Can Obama Achieve Oil Independence?

[mgb_phys]

I think everyone now realizes that corn-ethanol is a losing proposition.

Except the farmers that want to continue receiving subsidies and keep food prices high and the politicians from farming states that want to keep the pork flowing.

Natural gas (and LPG) should definitely be reserved for vehicles and direct home heating, the trouble with many eco power schemes is that their unreliability of supply means they need to be backed by quick response gas stations. I don't know if it is going to take a major change such as a market for hydrogen to make wind power economical.

The main aim of the oil Independence goal has to be to change people's thinking. Since the 1950s the philosophy has been that to consume is patriotic - that needs to change to a war on waste mentality.

 

[Astronuc]

The simple concept of making renewable energy cost-competitive with fossil fuel energy has driven eSolar to engineer a paradigm shift in CSP technology, providing a cost-effective and scalable solution. eSolar builds an individual 46 MW power unit on 160 acres (64 hectares) and can scale up to 500 MW or larger capacity with multiple units.
. . . .

The simple concept of making renewable energy cost-competitive with fossil fuel energy has driven eSolar to engineer a paradigm shift in CSP technology, providing a cost-effective and scalable solution. eSolar builds an individual 46 MW power unit on 160 acres (64 hectares) and can scale up to 500 MW or larger capacity with multiple units.

www.esolar.com - this is a company to watch. A former classmate works at eSolar, and they have a plant under construction.

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=62580616.3427395.1716416.8134984.4143444.938&aID2=132023

The California Public Utilities Commission approved the 20-year contract between Rosemead-based Edison and eSolar Inc., a Pasadena-based renewable energy start-up financed by Google.org, Idealab and Oak Investment Partners. The contract calls for Edison to purchase up to 245 megawatts of electricity from solar power plants built by eSolar in the northern Antelope Valley.
. . . .
The first of these solar power plants is set to come online in early 2012.

Then there is Byogy - http://www.byogy.com/

Byogy Renewables, Inc. manufactures high-octane gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels from biomass sources like municipal & farm wastes and dedicated non-food energy crops, and does this at much lower costs than current prices for crude oil.

Byogy uses a new game-changing biofuels technology that has been in development at Texas A&M University since 1992. After securing an exclusive world-wide license to this technology, Byogy is now strategically positioned to accelerate the industrial-scale commercialization of this innovative and integrated closed-loop process.

. . . .

The next step is a solar-powered biomass conversion plant.

 

[phyzmatix]

www.esolar.com - this is a company to watch. A former classmate works at eSolar, and they have a plant under construction.

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=62580616.3427395.1716416.8134984.4143444.938&aID2=132023



Then there is Byogy - http://www.byogy.com/


The next step is a solar-powered biomass conversion plant.

Fascinating! Thank you Astronuc!

 

[phyzmatix]

Query:

The contract calls for Edison to purchase up to 245 megawatts of electricity from solar power plants built by eSolar in the northern Antelope Valley.

Just how much is 245 MW of electricity exactly?

 

[mgb_phys]

1/3 of a typical single reactor, 1/10 of a large coal fired station
An average American uses around 15,000KWHr/year = 1.7KW continually so that's enough for around 150,000 residential customers.

 

[Astronuc]

Most modern NPPs put out about 1100 MWe. Some older plants have been uprated. The modern EPR is scheduled for 1600-1700 MWe.

Many plants have 2 or more reactors, and most sites, even those with one reactor were designed for 2 or more reactors (about 100 reactors were canceled in the late 70's or early 80's) in the US.

It used to the convention that a single 1 GWe plant would serve 1 million customers, but they would not all need power at the same time. Now it's more like 500,000 customers for a 1 GWe plant, or an average of 2 kWe per customer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You may like that idea but a fair number of businesses and or ordinary consumers probably would throw a fit.

No kidding, it would be political suicide to propose a high tax on gasoline (or crude, etc.). But I can think it's a good idea even if it's politically infeasible.

