YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Mike Nagle]

Trash

This is the plan that I have been playing with for years. It is an all incompasing plan that fixes many problems all at once.

I like the way you think. I have a similar plan, but it works with the transportation problem

 

[rocky14159]

Whatever happens, I hope we come up with a better alternative fuel than ethanol, it has a lot of refining going into it, and costs a lot, and all cars with it have to have rubber fuel lines in it, which will use petroleum, which, last time i checked, help the environment very much

 

[Cocacolacan]

Although no one will like this idea as everyone loves a good steak, but get rid of the cattle industry. Insects, although a large annoyance, are extremely easy to culture (leave some sugar out in the summer), they reproduce like nobody's business, and they are inexpensive (compared to cattle). They don't need the vast open fields to run free and consume the grass. The land could be converted to corn or soy fields, and the U.S. could reduce world hunger.

@Rocky, rubber is inevitable in cars.

And there is an infinitely better solution than Ethanol, check out Algaculture on Wikipedia.

 

[nuby]

How about hydrogen from water? What are the efficiency problems with getting hydrogen / oxygen gas from water verse hydrogen from natural gas?

 

[Cocacolacan]

The problem with getting hydrogen from water is that the energy required to separate the two would be the same (assuming 100% efficiency) as the energy released when they are joined. It doesn't create energy, it allows for storage of it, which is what a fuel cell does, but when you are putting more energy into something than you are getting out at a later time, the benefits aren't all that great.

 

[nuby]

The problem with getting hydrogen from water is that the energy required to separate the two would be the same (assuming 100% efficiency) as the energy released when they are joined. It doesn't create energy, it allows for storage of it, which is what a fuel cell does, but when you are putting more energy into something than you are getting out at a later time, the benefits aren't all that great.

I understand that. I guess I should have asked what the net energy gain is by using natural gas for a hydrogen source vs. water?

 

[nuby]

While searching around the web for electrolysis efficiency, I came across this link:[crackpot link deleted]

Some of this seems somewhat crack-potish. But if it was practical wouldn't it be a great source of energy? This technology claims to use a 'resonant' affect to break water into hydrogen and oxygen more efficiently than standard electrolysis. Is something like this possible?

 

[russ_watters]

While searching around the web for electrolysis efficiency, I came across this link:[crackpot link deleted]

Some of this seems somewhat crack-potish. But if it was practical wouldn't it be a great source of energy? This technology claims to use a 'resonant' affect to break water into hydrogen and oxygen more efficiently than standard electrolysis. Is something like this possible?

Your instinct was correct: the claim is a direct violation of conservation of energy and is just crackpottery. No, it isn't possible.

 

[toots]

Well, nuclear is limited due to the limited uranium available. I believe we have 50-75 years at current rate. Coal and natural gas supplies are finite.

I propose more hydroelectric. More tidal electric. Wind electric and solar electric are good supplementals. And lastly, algae oil.

At some point, super insulated homes and buildings are going to come into play.

Whatever we do, it's going to be costly.

 

[nuby]

If someone found out how to harness, vacuum energy, zero point energy, or a simpler type of nuclear energy. Would this be a viable solution to our energy problems? Or could it be too dangerous for the public to have access to?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, nuclear is limited due to the limited uranium available. I believe we have 50-75 years at current rate. Coal and natural gas supplies are finite.

That is only true because the current method for harnessing uranium (in the US anyway) wastes 95% of it. It doesn't have to be that way: that is purely a political choice.

 

[russ_watters]

If someone found out how to harness, vacuum energy, zero point energy, or a simpler type of nuclear energy. Would this be a viable solution to our energy problems? Or could it be too dangerous for the public to have access to?

zero point energy/vacuum energy (same diff) is not dense enough to be of any value.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a simpler type of nuclear energy", but the current technological state of nuclear power is just about where it needs to be to solve most of our energy problems. The barriers to its use are almost entirely political.

Nuclear fusion would be nice, but it isn't really necessary.

