YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Topher925]

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

Japan, Iceland, Germany and other parts of Europe have collaborations between the OEM's and government for creating a suitable infrastructure come 2015. The source of hydrogen will primarily be natural gas as is the status quo today. The initial estimate of FCHV sales in 2015 is estimated to only be in the 10's of thousands so stations will/are only being built by the hundreds. But as they say, if you build it, they will come.

http://www.intelligent-energy.com/news_events_and_press/industry_news/10/
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/japan-pushes-hydrogen-infrastructure

Last week Honda, Toyota and Nissan and 10 hydrogen suppliers (including Idemitsu and Tokyo Gas) issued a joint statement at the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry promising to introduce ‘mass production’ fuel cell vehicles (FCV) into ‘four major urban areas’, beginning in 2015.

The car makers say they expect these future FCVs to be less expensive, helping drive sales upwards in the second half of the decade. This greater market penetration should underpin the establishment of 100 Hydrogen fuelling stations in Japan by 2015.

The Japanese economic ministry said that ‘the government will support the mass introduction of FCVs in 2015 and more penetration beyond it and will take the necessary actions’.

 

[mheslep]

Japan, Iceland, Germany and other parts of Europe have collaborations between the OEM's and government for creating a suitable infrastructure come 2015. The source of hydrogen will primarily be natural gas as is the status quo today. The initial estimate of FCHV sales in 2015 is estimated to only be in the 10's of thousands so stations will/are only being built by the hundreds. But as they say, if you build it, they will come.

http://www.intelligent-energy.com/news_events_and_press/industry_news/10/
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/japan-pushes-hydrogen-infrastructure

You stated earlier that "all" major auto manufacturers were going into production of FCHV's by 2015. So GM, Chrysler and Ford will enter production of a model that has Europe and Japan only sales, at least initially?

 

[Justinmcg67]

A little late to the game on this one, but is there really a "crisis" of energy? I've only had power outages when I lived on a military base, which were usually scheduled and posted to the public about 5 days in advance, and I never turn on a light switch and the power not be there. Is the energy crisis one of those propaganda things? Not trying to troll, I however would like some credible sites to visit so I can become a little more educated. The usual google search brings up some unrelated or outdated information. So if anyone can perhaps educate me a little I would appreciate it as this is a curious subject for me. Thank you.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A little late to the game on this one, but is there really a "crisis" of energy? I've only had power outages when I lived on a military base, which were usually scheduled and posted to the public about 5 days in advance, and I never turn on a light switch and the power not be there. Is the energy crisis one of those propaganda things? Not trying to troll, I however would like some credible sites to visit so I can become a little more educated. The usual google search brings up some unrelated or outdated information. So if anyone can perhaps educate me a little I would appreciate it as this is a curious subject for me. Thank you.

Are you familiar with peak oil and similar phenomenon?

 

[johnbbahm]

Batteries, Compressed Air, Hydrogen, and Gasoline are all energy storage devices.
Some methods of storage are MUCH more efficient than others.
Within the area of currently mass produced technology, liquid/gas hydrocarbons
are the best we have for energy density.
We now have processes for making methane out of water and Co2.
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
It may not be an energy efficient conversion, but it stores and transports well.
The infrastructure is already in place.
If we can make methane, we can make any hydrocarbon.
http://www.carbonsciences.com/applications.html
Yes the cost may be high, but high is relative to none available.
I could imagine solar and wind power houses all over the country, not
net metering electricity, but net metering natural gas.

 

[taipan821]

Hello, my two cents

I’m from Australia, and recently (last 6 years) our state government introduced a scheme where an electrician will come to your house, install a electricity monitor, replace your incandescent globes with CFTs and replace your shower head with a more efficient (lack of water over here). Plus the electricity company introduced a tariff where people could sell power to the company, promoting solar panels to be installed on houses and businesses.

So instead of building more power stations, maybe try to ease the demand by installing solar panels first. I admit it won't do much unless every house has a roof covered in them and yes, places like New York, Alaska and Nth Dakota won't be suitable places, but hey, a roof is wasted space

 

[anaximenes]

what if we added bigger engine valves and self cleaning systems to an engine and used sap ethenol.

 

[Topher925]

It appears that the US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has changed his mind on hydrogen and fuel cells.

When Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, was named Secretary of the Department of Energy in the Obama Administration, he quickly redirected much of the Department's automotive research efforts into battery electric vehicles. So much so that proponents of hydrogen fuel cells complained loudly that the Secretary was starving their research efforts.

