YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[brerabbit]

Somewhat unfortunately this is highly unlikely. By 2017 construction of ITER http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond. Also ITER is only a step towards commercial fusion, it's meant to be followed up by DEMO that hasn't even started its design phase yet.

Sadly commercial fusion is still years away.

thanx, Ryan

I absolutely agree. ...but that is the problem. Nobody has a sense of urgency! Pres Kennedy set us us on a impossible goal to go to the moon and return on the Soviet Union urgency of Sputnik. Now the urgency is mired down but is known that we are running out of fossil fuel and the other options are filthy. We need to kick the Universities and Government sponsored 75% of their research dollars are to be spent on Fusion until the goals are met.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

thanx, Ryan

I absolutely agree. ...but that is the problem. Nobody has a sense of urgency! Pres Kennedy set us us on a impossible goal to go to the moon and return on the Soviet Union urgency of Sputnik. Now the urgency is mired down but is known that we are running out of fossil fuel and the other options are filthy. We need to kick the Universities and Government sponsored 75% of their research dollars are to be spent on Fusion until the goals are met.

75% is a bit excessive, for all we know all that would achieve is for us to find out slightly faster that there are more obstacles that we haven't taken into account and that we are further away from fusion than we thought. Personally if we in the developed world were going to spend massive amounts of money on energy we would be better off investing in things we know that work like the latest generation of nuclear reactors, biofuel, renewables and energy reduction methods like passive housing.

 

[Topher925]

thanx, Ryan

I absolutely agree. ...but that is the problem. Nobody has a sense of urgency! Pres Kennedy set us us on a impossible goal to go to the moon and return on the Soviet Union urgency of Sputnik. Now the urgency is mired down but is known that we are running out of fossil fuel and the other options are filthy. We need to kick the Universities and Government sponsored 75% of their research dollars are to be spent on Fusion until the goals are met.

The space race was largely fueled by fear, not ambition. That element of fear and communism isn't part of today's energy crisis. Everyone knew that the US was in an undeclared war of science with the USSR and that the development of nuclear arms and other advanced technological weapons would decide the victor. But with the energy crisis, people only care about how much cash they have to give to the Saudi's for their oil, not if they will get nuked by them. The majority of the population doesn't even think climate change is real. There's just not enough motivation form the general populous to pursue fusion at the same scale of the Apollo missions. But that's not to say that their shouldn't be.

If there was some sort of large catastrophic event, perhaps natural disasters, that could be directly tied to climate change or the energy crisis then you would probably see the government and the public show a serious interest in the situation. But we've already had massive oil spills and the warmest and coldest winter on record (depending on where you live) and all that came out of it is just some people complaining.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There's just not enough motivation form the general populous to pursue fusion at the same scale of the Apollo missions. But that's not to say that their shouldn't be.

Applying this to energy in general the majority of people probably do not even realize that there is an energy crisis to avoid. They may hear that we've only got X years of fossil fuels left but what they hear from the media is contradictory regarding how long left and what the alternatives are (witness the strong anti-nuclear sentiments that most western countries have).

What might change this is rising fuel costs. In the UK energy costs became a rather important political issue over the winter with several scandalous reports about the increase upon increase that consumers are receiving. A lot of the argument so far has surrounded the profit margins of the energy companies however it could be that as this trend continues eventually people put less energy into arguing about profit margins and face the inevitable issue of increasingly scarce and hard-to-reach fuels. Eventually the economic impact of this on the public may galvanise political opinion.

Regarding public opinion and politics in general on big issues I always feel that it's one of slow/no change followed by massive/quick change once critical mass of "something-must-be-done" is reached. Not enough people care and care not enough about tackling present and future energy demands for it to be a big political issue. That will change but unfortunately probably long after something could have been done to avoid hardship.

 

[mheslep]

Yes I think the UK is the country farthest out on point and will be the one to watch as a predictor of how to proceed. North Sea oil and gas has declined substantially. The UK was self sufficient in gas a few years ago and now imports 40%. UK energy imports tripled in a 5-6 year period.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes I think the UK is the country farthest out on point and will be the one to watch as a predictor of how to proceed. North Sea oil and gas has declined substantially. The UK was self sufficient in gas a few years ago and now imports 40%. UK energy imports tripled in a 5-6 year period.

Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas. We've got a whole lot of coal left that we never finished mining (because it couldn't economically compete) that we could use in the meantime, we've got new nuclear reactors on the way (albeit delayed) and there's been significant investment in other technologies like fracking and renewables but we need to press far more.

 

[brerabbit]

Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas. We've got a whole lot of coal left that we never finished mining (because it couldn't economically compete) that we could use in the meantime, we've got new nuclear reactors on the way (albeit delayed) and there's been significant investment in other technologies like fracking and renewables but we need to press far more.