 

[nuby]

I didn't see this mentioned yet, but cellulosic ethanol produced at a local level could be good way to go (i.e, from ag. waste, rice stubble, arborist waste, etc.) . And, biofuels (biodiesel) produced from algae farms might be a good way to go as well.

Why not use corn stalks to produce ethanol instead of the corn?

 

[Mike Nagle]

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).

If you want to solve the energy crisis you need to redefine the problem. As I see the issues the problem is how to create a system for creating and delivering enough energy for the whole world( in other words not just for my country). Once you have enough energy(electricity) technology will follow. Third world countrys can develop. And if your solution is "green" enough the reduction of green house gases.

My solution is, as you might have guessed, a very large scaled project. At the same time it is very simple to explain.

1. The world used 1.5 Tw in 2007. So to produce 2 Tw of clean energy I suggest building 10,000 under watter hydro plants aprox 100m depth.
1a. By keeping the internal pressure of the plants static we can use the external water pressure to power the turbines.
1b. Each plant would need to house 15-20 Francis Turbines generating up to 15,000w each, but at 100m there is a fair amount of real estate around.
1c. Building a world wide power grid would use the resources of every country from trench digging to under water construction to tech research to raw materials.

2. "The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence." With this plan capacity is as far as I can see a non issue, along with future availability and foreign dependence. pollution is 0 to negligible. Safety lies in the fact that all the plants are spread throughout the world so in the case of sabotage, or natural disaster the rest of the system is a backup. As for cost ? but it will create over 1 million jobs around the world.


There you go, if anyone has any feedback "good or bad" please post it. I want to hear from everyone.

 

[Danger]

Just out of curiosity, why would I want to solve the US energy crisis? What have they done for me lately?
Even if they become self-sufficient, they'll still keep trying to steal our Canuk resources because it's in their nature to take without giving back and we're the closest target.

 

[Count Iblis]

Nuclear energy as proposed by Russ is the best choice. We will need fast breeder reactors to generate enough fuel. Also we have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants cannot be started up very fast to deal with peak demand. So, we may have to build powerplants that can burn hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made using nuclear power. So, we generate a small amount of extra power which is continually used to produce hydrogen.

Another way to store energy is to use so-called "power islands". This has been proposed for wind power, but it works equally well for nuclear power. The idea is to build artificial islands in the sea. Power (wind energy and/or nuclear energy) is used to pump out sea water. When extra power is needed you let the water flow back in and generate hydro power.

These power islands can be made arbitrary large. They allow you to have an enormous peak capacity a very short notice.

 

[Mike Nagle]

Nuclear energy as proposed by Russ is the best choice. We will need fast breeder reactors to generate enough fuel. Also we have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants cannot be started up very fast to deal with peak demand. So, we may have to build powerplants that can burn hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made using nuclear power. So, we generate a small amount of extra power which is continually used to produce hydrogen.

Another way to store energy is to use so-called "power islands". This has been proposed for wind power, but it works equally well for nuclear power. The idea is to build artificial islands in the sea. Power (wind energy and/or nuclear energy) is used to pump out sea water. When extra power is needed you let the water flow back in and generate hydro power.

These power islands can be made arbitrary large. They allow you to have an enormous peak capacity a very short notice.

Yes but you then have radio active waste to deal with and the more nuclear plants in the world the more likely some one will have access to weapons grade material.
P.S. did you look at my post?

 

[Mike Nagle]

zero point energy/vacuum energy (same diff) is not dense enough to be of any value.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a simpler type of nuclear energy", but the current technological state of nuclear power is just about where it needs to be to solve most of our energy problems. The barriers to its use are almost entirely political.

Are you saying that waste and proliferation are just politics?

 

[aerospaceut10]

Yes but you then have radio active waste to deal with and the more nuclear plants in the world the more likely some one will have access to weapons grade material.
P.S. did you look at my post?

I believe they have been working on various ways to dispose or deal with the radioactive waste in a safe manner...One idea is to convert the stuff into a ceramic-like material...which makes for safer storage.