 

[The Dagda]

No kidding, it would be political suicide to propose a high tax on gasoline (or crude, etc.). But I can think it's a good idea even if it's politically infeasible.

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

 

[drankin]

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

I'm curious as well. The UK is taxed heavily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax#United_Kingdom".

 

[mgb_phys]

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

Because to be a real man you have to drive a V8 truck. It's your right as an American to consume resources as fast as you can - thet's what your grandpappy killed all them injuns for ...


Sorry, sorry couldn't resist

 

[The Dagda]

Because to be a real man you have to drive a V8 truck. It's your right as an American to consume resources as fast as you can - thet's what your grandpappy killed all them injuns for ...


Sorry, sorry couldn't resist

O...K.

 

[drankin]

Because to be a real man you have to drive a V8 truck. It's your right as an American to consume resources as fast as you can - thet's what your grandpappy killed all them injuns for ...


Sorry, sorry couldn't resist

I like my V8 truck. It has served me well hauling furniture/equipment/tools, towing, pulling other vehicles out of ditches, pulling trees out of my yard, driving thru deep snow and rugged terrain. I could not do most of those things with anything smaller. I can certainly accomplish more with a 5.3ltr V8 pickup truck.

 

[The Dagda]

I like my V8 truck. It has served me well hauling furniture/equipment/tools, towing, pulling other vehicles out of ditches, pulling trees out of my yard, driving thru deep snow and rugged terrain. I could not do most of those things with anything smaller. I can certainly accomplish more with a 5.3ltr V8 pickup truck.

We have Ford transits over here, they aren't as quick and they are usually diesel but they do a good job of hefting stuff around.

Still your ancestors didn't fight and die to keep the US free of the savage so you could drive a van.

 

[drankin]

We have Ford transits over here, they aren't as quick and they are usually diesel but they do a good job of hefting stuff around.

Still your ancestors didn't fight and die to keep the US free of the savage so you could drive a van.

Nor did they did they fight and die so that I couldn't. Most (not all) of us who own a truck, use it as a truck. I had never really thought about it before but because of all the truck owners in America, we are very self-sufficient. Most people at least have a friend with a truck they can call on when they need to move something heavy, or tow a broke down vehicle from the side of the road, among a meriad of other things that otherwise could not be handled without hiring someone.

 

[mgb_phys]

I like my V8 truck. It has served me well hauling furniture/equipment/tools, towing, pulling other vehicles out of ditches, pulling trees out of my yard, driving thru deep snow and rugged terrain. I could not do most of those things with anything smaller. I can certainly accomplish more with a 5.3ltr V8 pickup truck.

But to you it's a tool, like a hunting rifle or a chainsaw.
You wouldn't buy the same truck to sit in a commute traffic jam in Houston for hours just so that you could think you are a real man - even though you work in invoicing.

 

[mheslep]

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

I'm curious as well. The UK is taxed heavily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax#United_Kingdom".

Because the US is big dam country. We don't all live in small, quaint 1000 year old villages. It requires energy to get around the US. Canada's even worse in energy per capita because it also is a big dam country. A very high tax on gasoline will hurt people who rely on having relatively cheap means to travel to/from work out in the heartland. The gas need not be dirt cheap though, that is why I thought a floor might work.

 

[mgb_phys]

Because the US is big dam country. We don't all live in small, quaint 1000 year old villages.

That's only part of the answer - Europe (considered as a country) is larger, people don't commute from Madrid to Warsaw anymore then they drive from New York to LA regularly.

There is a problem with increasing gas prices now because much of the infrastructure of the last 50years has been based on very cheap fuel costs, and cheap energy in general.
That means cities are spread out with huge suburbs and very little mass transit. Houses and offices have been built with poor insulation standards and low efficiency appliances.

Areas of the country that would be uninhabitable without air condition now have millions of people living in them (Houston uses 4x as much energy/person as New York)

So it's not as simple as just raising gas to European prices and expecting everyone to bicycle - even if sufficient mass transit could be built tomorrow. But there does need to be an attitude change that sees fuel use as undesirable in the same way as littering or pollution.