Ryan:

Let there be no doubt that a few generations away, humans will consume all the energy resources we have. It will face us at a time if we are ready or not. If we are ready we survive. If not, those who have planned to do without will survive. As said above, we suffer because we need a catostrophe as the first responder to set in motion a staggering effort and catastrophe is a very poor red flag.

IMHO, Nothing but clean Fusion is on the horizon to replace Neuclear, coal and oil. So we can start aggressively now or pay much, much, more later.

 

[mheslep]

Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas.

Yes I'll be curious to see which technical moves UK transportation makes.

We've got a whole lot of coal left that we never finished mining (because it couldn't economically compete) that we could use in the meantime,...

Exactly. UK's coal mining era boom and bust is often used to illustrate peak energy arguments in an attempt to show the resource is depleted which is nonsense in this case. UK coal has been economically unavailable (for the moment), not geologically.

The UK also seems to have some of the best offshore wind resource in the world, which should eventually help if the cost can be driven down.

 

[cmb]

Yes I think the UK is the country farthest out on point and will be the one to watch as a predictor of how to proceed. North Sea oil and gas has declined substantially. The UK was self sufficient in gas a few years ago and now imports 40%. UK energy imports tripled in a 5-6 year period.

Yup. Depressing really but hopefully will soon force large commitment to weaning ourselves off of oil and gas.

On the contrary, I'm really please we're winding off production, but would feel much better if we turned it right down to 'idle' - there is still oil and gas out there and we bloomin' well should stop pulling it out the ground whilst other countries are still selling their oil! We need to keep our own oil for ourselves for when the real bad times come to hit the global economy, and I'm talking about commodities getting so expensive they are effectively barred from export to us by other countries.

If it was my country to control, I'd turn all production down to minimum to keep the engineering infrastructure of those production sites ticking over (even if that is an expense to the country) and buy oil from others while they are still selling. The black stuff will be worth an absolute fortune in the future, and right now we're selling it cheap when we could, instead, be buying it cheap. It's worse that Brown selling off the nation's gold - I mean, we'll really need this oil in the future!

 

[Q_Goest]

If you have an idea (and resources) for a "transformational energy technology" you can apply for a grant through ARPA-E (US Department of Energy).
Deadlines:
Letter of Intent: March 30, 5:00 ET
Concept Papers: April 12 5:00 ET
Full Applications: TBD
Grant: $250M - $1MM
Recipient expected to cost share 20% minimum.
More information on the web at: http://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/media/news/tabid/83/vw/1/itemid/49/Default.aspx

 

[Pkruse]

This note will start out summing up a negative situation, and then will then show reason for hope toward solving this mess and even growing to greater heights.

I’ve been a strong advocate of finding alternant energy sources since the early 1970’s. From time to time, I’ve had the privilege being a part of that effort. But time and again I keep running into two indisputable facts:

> For the time being, nothing will be as cheap as fossil fuel and nuclear.
>Science, engineering, and a deep love for Mother Earth aside, most people will always go with whatever is cheaper.

The following things further complicate the matter:


> While alternant sources have become less expensive, they will not be ready to compete with conventional sources for a very long time.
>Every time we think we are getting short of fossil fuel, someone discovers another huge and vast supply of it.
>The developing countries will continue to demand a larger share of the global energy market as they rapidly make up lost ground in economic development with the United States.
>Everyone’s energy demand will continue to increase.
>Recently and at various times in the past our government has made huge volumes of money available for research into energy solutions. It has never done much real good such that we can see evidence of it in our current energy market place.
>No rational person can argue that this world is not getting warmer. It is not profitable to argue as to if that is a good thing or not. (It can and has been in the past argued that throughout history periods of warming have always brought a higher level of peace, health, and prosperity for the humans; whereas we tend to see wars, famine, and plagues during periods of cooling.) It is also not profitable to argue the reason, whether the warming is caused by human or natural means. It is only important to accept that we are getting warmer and develop means of dealing with it rationally, while at the same time perhaps slowing it down a bit if we can.

I will always strongly support the spending of large amounts of research money. That is never a bad thing. Even if the original intention turns into nothing useful, research always improves our collective knowledge base and inspires new and creative ideas. That is how we evolve as a human race and culture. But to solve this problem quickly, we need much more than that.