 

[paulleonday]

Why would we use our own oil reserves? It only makes sense to use other's. Even if we tapped our supply, do you think we would actually pay a lower price at the pump? Our reserves should be saved for future generations. Take the mythical dependence out of the solution. There may not really be a dependance. Maybe just smoke and mirrors...

 

[engware]

To All:

Even though this ongoing thread was started long time ago, I just noticed it.

Therefore, I would like to share some of my thoughts on this interesting subject matter.

I do believe in the energy mix as a way to move forward. I would start by using proven technologies and then work towards hydrogen and hydrogen based economy as the ultimate goal when dealing with global warming and sustainable energy generation. It is a real tough challenge, but that is where the ultimate solution to the energy problem is ...

In doing so, the emphasis is on using renewable technologies to generate hydrogen and then use hydrogen in a safe and reliable manner as the fuel -- energy carrier.

Here is a twist that would make hydrogen economy viable. Until now, power generation has been primarily done at power plants and, therefore, the cost of electricity is a few cents per kWhr. This makes it difficult to commercialize new environmentally friendly technologies.

Since today we have more and more computer devices used on the move being wirelessly connected to the Internet, hydrogen powered fuel cells could be a way to power such devices. Since these devices would work off the grid, different price structure could be put in place -- it is more of a convenience fee than some energy fee. In my opinion, this is a break for the people commercializing new environmentally friendly technologies. Such generated revenue could be used to fund additional research work and speed up introduction of other promising technologies to the commercial power generation arena.

Again, renewable energy such as solar (thermal and photovoltaic), geothermal, wind, hydro and "nuclear" can be used to generate hydrogen. During the transition period, biomass and other fuels can be used too.

At this point, let me leave it like this.

I would like to hear some feedback from Physics Forum visitors and members and I am always ready to elaborate some more on my initial thoughts.

Thanks,

Gordan

 

[shamrock5585]

I wasnt able to look over all of your posts and I am hoping nobody else posted a solution like this... This would probably be a very expensive project and I'm not sure if it would be feasible with our current technology but it solves pollution problems and energy needs.

Almost all of our buildings have emissions from heating sources and machinery. Each major city could build systems of piping to a central tube for all the emissions to go into... Ideally this central tube would go to space in order to get rid of all emissions... I am not sure exactly what would happen to the emissions once they reached outside our atmosphere or if we could even build a simple structure strong enough to reach that high. But the main idea is to have turbines in this central system so that the rising emissions would turn the turbine and create power to put back into the grid!

Welcoming input...

 

[engware]

shamrock5585:

Thank you very much for your positive and negative feedback to my input.

As long as the concept is self sustainable and generates revenues, I just do not understand what the "expensive project" atribute has to do with the concept and/or idea that solves and/or brings to the table ...

When you get a chance, please check out the US DOE web sites at:
http://www.energy.gov
http://www.fossil.energy.gov

In my opinion, such US DOE web sites should provide you with enough information so that you can find out the status of current technologies is and what the future direction of energy technologies is.

Thanks,

Gordan

 

[iced_maggot]

Realistically and without the gift of foresight, I am a firm believer that in the long term the solution will be nuclear whether that is fission or fusion in some way form or another. That is unless someone decides to build a Dyson sphere somehow but that probably isn't going to happen.

Also I couldn't read through all the posts here but a few people suggested organic fuels like ethanol and what not. This is a short term and limited solution not a permanent one as whilst it might help solve (keyword help solve, not solve) one problem food prices will skyrocket along with it inflation and this will create another problem. Even if non-food crops are used farmers will have a bigger incentive to not grow food crops and to grow the crops that create fuel as the need for energy will be so great.

Another option would be to use waste biomass however I do remember reading on an article somewhere (cant remember the link) that using waste biomass comes very close to if not crosses the line require in terms of input/output energy, i.e. it comes very close to using up more energy to create than it produces (BTW, this only refers to the use of corn waste as is the case in the US, other waste crops might be better, I'm not sure. I've heard Elephant grass is quite high yield).