Automakers will no doubt welcome the Secretary's change of heart. General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Daimler, BMW and Hyundai, not only have decades-long development efforts in this area, they claim they can have fuel cell cars showroom ready by 2015.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/26/hydrogen-fuel-cells-may-get-a-shot-at-batteries-after-all/

 

[mheslep]

I found this part interesting:

"We have an emerging technology where you take natural gas and you burn it in a partial oxygen atmosphere, generate the electricity, capture a lot of the heat energy, and you also get hydrogen and carbon monoxide," he explains. "You take the carbon monoxide (and) pass it over in a steam process called a shift process. You get a stream of hydrogen, you get a pure stream of carbon monoxide and you get electricity. That will change things."

That process could run until depletion of the all natural gas reserves (and coal to gas? hundreds of years?) with little or no impact to the environment.

 

[mheslep]

It appears that the US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has changed his mind on hydrogen and fuel cells.http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/26/hydrogen-fuel-cells-may-get-a-shot-at-batteries-after-all/

The actual quote in the article from Chu on FC's (only one) is this:

"I was not that high on hydrogen fuel cells," he admits, "but several things changed my mind. The most important thing that changed my mind is that we have now natural gas in abundance.

He may be referring mainly to stationary cells like a Bloom Box.

 

[rufu]

I suggest to develop Nikolas Tesla's Patents. I had read about his one of the work that can produce huge amount of energy from LIGHTNING and other natural disturbances by using high quality capacitors.
Its heard that Tesla in 1889 had set up a wireless lighting of 200 incandescent bulbs from a 26 mile away source.

 

[martix]

Yeesh... here we go again.

But anyway. Here's something to puzzle about: Why is only the US in crisis. And if it's not just them, why only fix it in the US.

 

[rufu]

Every nation has her own energy crisis. Some of them are waiting other countries to bring up new energy projects. The benefit is that the last one who install a new project will have less draw backs of implementation. US does't have time to wait,because it will hinder their present financial rhythm.

 

[Felchi]

I don't live in America nor am I particularily well educated in science compared to many but here's my opinion:

1. Improve public transit. I don't know about the average US city/suburb but where I live, buses are slow, fares are continuously climbing and there are a ridiculously low amount of buses in certain routes. I personally once ran 5 km to my destination. On my way, I saw 4 buses--go the other way. It was only when I reached my destination that a bus came my way. Unless mass transit is convenient and practical, no one will be willing to stand half an hour at a bus stop when they could drive somewhere in 20 minutes.

2. Nuclear is a nice idea, but in essence, isn't this repeating history? Coal was seen as a long lasting energy source in its time and look at us now. Nuclear is no more renewable than coal is. It's just a band-aid solution we would put on the energy crisis that would only escalate the problem when the day comes that energy demands are even higher and we only have a limited amount of nuclear fuel.

3. For biomass, it all depends on the fuel you use. I have no objection to the burning of feces--we have that in high supply and it is definitely a renewable resource. However, the use of ethanol is a bit more problematic. To my knowledge, the US is in a bit of an economic slump right now and the market economy contributes to poverty and so, higher dependence on food banks. Ethanol is derived from organic products, namely plants and seeing as the US has fields of corn at the ready, corn would be the "ideal" source of ethanol. Corn is the feed for livestock and source of one of the most widespread sweeteners. If you start placing other demands on corn, you boost the prices of food all over the US. It is definitely not the ideal energy donkey on which we should dump USA's energy needs.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF!

Neither coal nor nuclear have a longevity problem. The problem with coal is that it pollutes and the problem with nuclear is people think it pollutes.

Biomass pollutes as well.

 

[Tarti]

Oh come on russ_watters...
there are so many stories about nuclear power plants that have minor failures (not to be reported) causing children to be disabled. I also disagree that coal pollutes. There are a lot of technologies available that make it basically clean, more info on wiki.
Nevertheless I do agree that any transition to green energy has to be made very carefully.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh come on russ_watters...
there are so many stories about nuclear power plants that have minor failures (not to be reported) causing children to be disabled.