Most of the companies who are best able to use this recent supply of green research money profitably have not touched it. Those who have taken it have done nothing to apply it to real solutions. For the most part, they spent it on making big things small, only using public domain knowledge—being very careful not to use public funds to develop any new technology that might solve anything. The reason is that anyone using public funds must turn what they develop over to the public domain. To the academic this is so routine and fair that they don’t even give it a thought, because it is deeply imbedded in their subconscious as being fair, just, and right. But to the business community it is the most evil and wicked thing possible as they seek the holy grail of energy, the solution that will solve everything and enable them to make Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Apple look like tiny mom & pop operations. Business guards their intellectual property with the highest degree of zeal. They are also very good at obtaining private funding for any idea that might be profitable.

In other words, we have all the resources in the business community to solve the energy problem; but the only way to make it happen is to make it profitable. That is exactly what is happening right now, but for the most part in the highest secrecy as they continue to guard their intellectual property.

But we can gain insight as to what they are doing from the rare media report that is actually useful, or from their business advertisements or marketing reports, or by noticing what skills they are hiring. They cannot be 100% secret when they are looking for investors or potential customers.

Here is what I see happing on a huge scale right now. The combined effect can very likely make this whole energy crisis a thing of the past:

 Carbon sequestration. Many companies and research organizations are collectively spending billions on research. A combination of the huge investment with in many cases a high degree of secrecy makes it likely that they see real solutions in sight. One very large and long established company is already looking for customers for a CO2 pump that will make it cheaper and easier than anyone else has dreamed possible. This can turn a fossil fuel plant into a zero emissions plant. How would that change the Big Picture?
 Companies that design nuclear power plants have made it clear for some time now that they now understand how to design a plant that has zero probability of a meltdown or any other serious accident. All safety controls are completely passive and depend on simple physics to be completely safe. They are now advertising that they have new designs on the books and are ready to build. All new power plants will incorporate this new technology. How will that change the picture? One of the commodities they need to build these plants is derived as a byproduct of natural gas production, and we now have plenty of that.
 We are worried about extremely long term storage of spent nuclear fuel. Yet it has always been possible to cheaply recycle it so that we have almost no waste at all. The road block is not technical. It has been done in the past. The current road block is political since Jimmy Carter signed legislation making the recycling of nuclear fuel illegal.
 The reason we selected our current common design of a nuclear plant is because our original objective was to obtain bomb grade Plutonium from them. It turns out that is one of the byproducts of recycling the fuel, which is the reason it is currently illegal. But one huge company that has always been a major player in nuclear power is currently looking for customers for a new process that will continue to extract usable energy from spent fuel for another 35 years. Once they are done with it, it will be relatively safe with no need to store it for hundreds of thousands of years. We currently have enough spent fuel in storage to supply power at the current world consumption rate for 1800 years--if that was our only source of power. None of our barriers to doing this are technical. They are all political.

So we have the ability in the near future to burn as much fossil fuel as we want with zero emissions, to build new nuclear plants that are 100% safe, and to eliminate our problem with spent nuclear fuel.

What else do we need to solve this problem?

What we need is the political will to do it. We lack nothing from the technical perspective.

Note: I have purposely not mentioned the names of any companies. I’ve not said anything that cannot be quickly found with Google searches. The reason is that the company I work for forbids me from mentioning the names of any of our current or potential customers or suppliers. You see, we also zealously guard our intellectual property.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Everyone’s energy demand will continue to increase.

I agree with almost all that you have said but this point I don't think has to be true. Not because people in the future are going to do less but because there are many ways we could increase energy efficiency so that it might be possible for future generations to do with <X joules what we do with >>X. I'm short on time but there are two main points I want to bring into this;

1) Town planning. A few years ago the human race reached a milestone, for the first time over 50% of us live in cities. This is important and a healthy trend in terms of efficiency. Having high population densities grants benefits of economies of scale. In terms of energy use there are many obvious potential reasons for less energy to be used by an individual for example: not having to travel as far for goods/services/work and mass public transport. An interesting thing to note is how this changes shopping behaviour, rather than a weekly drive to a superstore to stock up a whole car people can walk to one of the many local shops every other day and get one or two bags. In one area where I used to live within a 1 mile radius there were three main chain express stores (like this), dozens of independent stores and if that radius was increased another mile two superstores were added.

2) Eco-architecture. Buildings with energy efficient systems, insulation, triple/quadruple glazing etc can consume far less energy. Personally I would be in favour of regulations saying that all new building projects after a reasonable time (say 5 years) must be built to low energy/passive house. Combine this with incentives like subsidies for retrofitting eco-friendly fittings into older buildings and incorporation of more renewables into building design (solar panels, vegetation for insulation and carbon sink etc) and we could move towards a more energy efficient infrastructure without having to radically develop new technology.

These are just two quick points but I hope they highlight that we don't have to just focus on new energy initiatives and technologies when we're looking to solve an energy crisis.