Just food for though, pun absolutely intended.

Iced

 

[h.g.Whiz]

I heard lignite was supposed to bring oil down to 30$ a barrel within the next two years

 

[nuby]

To save energy..

Why don't cars have a built in waste heat energy recovery systems? i.e., a steam engine type booster that can convert heat into mechanical energy.. Is this really that difficult to implement? Seems like this could improve fuel efficiency by quite a bit.

Next thought.
How about energy recovery system from breaking, with hydrollics, flywheel, or magnetic/generator device.. I know this is in some hybrid vehicles today, but why wasn't it here 20 years ago? Sounds like the start of an energy crisis.

 

[Sam Lee]

For immediate short term fix, we should stop driving and start taking public transport like the bus or train. By taking public transport, we will reduce transport energy usage by more than 90%. The demand will drop and price of oil will fall.

That might give us a few more decades to find better solutions.

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately, that isn't an option for people like me who don't live in cities with good public transportation.

 

[vanesch]

Are you saying that waste and proliferation are just politics?

Yes, definitely. The waste is a non-problem, which has been discussed over and over again. Proliferation is not an issue in countries that already have nuclear weapons, or that don't have any desire to make some (take most Western countries that are not nuclear powers). It is only an issue with a very limited set of states. Of course, one has to be careful with sensitive materials. But with sufficient care, the remaining risk of proliferation can be brought below the probability that a country will develop its own nukes, at which point, nuclear power is not the main vector of proliferation (which it has never been, btw).

 

[mheslep]

For immediate short term fix, we should stop driving and start taking public transport like the bus or train. By taking public transport, we will reduce transport energy usage by more than 90%. ...

Could you show a source that shows public transportation will reduce usage by 90%, if any at all?

 

[mheslep]

A mass transit follow up. Energy efficiency of mass transit is not impressive. Cars are more efficient than buses, commuter rail is a little better than cars.

DoE Transportation Energy Data Book
Chapter 2, Energy
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
Table 2.12, pg 2-14

Energy used (BTUs) per passenger per mile
Cars: 3512
Personal Trucks: 3944
Buses: 4235 (20% worse than cars, buses are the most inefficient of all DoE listed means of commuter transportation)
Rail, commuter: 2996 (15% better than cars)

Issues of congestion, pollution, and growth planning are another matter.

 

[Sam Lee]

From a pure science perspective, a bus is more efficient than a car.
A bus carrying a full load of 40 passengers will use less energy than 10 cars, each car carrying a full load of 4 passengers, when they travel the same distances.

And 4 people in a car will be more efficient than 4 cars with only one driver each, when they travel the same distances.

 

[mheslep]

From a pure science perspective, a bus is more efficient than a car.
A bus carrying a full load of 40 passengers will use less energy than 10 cars, each car carrying a full load of 4 passengers, when they travel the same distances.

And 4 people in a car will be more efficient than 4 cars with only one driver each, when they travel the same distances.

Perhaps, but that doesn't have much to do with a practical assessment of efficiency. Some significant percentage of busses are always driving around with few people on board besides the driver (or no one to/from the bus barn), and they are making many, many more energy burning stops and starts than the four passenger car making the same commute. So given a bus that is already funded and going to be driving around empty or full, it is perhaps justifiable for one to use the bus vs your car, but not to support increasing the number of them on the road, strictly from an energy usage perspective. Congestion, mobility for those w/ out other means, etc are another story.

 

[Sam Lee]

So given a bus that is already funded and going to be driving around empty or full, it is perhaps justifiable for one to use the bus vs your car

That is precisely the point. Start using public transport instead of driving whenever feasible. That will save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions.

 

[mheslep]

That is precisely the point. Start using public transport instead of driving whenever feasible. That will save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions.

No the point is blanket statements like this are not possible. Just saying go go public transport leads to more buses which will not save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions. You'll do more for the energy cause in your (average) car rather than buying another bus. You can say take the train whenever feasible, just barely.