 

[signerror]

What is interesting about Germany is that they are currently 20% nuclear, but have vowed to get completely off it by 2020. So they have an enormous amount of work to do to make up that 20% in the next 11 years - and no viable way to do it. So assuming they stick to the plan to eliminate their nuclear power, they'll either build more coal plants, build more natural gas plants, or buy the extra power from France's nuclear plants... with a very small fraction of the power being provided by their own renewable sources. The net effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
And that will only get worse.

Indeed, it is coal: 25 gigawatts are already planned.

German Energy Policy At The Crossroads (Der Spiegel)

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,928803,00.jpg

 

[signerror]

Why is this the only way it can be done? What are the shortcomings where wind, solar power and biofuels are involved?

With wind and solar, extreme costs as well as intermittency. With biofuels, no major shortcomings; however the current corn ethanol technology in the US is very energy-intensive and no better than gasoline in CO2 emissions.

 

[The Dagda]

Because the US is big dam country. We don't all live in small, quaint 1000 year old villages. It requires energy to get around the US. Canada's even worse in energy per capita because it also is a big dam country. A very high tax on gasoline will hurt people who rely on having relatively cheap means to travel to/from work out in the heartland. The gas need not be dirt cheap though, that is why I thought a floor might work.

I'm not getting at anyone, it was a genuine question. Of course Russia doesn't have this problem so is that really all?

Giving businesses a tax break on the fuel might be an idea? Whilst slowly increasing the price of oil? Of course atm it's not practical but it might be an idea; no one expects your fuel prices to come into line with Europe though.

That's only part of the answer - Europe (considered as a country) is larger, people don't commute from Madrid to Warsaw anymore then they drive from New York to LA regularly.

There is a problem with increasing gas prices now because much of the infrastructure of the last 50years has been based on very cheap fuel costs, and cheap energy in general.
That means cities are spread out with huge suburbs and very little mass transit. Houses and offices have been built with poor insulation standards and low efficiency appliances.

Areas of the country that would be uninhabitable without air condition now have millions of people living in them (Houston uses 4x as much energy/person as New York)

So it's not as simple as just raising gas to European prices and expecting everyone to bicycle - even if sufficient mass transit could be built tomorrow. But there does need to be an attitude change that sees fuel use as undesirable in the same way as littering or pollution.

I agree with the above.

 

[mheslep]

That's only part of the answer - Europe (considered as a country) is larger, people don't commute from Madrid to Warsaw anymore then they drive from New York to LA regularly.

Some people do commute from NY to LA regularly. Visit Texas sometime. Distance E to W across Texas (El Paso to Beumont) = distance from Chicago, Il to the NE Texas. And the European Union, without Russia, is less than half the size of the US.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? If fuel cost more in the US, maybe the spatial distribution of habitation wouldn't have evolved in a manner that calls for long commutes.

The average commute in the UK is 8.5 miles, while in the US it is 16 miles. However, Europeans seem to be stuck in traffic longer (average commute time in UK = 45 mins, compared to 26 mins in the US), so I wonder what that does to fuel efficiency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=485098&page=1

 

[Astronuc]

Ignoring the concerns about global warming, several US utilities are seriously looking at adding more nuclear power plants.

Reactivating Nuclear Reactors for the Fight against Climate Change
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=reactivating-nuclear-reactors-to-fight-climate-change

At one site, Progress Energy is considering replacing two old coal units with two nuclear units. That's probably Crystal River where units 1 and 2 are coal, and unit 3 is an old B&W nuclear unit.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? If fuel cost more in the US, maybe the spatial distribution of habitation wouldn't have evolved in a manner that calls for long commutes.

Certainly people respond to incentives, and the low price of fuel has encouraged long commutes. But with the modern tendency to change jobs frequently (average stay at a company is probably below 10 years), this could change within a generation if the price structure changed.