 

[Pkruse]

Of course you are right. I see so many ways that we could be more efficient, and we will be so in the future. But that has been the general trend over the last several decades. Everything is more efficient than it used to be, yet we are using a whole lot more energy. The reason being that we find more ways of using it.

But I do hope that your prophecy turns out to be more accurate than mine.

 

[mheslep]

Of course you are right. I see so many ways that we could be more efficient, and we will be so in the future. But that has been the general trend over the last several decades. Everything is more efficient than it used to be, yet we are using a whole lot more energy.

In the developing world, yes energy use per person continues to increase as does population. However, in the developed world energy use per person has been declining for decades, and in much of the developed world where population is flat or decreasing even absolute energy use is similarly flat or decreasing.

One fairly straightforward conclusion to draw might be that energy growth follows not an exponential but some kind of logistic function, like most other things in human existence. That is, one washing machine, microwave, and fridge (or so) is enough; nobody want's a hundred washing machines just because there is sufficient energy to run them for the moment.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Of course you are right. I see so many ways that we could be more efficient, and we will be so in the future. But that has been the general trend over the last several decades. Everything is more efficient than it used to be, yet we are using a whole lot more energy. The reason being that we find more ways of using it.

I think mheslep hit the nail on the head with this one, whilst there are more things we could use energy on we run into something similar to a decrease in marginal utility. Once my lights, heating, TVs, computers, domestic appliances etc are all powered there's little I need more for.

But I do hope that your prophecy turns out to be more accurate than mine.

I would hope so but it's fare more hope than prediction. We are approaching an energy crisis across the world, we've spent the last century on a sugar high from cheap and easy fossil fuel energy but as we approach peak oil we really will have to contend with energy being harder to get. I hope that will lead to a better focus on energy efficiency more than new methods of harvesting energy.

 

[martix]

This may sound overly simplistic, but that doesn't mean it's any less right:

Stop moving 2 tons of steel just to get 150 pounds of flesh from here to there.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This may sound overly simplistic, but that doesn't mean it's any less right:

Stop moving 2 tons of steel just to get 150 pounds of flesh from here to there.

I'm going to take a wild guess that the Atlantic is to the east of you...

Otherwise I agree.

 

[Topher925]

I'm going to take a wild guess that the Atlantic is to the east of you...

Otherwise I agree.

I don't think it is. If the Atlantic was east of him then it would be 250+ pounds of flesh, 1 ton of guns and ammo in the trunk, and 2 tons of metal.

 

[Thetes]

http://larouchepac.com/node/22355 (NAWAPA) originally proposed in 1964.

"Every Member of Congress, everyone in the executive branch from the President on, in the field of national resources, has to plan during their period of administration or office for the next generation, because no project that we plan today will be beneficial to us. Anything we begin today, is for those who come after us. And just as those who began something years ago make it possible for us to be here, I hope we'll fulfill our responsibility to the next generation that's going to follow us." - JFK 1962​

Modeled after the successful TVA program under Franklin Roosevelt. In line with Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace and nuclear power start-ups. This project seeks to create a continental system of water regulation that can redistribute wasted runoff waters of northern Canada and Alaska to make the Great American Desert Bloom. Employment for this project would total some 4 million jobs extending over 30 years.

Components:

• 39 tunels
• 8 pumping stations
• 28 power stations that generate 80 gigawatts
• 12 canals over 4500 miles
• 46 locks
• 95 dams

This project cannot begin without a return to prudent banking as under the guidance of our founding fathers, notably Alexander Hamilton and his Bank of the United States. Followed by John Quincy Adams' U.S. railroad construction projects, which included over 60 rail lines designed by army engineers. Continuing on through Abraham Lincoln creation of greenbacks. Then Franklin Roosevelt issued credit funds to initiate the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). Public Credit is an essential component of any development project. This project will require many new innovations and technologies.

 

[martix]

I don't think it is. If the Atlantic was east of him then it would be 250+ pounds of flesh, 1 ton of guns and ammo in the trunk, and 2 tons of metal.

You do make a point there

 

[Topher925]

I recently attended a conference this week that was focused on hydrogen energy technology. I've been to many before but this one had a rather large attendance of representatives from just about all major automotive manufacturers. They even let us drive their fuel cell vehicles.

While talking to a lot of the reps and head honchos they all made the statement that fuel cell technology is ready for deployment now. The cost of FCHV's is now about at the same cost of conventional ICE HEV's and the only thing holding up the technology is infrastructure. They all also made the point about how the US is going in the opposite direction as far as alt fuel technology goes (biomass, batteries) and that initial deployment (2014-2015) will mostly be in Germany, Japan, and Australia with only a small share of vehicles in Hawaii and California.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I recently attended a conference this week that was focused on hydrogen energy technology. I've been to many before but this one had a rather large attendance of representatives from just about all major automotive manufacturers. They even let us drive their fuel cell vehicles.