None are true. There has never been a nuclear power accident in the US with more than very small/trace release of radioactive material and the worst of them, Three Mile Island, resulted in no increase in health problems as documented in a 20 year study. You must be looking at crackpot sources. The wiki on TMI:

No significant level of radiation was attributed to the TMI-2 accident outside of the TMI-2 facility. According to the Rogovin report, the vast majority of the radioisotopes released were the noble gases, Xenon and Krypton. The report stated, "During the course of the accident, approximately 2.5 million curies of radioactive noble gases and 15 curies of radioiodines were released." This resulted in an average dose of 1.4 mrem to the two million people near the plant. The report compared this with the additional 80 mrem per year received from living in a high altitude city such as Denver.[37] As further comparison, you receive 3.2 mrem from a chest X-Ray – more than twice the average dose of those received near the plant.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Radioactive_material_release
And more directly about the health effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

I also disagree that coal pollutes. There are a lot of technologies available that make it basically clean, more info on wiki.

There are ways to improve the cleanliness of coal, but coal is at best still coal. It is carbon and burning it makes carbon dioxide. There currently is no way to get around that.

That article you linked, by the way, doesn't mention "clean coal" and discusses many of the major pollution problems of coal. It doesn't support your argument, it supports mine.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Every nation has her own energy crisis. Some of them are waiting other countries to bring up new energy projects. The benefit is that the last one who install a new project will have less draw backs of implementation. US does't have time to wait,because it will hinder their present financial rhythm.

It's difficult to understand if there is an actual energy "crisis" or that it the whole thing is just politicts.
Where I live GB. there are finacial incentives to insulate your home to save energy and disincentives if you don't which seem reasonable. However automobile and comercial vehicles escape.I don't know what your vehicle uses but I know mine uses more energy than my house. So how come the automotive industry avoids legistlation to save energy yet households don't.
I don't just wan't to imply that the engine could be insulated but the cab and battery etc.
So tell me I am wrong!
As far as I can see it's all political bull.

 

[Felchi]

Welcome to PF!

Neither coal nor nuclear have a longevity problem.

Really? I thought the coal deposits in the Earth and the usable radioactive elements deposits in the Earth are finite, or at least don't renew themselves fast enough.

 

[Alfi]

It's difficult to understand if there is an actual energy "crisis" or that it the whole thing is just politicts.
Where I live GB. there are finacial incentives to insulate your home to save energy and disincentives if you don't which seem reasonable. However automobile and comercial vehicles escape.I don't know what your vehicle uses but I know mine uses more energy than my house. So how come the automotive industry avoids legistlation to save energy yet households don't.
I don't just wan't to imply that the engine could be insulated but the cab and battery etc.
So tell me I am wrong!
As far as I can see it's all political bull.

Ok ... you're wrong.

There used to be herds of bison on the plains in the Millions. Some people probably saw them as inexhaustible and killed them by the thousands for no reason from trains.

Look at any city and see the lights left on over night. People see energy as inexhaustible in the same way.

 

[Buckleymanor]

People see energy as inexhaustible in the same way.

It is, you and I will run out of energy long before the world or the universe does.
Bison depletion does not have anything to do with any gain or loss of energy.It just trying to get some kind of political green empathy.
You know poor helpless animals dying in there millions by the thoughtless act's of man.
Light's on same result.
No!

 

[Alfi]

Perhaps you are correct Buckleymanor.

why try?
It just trying to get some kind of political green empathy.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's difficult to understand if there is an actual energy "crisis" or that it the whole thing is just politicts.
Where I live GB. there are finacial incentives to insulate your home to save energy and disincentives if you don't which seem reasonable. However automobile and comercial vehicles escape.I don't know what your vehicle uses but I know mine uses more energy than my house. So how come the automotive industry avoids legistlation to save energy yet households don't.
I don't just wan't to imply that the engine could be insulated but the cab and battery etc.
So tell me I am wrong!
As far as I can see it's all political bull.

Political bull?

Why don't you patent your insulated engine, cab, battery idea and make a billion pounds?
Money attracts politicians. Being a billionaire will make you politically powerful.

Then you could be the one pulling the political bullshtrings.


-------------------------------
As always, a song pops into my head:
Would you like to see Britannia Rule again, my friend?...Pink Floyd
Thanks for being from GB, btw.

 

[russ_watters]

Really? I thought the coal deposits in the Earth and the usable radioactive elements deposits in the Earth are finite, or at least don't renew themselves fast enough.

Finite, but very, very long-lasting. Admittedly not a great source, but here's one on coal that says 112 years with currently known sources and current rates of production in the world. That's more than twice similar estimates for oil and natural gas. http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/

That's a long enough time that predictions about what the world looks like then is very difficult, but given the unpopularity of coal in developed countries and the recent drastic drop in American coal electrical production, it may go unused for a very long time.