I used to commute 12 hours a week. This inefficient strategy was enabled by low gas prices. I was being subsidized, effectively, by the rest of the nation (in terms of political costs of maintaining stability in the Middle East, pollution, and such).

In order to discourage people from wasting resources like that, I'd prefer to see the government levy a high revenue-neutral fuel tax. At the moment, federal gasoline taxes ($0.47 per gallon) amount to roughly $330 per taxpayer.* Tripling the federal gas tax and giving a $650 rebate to each taxpayer would result in roughly the same revenue but raise gas prices at the pump by a dollar. Individuals could decide to use the extra money to help purchase a more fuel-efficient car, to simply buy the gasoline as before, or to switch to a less fuel-intensive form of transportation and pocket the difference.

* Without justification or research I'm using the figure of 200 million taxpayers. The point is to get a ballpark...

 

[phyzmatix]

...And the European Union, without Russia, is less than half the size of the US.

When mentioning the European Union, you automatically exclude Russia

Ignoring the concerns about global warming, several US utilities are seriously looking at adding more nuclear power plants.

Reactivating Nuclear Reactors for the Fight against Climate Change
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=reactivating-nuclear-reactors-to-fight-climate-change

At one site, Progress Energy is considering replacing two old coal units with two nuclear units. That's probably Crystal River where units 1 and 2 are coal, and unit 3 is an old B&W nuclear unit.

Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people? I understand that it's a problem dealing with the waste and that (if my understanding is correct) rivers take a bit of a bashing, but how do they compare with, say, coal plants re environmental impact?

 

[mgb_phys]

Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people?

Nuclear War is bad, nuclear power and nuclear bombs are the same thing - so nuclear power is bad, M'kay...

I understand that it's a problem dealing with the waste

Not if you burn it as MOX fuel.

and that (if my understanding is correct) rivers take a bit of a bashing,

There are regulations about how much heat you can dump into rivers, it's a common reason for shutting down plants in summer. You could build just cooling towers instead.

but how do they compare with, say, coal plants re environmental impact?

I invite you to visit anywhere in Northern England, the Ruhr valley, Eastern Europe and some of the less picturesque bits of the USA. You can see the pretty rustic remains of this natural fuel source - and in every village a couple of monuments to a history of safety.
You could also have visited Norway and Germany's pristeen pine forests - only the acid rain has killed them all.

You could require coal station to emit the same level of radioactivity as a nuclear power station and fit effective flue gas sulfur scrubbers and could recover all the toxic heavy metals - then you would only have to worry about a few billion tons of CO2!

 

[Astronuc]

Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people? I understand that it's a problem dealing with the waste and that (if my understanding is correct) rivers take a bit of a bashing, but how do they compare with, say, coal plants re environmental impact?

I don't really see a big anti-nuclear feeling among people. There are those who apparently fear it, probably because they don't understand the technology, and they have received misinformation from various sources.

Most steam cycle plants release about two-thirds of their thermal energy directly into the environment, because the efficiency of the Rankine cycle is about 33% (some plants may push close to 40%). If they reject heat to a river, the temperature of the water may increase above levels which are appropriate for fish life. Also, fish fry (baby fishes) may be taken into the plants cooling systems.

Coal plants emit heavy metals, e.g. mercury, arsenic, cadmium, . . . . and in some cases uranium daughter products, depending on the source of the coal. The recent collapse of an ash retention pond at TVA's Kingston coal plant damage nearby properties and apparently increased the concentration of heavy metals in nearby streams.

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel address part of the problem, that of recycling the transactinides, and reusing them, particular isotopes of Pu. Isotopes of Cm and Am are somewhat problematic since their radioactivity means the fuel must be fabricated and inspected remotely. A thorium based cycle addresses the issue of transuranics. Still their is the matter of fission products, but these can be handled through vitrification and solidification in a glass matrix, which can then be buried in a repository.