While talking to a lot of the reps and head honchos they all made the statement that fuel cell technology is ready for deployment now. The cost of FCHV's is now about at the same cost of conventional ICE HEV's and the only thing holding up the technology is infrastructure. They all also made the point about how the US is going in the opposite direction as far as alt fuel technology goes (biomass, batteries) and that initial deployment (2014-2015) will mostly be in Germany, Japan, and Australia with only a small share of vehicles in Hawaii and California.

Very interesting. I'm aware of small scale deployment of fuel cell vehicles in europe such as a http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/8444.aspx but didn't realize the readiness of the technology.

AFAIK however the infrastructure problem is a big one and with my untrained eye it would seem that electric and non-fossil fuel oil vehicles have a huge advantage even with their current lack of technological readiness. One wonders if by the time politcal and financial commitment really gets the ball rolling for hydrogen infrastructure if electric vehicles especially would be at a state where they can easily compete and start flooding the market.

Nethertheless I'm not one for technoptimism (especially when it comes to important matters) so this is definitely something that should be looked into. If in twenty years time we look back and think that it was a waste of money I would still say we were right to act.

 

[russ_watters]

You got to be careful talking to vendors about the readiness of non-existent/prototype level products. Their idea of "ready" and ours may be vastly different. Ie, what does "about the same mean"? 5% more expensive? 20% more expensive? And more than what; what is a "conventional ICE HEV"? A Prius or a Volt? Their "about the same..." could mean paying $40,000 for a $25,000 family sedan. Still, that would be closer to prime time than I expected.

The one fundamental technical issue I doubt has been addressed is range. Full electrics, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have very small niches because of the range issue. Natural gas may be able to get around that by filling-up at home, but otherwise, people are not going to be excited about going to a "gas" station every other day 200 miles worth of hydrogen.

Due to its local availability (not just at home; I mean pumping it out of the ground in Pennsylvania instead of Qatar), low cost, and compatibility with hydrogen fuel cell systems (often), natural gas has huge potential to be a transitional portable energy medium for the next 50 years (you could even use the same pipes to pump hydrogen into our homes after the CH4 dries up). Since I'm not sold on hydrogen anyway, I'd be fine with that -- but others might see it as a delay in progress.

But as always, my primary objection to hydrogen is the coal we would burn to produce it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The one fundamental technical issue I doubt has been addressed is range. Full electrics, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have very small niches because of the range issue.

Indeed. Affordable (or at least competitive) hybrids mitigate this problem somewhat but range is a big problem, though more so in some countries than others. IIRC the average American travels many times further by car every year than a European owing to lower pop. density and less urbanisation. This could mean that car manufactures on either side of the Atlantic diverge further in their approaches.

 

[Topher925]

Very interesting. I'm aware of small scale deployment of fuel cell vehicles in europe such as a http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/8444.aspx but didn't realize the readiness of the technology.

I think the advancements of this technology has been relatively quiet over the past few years as there has been a very large focus on battery electric vehicles and the use of biofuels which obscures attention. But its important to remember that fuel cell vehicles have been in the hands of actual customers since 2005. Just about all major automotive manufacturers have fuel cell vehicles on the road right now that you can lease.

You got to be careful talking to vendors about the readiness of non-existent/prototype level products. Their idea of "ready" and ours may be vastly different. Ie, what does "about the same mean"? 5% more expensive? 20% more expensive? And more than what; what is a "conventional ICE HEV"? A Prius or a Volt? Their "about the same..." could mean paying $40,000 for a $25,000 family sedan. Still, that would be closer to prime time than I expected.

True, but these aren't small cap technological companies we're talking about here. They're the worlds largest auto manufacturers, Daimler, Toyota, Ford, GM, etc. And as for expensive the numbers were typically around 25%-40% more expensive for initial launch in 2015. For example the Toyota Hylander FCEV was estimated to be around $50K (but its been scrapped for a new platform). The B-Class IIRC is expected around $35K. So we are talking Volt expensive, not Prius. This would obviously change with volume.

The one fundamental technical issue I doubt has been addressed is range. Full electrics, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have very small niches because of the range issue. Natural gas may be able to get around that by filling-up at home, but otherwise, people are not going to be excited about going to a "gas" station every other day 200 miles worth of hydrogen.

Range has been addressed and isn't seen as a problem. The FCEV Hylander I drove on Tuesday had a range of 430 miles. The Tuscan I drove I think had a range of about 300mi and the Clarity has 280mi. Good enough for me but maybe not the typical consumer. I don't think reforming at home will be an option as CH4 reformers are rather elaborate and expensive.