Nuclear's longevity is much, much longer. Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands of years? Depends on what assumptions you use: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
Right now we are being very wasteful with our nuclear fuel usage because of the economics and politics of recycling and making breeder reactors, but as the cost goes up, the economics will get better, which adds orders of magnitude to nuclear's longevity.

In either case, since the fuel will last through several new generations of power plants (50-75 year lifespan), the longevity is way too long to factor into our energy decisions today.

Conversely, the stability of other fuels will have big impacts on our coal and nuclear usage. If you strip away the scaremongering, "Peak oil" does indicate potential supply constraints and vastly changing economics. Ironically though, we are currently seeing the opposite "problem": the explosion of American oil and gas production has driven down prices. As a result, a power company that built a coal plant 5 years ago may be kicking themselves due to the crash in gas prices.

 

[russ_watters]

It's difficult to understand if there is an actual energy "crisis" or that it the whole thing is just politicts.

There are several classes of problems. In no particular order:
1. Resources
2. Politics
3. Population/development
4. Engineering/technology

Though as an engineer, I may prefer to call engineering a solution, not a problem. Or -- a problem is just a solution that hasn't been found yet.

Where I live GB.

By the way, to answer a previous poster who was less cordial about it, I posted this from an American perspective because:
1. I'm an American.
2. This forum is hosted from America and has a mostly American membership.
In addition:
3. As the world's largest energy user, any problems are more American problems than anyone else's.

But I do not intend to limit this discussion to American problems. Every country has problems, some similar and some different.

there are finacial incentives to insulate your home to save energy and disincentives if you don't which seem reasonable.

Agreed, and it is similar here, with building codes and home improvement incentives.

However automobile and comercial vehicles escape.I don't know what your vehicle uses but I know mine uses more energy than my house. So how come the automotive industry avoids legistlation to save energy yet households don't.

I'm not sure if fuel economy standards exist in the UK, but because of the wide variety of cars and driving conditions, it is difficult to mandate simple standards. The UK maintains higher car fuel economy than the US though, via a simple method: fuel taxes that are 6x higher than in the US.

I don't just wan't to imply that the engine could be insulated but the cab and battery etc.
So tell me I am wrong!

There isn't much that insulation can do for a car. The engines are actually designed to lose heat as quickly as possible to avoid damaging themselves. However, improvements that enable them to get up to operating temperature faster can have a big impact.

 

[OmCheeto]

...There isn't much that insulation can do for a car. The engines are actually designed to lose heat as quickly as possible to avoid damaging themselves. However, improvements that enable them to get up to operating temperature faster can have a big impact.

I disagree. See my very first PF thread. I've been developing the idea since then.

Insulating the engine, and extracting the waste heat energy is one part of the 11 part hybrid I'm working on. Patent to be filed within the next 24 months. Unless of course, Buckymanor takes my cue, and does it first. I may have to cut a deal with the Bavarians. I would imagine they've patented their turbo-steamer idea.

And in honor of Chroot, I'm adding a pedal option. I don't see any good reason to just sit there at a stop light. Might as well get some gym time in.

 

[mheslep]

...
3. As the world's largest energy user, any problems are more American problems than anyone else's.

...

That day has come and gone. Among large countries, the per capita energy use prize now goes to Canada, while Australia is atop the per capita carbon centric energy usage (via coal).

 

[Buckleymanor]

There isn't much that insulation can do for a car. The engines are actually designed to lose heat as quickly as possible to avoid damaging themselves. However, improvements that enable them to get up to operating temperature faster can have a big impact.

I disagree also.
I realize there is an optimum level at which the temperature should be kept and that the temperature should not rise too much above this or damage will happen to the engine.
Insulation of different types and placed at different locations could enable the operating temperature to be reached faster and the heat generated could be retained for longer.
An engine that can retain heat will get up to operating temperature quicker.
A cab that is better insulated requires less heat from the engine in winter to keep warm than one which is not which results in the uninsulated one requireing more fuel.
The same applies to air con in the summer months.
More cab insulation the less work the air con unit has to do.

 

[OCR]

I'm looking for the most efficient vehicle of course.