However, wherever and whenever possible, we should make use of solar power since it's there (during the day) whether we use it for productive purposes or not.

 

[turbo]

I was quite unhappy when Maine Yankee was decommissioned instead of being refurbished. Lately, there have been tentatives moves to study the conversion of the plant to coal-fired generation. That's just stupid! Coal power in Maine? Let's get back to compact, easily-transported fuel. We are not ideally-situated for solar power, and solar cells don't work all that well when they are covered with snow, so our best bet is wind-power and nuclear. All parts of the country have their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to non-fossil-fuel power, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[mheslep]

It's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? If fuel cost more in the US, maybe the spatial distribution of habitation wouldn't have evolved in a manner that calls for long commutes.

The average commute in the UK is 8.5 miles, while in the US it is 16 miles. However, Europeans seem to be stuck in traffic longer (average commute time in UK = 45 mins, compared to 26 mins in the US), so I wonder what that does to fuel efficiency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=485098&page=1

I'd say the US spatial distribution was broadly ~set during the 19th century well before the car. Then prior to WW2 we had mass migration towards the cities, and after WW2 some reversal again w/ the creation of the suburbs. Its only in the last part where petroleum costs came into play.

 

[mheslep]

..., it's a common reason for shutting down plants in summer.

In Europe maybe? Not in the US.

 

[mheslep]

I don't really see a big anti-nuclear feeling among people. There are those who apparently fear it, probably because they don't understand the technology, and they have received misinformation from various sources.

...

...

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel address part of the problem, that of recycling the transactinides, and reusing them, particular isotopes of Pu. Isotopes of Cm and Am are somewhat problematic since their radioactivity means the fuel must be fabricated and inspected remotely. A thorium based cycle addresses the issue of transuranics. Still their is the matter of fission products, but these can be handled through vitrification and solidification in a glass matrix, which can then be buried in a repository.However, wherever and whenever possible, we should make use of solar power since it's there (during the day) whether we use it for productive purposes or not.

Proliferation?

 

[mheslep]

I was quite unhappy when Maine Yankee was decommissioned instead of being refurbished. Lately, there have been tentatives moves to study the conversion of the plant to coal-fired generation. That's just stupid! Coal power in Maine? ...

Amen

 

[mheslep]

...Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people?

"I would say you're lucky to be alive, and the same for the rest of Southern California"

My goal: be the guy that says "we have to get out of here" in one of these movies.

 

[phyzmatix]

I'd like to comment on the information I've received (thanks plenty to everyone) but I don't have the necessary knowledge for educated input, so I'll ask yet another question:

What do you think the chances are that ITER will prove successful?

 

[Astronuc]

I was quite unhappy when Maine Yankee was decommissioned instead of being refurbished. Lately, there have been tentatives moves to study the conversion of the plant to coal-fired generation. That's just stupid! Coal power in Maine? Let's get back to compact, easily-transported fuel. We are not ideally-situated for solar power, and solar cells don't work all that well when they are covered with snow, so our best bet is wind-power and nuclear. All parts of the country have their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to non-fossil-fuel power, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Clearly energy supplies must fit according to geography. Hydro is natural for mountainous areas and some northern climes with high precipitation. However, that must be tailored to address the spawning areas of fish like salmon. I recently watched a program about the Snake/Columbia River system and the efforts to restore the salmon. It seems to be working, but it's not only the dams that are a problem, it's the land use, particularly agriculture that threaten the natural fisheries.

What do you think the chances are that ITER will prove successful?

Hard to say.

Proliferation?

I'd like those who use 'proliferation' as a criticism against nuclear energy to give me a plausible or credible scenario of how proliferation would happen. AFAIK, no organization in the US, EU or Asia is going to divert Pu from spent fuel to make nuclear weapons, and certainly they are not going to provide spent fuel or separated Pu to any group that might want to use it to harm some population.

Going from spent fuel to metallurgical Pu is not a trivial process. Even removing spent fuel from a reactor site is not trivial.