Due to its local availability (not just at home; I mean pumping it out of the ground in Pennsylvania instead of Qatar), low cost, and compatibility with hydrogen fuel cell systems (often), natural gas has huge potential to be a transitional portable energy medium for the next 50 years (you could even use the same pipes to pump hydrogen into our homes after the CH4 dries up). Since I'm not sold on hydrogen anyway, I'd be fine with that -- but others might see it as a delay in progress.

Natural gas is most certainly part of the energy road map for the next decade at least. 95% of the hydrogen produced today comes from natural gas. CH4 to H2 doesn't provide a 0% carbon energy economy, when the hydrogen is put in fuel cells it does provide an estimated ~50% reduction in CO2 emissions when compared to gasoline vehicles.

But as always, my primary objection to hydrogen is the coal we would burn to produce it.

We don't need to burn any coal to produce it, we can supply enough hydrogen for the next 50 years from natural gas. While this isn't the best plan, its certainly better than the status quo.

 

[mheslep]

I recently attended a conference this week that was focused on hydrogen energy technology. I've been to many before but this one had a rather large attendance of representatives from just about all major automotive manufacturers. They even let us drive their fuel cell vehicles.

While talking to a lot of the reps and head honchos they all made the statement that fuel cell technology is ready for deployment now. The cost of FCHV's is now about at the same cost of conventional ICE HEV's ...

Using liquefied H2, compressed H2, or methane? Is there a consensus?

 

[mheslep]

Range has been addressed and isn't seen as a problem. The FCEV Hylander I drove on Tuesday had a range of 430 miles...

The Hylander apparently uses a high pressure 10,000 PSI tank (expensive). Even so, how much of the interior does a 430 mile tank displace? Is the idea to have an infrastructure of 10K PSI compressors and tanks at fill-up stations, supplied by a huge fleet of the standard 3,000 PSI gas tanks?

 

[Topher925]

Using liquefied H2, compressed H2, or methane? Is there a consensus?

All vehicles use 5Kpsi or 10Kpsi compressed H2 tanks. Liquid H2 is considered old technology and methane doesn't make economic sense.

The Hylander apparently uses a high pressure 10,000 PSI tank (expensive). Even so, how much of the interior does a 430 mile tank displace? Is the idea to have an infrastructure of 10K PSI compressors and tanks at fill-up stations, supplied by a huge fleet of the standard 3,000 PSI gas tanks?

One neat thing I noticed about all of the FCHV's is that if they made noise and didn't have water dripping out the exhaust pipe I don't think you could tell them apart from their ICE counterparts with the exception of the Honda Clarity. The Hylander, Tuscan, B-class, Equinox, all looked like normal vehicles inside and out with no (apparent) sacrifice to interior space. The Honda Clarity did have a small trunk due to the size of the H2 tank. I wouldn't say the trunk was terribly small but you could probably only fit two, maybe three, bags of golf clubs in the back.

 

[mheslep]

methane doesn't make economic sense.

You mean for fuel cell vehicles, or combustion vehicles it doesn't make economic sense. Clearly methane is cheaper than H2 per million BTU, and easier to transport - either compressed of liquefied.

 

[mheslep]

All vehicles use 5Kpsi or 10Kpsi compressed H2 tanks.

I also was considering the existing truck based transportation system (i.e. by Air Gas), such as it is. That's overwhelmingly run at 3K PSI. Then the only way to refill would be to find an installation with a 10K PSI compressor system.

 

[Watchman2012]

GRID & WIND:
===========
First I'd like to address the MYTH that the electrical grid is old and aging.
Power delivery companies spend fortunes improving the grid to insure that when you flick a switch the power is there. It's in their propaganda that they send with each bill ;)
The real issue is the wind turbines etc throw great spikes onto the grid and require capacitors to smooth the power out, otherwise it's a nightmare for the grid manager, they need smooth power and only smooth. Otherwise grid Equipment and end user electronics would fry.

That Said, this is spun this way to get the ratepayer to pay for the experiments in wind power.
IF the states were to require that the wind power investors pay for the improvements required to connect, we would instantly see that wind is not cost effective and not a viable alternative. it is barely cost effective WITH this large piece of the cost moved to the other side of the balance sheet.

On an individual scale, it works for homeowners somewhat, but as a grid source not so much.
I can guarantee that in 20 years the next hit on ratepayers will either be expensive repairs
on great fields of these turbines or expensive demolition.

it's a noble idea, but it is NOT working the way the current business and subsidy's for it are set up, it is only serving the shareholders and not the ratepayers. ANY way you look at it.
in a word a boondoggle.