It was, and still is... with respect to improved engine efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine
http://www.rogerrichard.com/4436.html ← Just has to be a Labor of Love...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoMotors
http://www.ecomotors.com/
http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatOP.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Efficiency_Hybrid_Cycle
http://www.liquidpiston.com/technologycycle/tid/2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_Engine
http://www.engineerlive.com/Design-...ines_promise_an_increase_in_efficiency/22066/

The engine folks were already working on this, when I got my A&P certificate back in 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camless

The camshaft is probably the biggest technological stumbling block left, that prevents an almost totally 'tunable' piston engine.




OCR

 

[AlephZero]

I'm not sure if fuel economy standards exist in the UK, but because of the wide variety of cars and driving conditions, it is difficult to mandate simple standards.

It's easy enough to mandate a simple standard, and the current one is even on track to be met: average CO2 emissions for cars in the EU, of 130 g/km by 2015.

The next target after that one is 95 g/km for cars and 147 g/km for vans, by 2020.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/events/driving-future-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-standards-2020

In the UK the "carrot" for car owners is a graduated annual vehicle license fee, e.g.
£30 for 110 - 120 g/km
£100 for 120 - 130
and rising in increments to
£475 for worse than 255.

 

[OmCheeto]

It was, and still is... with respect to improved engine efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine

Don't mean to roll on the floor, but, 1920, vaporware?

(If it takes more that 90 years to bring an idea to market, even once, then there might be something wrong with the idea.)

-----------------------
ps. I said vehicle, not engine. They are not the same.

 

[OCR]

Don't mean to roll on the floor, but, 1920, vaporware?

Lol... yes, Russell Bourke probably should have received the Golden Vaporware award, and I shouldn't have linked to it as an example of possible evolving engine technology.

Bourke's design is however, very similar to that of EcoMotors...

http://www.ecomotors.com/technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoMotors
​

And... Uncle Bill does seem to have a slight involvement there...

The two primary investors in EcoMotors are Khosla Ventures and Bill Gates.

Maybe it's time for his next... Golden Vaporware award? ...

This was in reference to the post date of your first thread, not Bourke.

I'm looking for the most efficient vehicle of course.

It was, and still is... with respect to improved engine efficiency.

Also, to your image link: http://home.europa.com/~garry/energy split.JPG



OCR...



-----------------------
ps. I said vehicle, not engine. They are not the same.
I know... ↑ ...as well...↑...but of course...↑

 

[Buckleymanor]

Why don't you patent your insulated engine, cab, battery idea and make a billion pounds?
Money attracts politicians. Being a billionaire will make you politically powerful.

Then you could be the one pulling the political bullshtrings.

I like money, being a billionaire sounds very attractive but the downside would be the attention of politicians I don't think I would like to encourage them.
On the other hand.

 

[johnbbahm]

The camshaft is probably the biggest technological stumbling block left, that prevents an almost totally 'tunable' piston engine.
OCR

Several years ago, I had lunch with a friend who works at a university in Germany.
One of the things they were working on was an voltage activated valve stem for
Diesel engines. At the time he said they were getting close to Carnot efficiencies.

 

[Low-Q]

Insulating the engine, and extracting the waste heat energy is one part of the 11 part hybrid I'm working on. Patent to be filed within the next 24 months. Unless of course, Buckymanor takes my cue, and does it first. I may have to cut a deal with the Bavarians.

This is a very good idea. The bigger difference between hot and cold, the better the engine runs. Very important to harness waste heat, but primarily from the hot exhaust.
However, with the wrong fuel at the wrong temperature, it might detonate before the piston reach the top.


You might increase efficiency further with a pistonless engine - not the Wankel engine, but a design more like a gerotor design which is 100% rotary, which is 100% vibration free. I believe it is just a matter of fairly simple engineering to make this work well. See picture of a gerotor. This type of pistonless motor can suck in air and gas, compress it, ignite it. It needs valves as a piston engine does.

.

It can be made as several rotary "discs" so the exhaust is efficiently cooled before it leaves the engine. The best of this design is that the exhaust side can be cooled separately with coolant flowing between them (separate from the combustion side) for as long the volume inside decrease, but at the same time the combustion side keeps hot for as long as the volume expands during combustion. This is exactly what we want with a heat engine like this.
A normal cylinder have very little cooling surface compared to the volume inside it, so the exhaust is still pretty hot when it leaves the cylinder - > poor efficiency.

So increasing the efficiency of 20 - 25% for a normal engine, to maybe 40 - 50% for a gerotary engine, would not only reduce pollution and cost due to efficiency, but also save weight - which result in even lower fuel consumption.

If this doesn't save the world alone, I hope my contribution would be helpful - at least triggering some ideas

Vidar