a gas bill that was $17,000 when we had expected their gas heat to cost $3,000 a month. If they had bothered to READ the bill, they would have seen $14,000 of "previous unpaid balance." Oops. I still don't know if it was PECO's mistake or if my client just screwed up, but either way, people just don't bother to look at the bill to find errors - even if they are simple ones.

For energy conservation, one client of my dad's has a dying manufacturing plant in Philly. Empty warehouses that have tens of kW of lights burning (or better yet, the lights are burned out and the ballasts are buring 3x as much as the lights would) [click] $1,000/ month. Or how about a thermostat on an assembly line that has one unit calling for heat, one 20 feet away calling for a/c, one 20 feet from that calling for heat...

Bottom line is my dad makes a lot of money because people don't think about their utility bills - until he convinces them to have him think about their utilities for them.

 

[megashawn]

This is the technology that I believe needs improved upon, http://www.hi-z.com/ there are some great examples of machines that can run more efficient.

That is pretty interesting. I didn't realize thermo tech was availible to the public.

I imagine they work much like a solar panel, as in the more heat = more electricity. Do you know how water resistant these are? Seems you could place them inside of water heaters, reclaim a good bit of juice.

One thing I know about big companys, it seems when they encounter a problem, they just throw money at it until it goes away.

 

[sheldon]

actualy they work on the INDIFFERANCE in temperature rather than the level of temp. If you have a 200 degree indifferance your at an optimal level, that's where you get into thermaldynamics. You need to keep one side cool and the other hot. They use these in deep space exploration with a radioactive source that while decaying produces minimal heat but in deep space it is very cold, hence indifferance in temp. As you know there isn't much light in space to use solorpanels for power. The concept is quit simple, there is no such thing as absolute zero, so there is heat everywhere hence energy everywhere, we just need to tap it and this is one way

 

[sheldon]

oh I am sorry misunderstood, yes they do work like solorpanels in that way. You can add voltage via series and amperage via parrallel I believe.

 

[LURCH]

I think geothemal has great potential, but I'm a bit hazy as to the mechanisms involved. Would it be necessary to punch a hole down to the mantle, then allow heat to come to the surface to make steam and drive turbines, etc? And if so, wouldn't this release as much CO² as just burning coal to make the steam?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LURCH
I think geothemal has great potential, but I'm a bit hazy as to the mechanisms involved. Would it be necessary to punch a hole down to the mantle, then allow heat to come to the surface to make steam and drive turbines, etc? And if so, wouldn't this release as much CO² as just burning coal to make the steam?

Yes, you would have to drill to the mantle if there is no surface source. And since drilling to the mantle is EXTREMELY difficult, its not likely to happen any time soon.

Iceland gets almost all of its electricity from geothermal, but they have lots of naturally occurring sources.

No, turning water into steam does not generate CO2. Steam is just heated water.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, you would have to drill to the mantle if there is no surface source. And since drilling to the mantle is EXTREMELY difficult, its not likely to happen any time soon.

Iceland gets almost all of its electricity from geothermal, but they have lots of naturally occurring sources.

No, turning water into steam does not generate CO2. Steam is just heated water.

LOL no no! I meant, punching a hole straight to the mantle would release CO², just like volcanism. Wouldn't the amount be just about the same as if you had burned coal to get the heat? Is there any way of running the water down the hole, and allowing it to expand and come back up all in an airtight housing that does not allow the escape of any gases (other than the steam, of course)?

 

[sheldon]

I have an idea for an alternative power source, but it is way out there and was wondering what you think of it. I remember reading about Nicola Tesla's earthquake machine, here's a link I looked up http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Tesla.html I am unsure of its accuracy but leads to the point I would like to make. Basicly the Earth is resonating at a specific frequency like a bell here is another link http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jbstoneking/jbspage7.htm
and with his oscillator running at the resonant freq of the Earth would it be possible to load the machine down without causeing it to stop? I believe the power source that drives it, is from the Earth's natural vibration caused via cosmic energy bombarding the Earth all the time. Like I said the idea is out there.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Here's my idea for energy. Apples...

It's a common physical statement that the US could run all it's power for about an hour with the energy is just one apple.

So let's make a machine that turns apples into energy!

 

[sheldon]

Are you making fun of me?

 

[plus]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Here's my idea for energy. Apples...

It's a common physical statement that the US could run all it's power for about an hour with the energy is just one apple.

So let's make a machine that turns apples into energy!

I suppose you could use the hydrogen within the apples to do fusion with..