OIL:
========
For the near future, it's drill baby drill. Regardless of your politics, there is no other available fuel that pound for pound compacts the huge amount of energy that is in petroleum oil. Technologies exist to extract and burn it with the least impact, and should be employed. What drives the price is multi-fold:

1) the manipulation of currency value by central banks,
currency value goes down=prices of gold, oil, other commodities go up. period.

2) politicization of environmental conservation along with rigid absolutes.

3) federal and state taxes

4) refinement facilities see #2

5) transportation to markets

6) R&D in new technology and sources of raw crude in the mantel.

Electric Transportation:
==================
While possible super-"clean" (if you discount MFG process and materials)
it is severely limited in scope & range.
There simply is NOT a battery that can perform with reasonable costs to
maximize the distances and load weights we transport. IE: you cannot change the laws of thermodynamics. To be sure battery technology can improve, and greater distances can be achieved, however it will never compete with the cost effectiveness of Oil-fuels.
Repeat NEVER.
The ONLY possibility is mass transit, as we know many subway and trolley's were electrically powered, this can be improved and makes sense in certain applications, however it will take a great change in behavior for people to give up individual modes of private transportation.
I do not want to be part of a world that politically FORCES that behavior change.
Make it cool, and desireable & affordable, and they will come...

The golf-cart culture in florida retirement communities works.
it is location specific. and no small amount of batteries used there.
The batteries can be recycled so the impact can be reduced.
so yes, small electric vehicles CAN be viable in specific locations.
I don't foresee people commuting long distances in Texas or from Los Vegas to LA anytime soon in a golf cart.

Currently, a viable transportation fuel that is much cleaner is Natural gas or propane.
these vehicles have existed for a long time, retrofit is relatively easy, and the fuel abundant.
More use should be encouraged and mass transit moved over to it where viable.

Private rail, should be encouraged, if not subsidized. almost no mode of shipping can actually compete with the extreme tonnage a railroad can move. Distribution centers along the rail can easily move goods to their final destinations.

I don't see hydrogen being a viable fuel either, while it may be cheap & abundant and would make great sense, there will always be some wako willing to spark it, and thus make everyone else a vulnerable target. Remember the Hindenburg !

NUCLEAR FISSION:
================
Considering Fukashima, I have changed my mind on fission.
Hands down it is THE biggest bang for our buck in electrical production.
however, considering natural disaster and the possibility of EMP terrorism, the resulting
catastrophes of fission products released into the environment and the eventual core meltdown releasing even more toxic products. It makes as much sense as having a huge store of hydrogen next to your home. With Ceasium-137 having a half life of 70+ years
and Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, it leaves little room for us.

Given the threat of an EMP knocking out the grid and ALL electronic & electrical devices
along with the eastern states each having one active or retired facility.
The east coast all the way to the Mississippi river would be in danger of meltdown if the coolant pools had no circulating pumps. to use an over used word the disaster would be epic.

Frankly, the current facilities should ALL be Military grade EMP hardened ASAP.
if they could assure me of that I may change my mind. However it does not change the resulting Nuclear waste and it's millions of years half lives... so Nuke power is NOT the long term solution either.

Summary & conclusion:
===================

In all we have a mixed bag of energy resources with various real impacts on our health and well being, our daily routines and our freedoms of choice. All have pro's and con's and all have specific applications where they shine.

Energy is political, it is a tool for manipulation, and it is a point of contention between countries and peoples.

TO some degree individuals may find some sort of energy independence with expensive technologies, with varying results and no small degree of sacrificing the ease of collective energy abundance(at a cost) Independence is often abstinence from use, something people theorizing never experience for themselves. Off-grid living is often limiting your use and extreme awareness of consumption, something we may all be forced to do via politics, taxes and supply/demand costs along with debasing of currency.

I see no viable alternatives as a macro scale technology.
I do see limiting the politics and taxes on necessary energy.

ONE potential does exist though and that is FUSION.
The exotic plasmas are fragile and "break" and containment and prolonged reactions are necessary. As are new materials to support containment and chambers for the reaction.
The employment of magnetic fields and geometry's of the containment space needs more research, as do all other aspects.

What I envision is a National Quest for fusion much like the Man on the moon mission.
R&D funding, New materials research funding. magnetic field research, containment research, elemental plasma(s) development. Whole new fields and business development surrounding it would provide a great number of job opportunities.

Once solved power generation is the same as current nuclear facilities, Steam powered Generation. FAR less toxic in the event of disaster or containment breech and only localized damage and radiation exposure. Most current plasma reactions simply shut down once "broken".

It would take a National effort, something we have done before and can do again.
It takes political will and taxpayer dollars.
It IS achievable !
What we require is a leader with VISION !

It can and should be developed alongside the current energy systems.
Let the free market dictate those, leave it alone, focus on solving FUSION.
once solved it will radically alter all energy issues and deployments.
It can be scaled up or down.
and can provide mankind with independence and freedom once again.
Shared with the world it may improve worldwide relations as the heavy competition for resources is altered.

Will the current leaders of all political stripe do it of their own accord ?
No.
We must make them.
or do it ourselves.

 

[Topher925]

GRID & WIND:
===========
First I'd like to address...

There's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding here. Where to start...

Wind: The problem with wind isn't the economics, not even 20 years from now. As far as alternative energy goes wind is actually rather cheap when done correctly. The problem with wind power is that it isn't energy producing, its energy farming. Power is only provided when nature says so, not when the grid demands it.

Oil: "Drill baby drill" is one of the most imprudent catch phrases that I think has ever existed. Why does society think the solution to a problem is the same actions that caused it? The bottom line with oil, its a very very expensive energy source. The problem is that the true cost of oil isn't seen until long after its been purchased and burned. Pollution, oil spills, green house gas production, its all going to cost a lot of money in the end with regards to dealing with the aftermath of burning it. We just haven't been faced with those costs yet (not economically anyway).

Electric Transport: Granted, we will never have affordable electric cars that can go 300 miles while carrying 4 passengers. However, that doesn't mean that battery powered vehicles don't have their place in this world. A good fraction of the world lives in cities and high population density areas where electric cars make a lot of sense. Will they work for everyone, no of course not. Do they have the possibility of making up a large portion of the cars that will be on the road, absolutely.

I hate to burst your bubble about hydrogen buts its happening. All major auto manufacturers are planning on selling hydrogen fueled vehicles by the end of 2015. Several are already in the first phases of production. I actually had the pleasure of driving the fuel cell powered Toyota Hylander, Kia Tuscan, Honda Clarity, and GM Equinox earlier this summer. And another thing, hydrogen is not cheap and abundant. It doesn't exist anywhere on Earth naturally, it must be produced from an energy source. Also, you do know gasoline is flammable right? Worse than that, it exists in liquid form at typical pressures and temperatures. And the Hindenburg didn't just burn because it was full of hydrogen, its skin had a chemical make-up similar to thermite. What do you think would have happened if it was filled with gasoline?

Regardless of your politics, there is no other available fuel that pound for pound compacts the huge amount of energy that is in petroleum oil.

Incorrect. Hydrogen has 2.7 times the specific energy of gasoline. H2 actually has the highest energy density than any other chemical fuel. You just can't beat protons for energy density.

Nuclear: You need to understand the circumstanced of the Fukishima disaster. This was a power plant that was designed in the 50's, built in the 60's, survived a very powerful earthquake, and was then hit by a tidal wave. The plant was placed in a terrible location and didn't have adequate protection from tsunami's (obviously) like it should have. I'm not an advocate of nuclear power, but it can be a very safe and practical form of power production when done correctly. With the advent of the computer and other technologies, much safer and more efficient nuclear power plants can be built. It justs costs an enormous amount of capital to build one. Germany and Japan's decision to nix all of their nuclear power and replace it with coal was just plain idiotic IMO. I'm not a big fan of nuclear but I think its the best practical option we have for "clean" power in the near future.

Summary:

Let the free market dictate those, leave it alone, focus on solving FUSION.

Fusion is very very very very very hard. It is an immense engineering and scientific challenge to create a reactor that is just only self sustaining. I doubt I'll ever see it in my lifetime and I'm in my mid 20's.

As for politics, don't count on anyone is washington to make the effort. I don't care if its democrats, republicans, or the wizard of Oz in office the only thing politicians care about is getting re-elected. The American people just don't really care about the environment or sustainability when compared to other issues like the economy and gay marriage so politicians aren't going to focus on it until it becomes a major issue. Besides, new technology costs money which no one wants to spend with the huge deficit and wars. When the droughts continue on through this year and the next, food prices increase, and potable water becomes scarce, then people will start to care. Of course by then we will already be up the creek.

Now the rest of the world on the other hand is a different story. I had hopes that Europe would be the pioneers of clean energy until their economy began to collapse. Guess its up to Japan and Iceland now.

 

[OmCheeto]

Small moves... small moves...

A Plug-In Hybrid For $3,000? Thank These College Folk For That

 

[mheslep]

Small moves... small moves...

A Plug-In Hybrid For $3,000? Thank These College Folk For That

Nice idea. No on-the-road charging but if cheap enough it might still fly.

 

[mheslep]

...All major auto manufacturers are planning on selling hydrogen fueled vehicles by the end of 2015.

What is the intended infrastructure mechanism for fueling H2 at 5k or 10k psi to the thousands (?) of vehicles come the 2015?