YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Constructe]

Are you including all our exported energy dependence like the fact that we consume so much overseas that we are responsible for like 50% of China's energy useage and pollution? If not, our energy solution will go something like this. A declining population caused by weater related disasters and pollution even if we cut carbon emmisions in the US to 0. Lower consumption due to increasingly scarce goods and the fact that our money is being owned by everyone overseas (all we have is debt). So in the end, conservation or not, we will not be able to afford too much power besides hydroelectric. We basically burn about everything we can get in our country or countries we invade (Canada has lots of wood). Sounds silly grim but I bet your children's kids won't think that when they have kids. They will probably ask, "Why didn't you do something about it back when you could of?"

Af course we could build tons of nuclear power plants willy nilly and set up mass transit all over and encourage people to live close together. That will help a lot whit the gas problem. And we won't need air conditioning except on the top of the rocky mountains and in Alaska anymore. That will save loads of electricity if you don't mind no air conditioning. Now onto brighter topics... lol.

 

[Alfi]

Late to the party here but a few points:

(1) There are multiple energy markets that are currently only tangentially linked.
(2) There are muliple environmental, cost, supply and safety concerns.

Supply Multiple Markets The Non-Transportation Market The Transportation Market Air Rail Roads

wow.
nice post.
That took time, effort and thought.

thank you

if I may ask.
1) Do you think one presidential candidate or the other is better at understanding what you posted?
2) same question about the running mate for each.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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..

Carnot efficiency.

 

[wildman]

Here is an interesting proposal from the CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration a few years ago:

He proposed building additional power houses on the large dams in the Pacific Northwest to capture the lost energy from the spring runoff (which is a huge amount of water). This power would be then converted into hydrogen which can be shipped to Texas in gas pipelines. Once in Texas, the hydrogen would be piped into the salt domes where natural gas has already been extracted. This hydrogen would then be pumped out when needed. I can't find the link but I recall that he said that all the oil used by cars in the US could be replaced with this hydrogen.

 

[wildman]

Here's the link:

http://www.bluefish.org/todrivea.htm

And keep in mind that the article was written by Jack Robertson the deputy CEO of Bonneville Power. This isn't some dreaming hippie freak.

 

[mheslep]

Here is an interesting proposal from the CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration a few years ago:

Former. He's long retired.

... This power would be then converted into hydrogen which can be shipped to Texas in gas pipelines. ...

Robertson does not mention pipelines, nor is it possible to ship H2 around in existing CNG pipelines. Making H2, burning H2 in an ICE - these are not the main problems. Moving H2 around and storing it in today's vehicles are; at the moment nobody has a workable solution.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Robertson does not mention pipelines, nor is it possible to ship H2 around in existing CNG pipelines. Making H2, burning H2 in an ICE - these are not the main problems. Moving H2 around and storing it in today's vehicles are; at the moment nobody has a workable solution.

Huh? The biggest problem is the source of energy - that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen is already in use worldwide.
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

Also, afaik, no one intends to run the hydrogen market like the petro market [pipelines and ships]. There is no reason for it. Part of the advantage of an H2 economy is that energy can be decentralized. It may be that the only real hydrogen pipelines will be carrying water.

 

[mheslep]

Huh? The biggest problem is the source of energy - that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen is already in use worldwide.
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

A handful of state sponsored H2 stations worldwide does not make them common. There are close to 200,000 gas/diesel station in the US. Note that it takes 15-20 tankers of 3k-5k PSI H2 tankers to deliver the energy of one gasoline tanker truck.

Also, afaik, no one intends to run the hydrogen market like the petro market [pipelines and ships]. There is no reason for it. Part of the advantage of an H2 economy is that energy can be decentralized. It may be that the only real hydrogen pipelines will be carrying water.

Decentralized helps, still have to get heavy grid multi MW connections or local power generation, and so far nobody has sufficient on vehicle H2 storage (DoE target vehicle range 300miles - nobody is close yet). Anyway Wildman's posted piece from Robertson was about centralized hydro power.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A handful of state sponsored H2 stations worldwide does not make them common. There are close to 200,000 gas/diesel station in the US. Note that it takes 15-20 tankers of 3k-5k PSI H2 tankers to deliver the energy of one gasoline tanker truck.

I didn't say H2 is common. I said it is already being used. There are certainly issues, but you made it sound like the over 15 pages of stations listed couldn't exist.

Decentralized helps, still have to get heavy grid multi MW connections or local power generation

I would debate this point if only because in the end, the practical production of H2 might be done by means other than electric. For example, one facility intends to use solar flux to crack methane, leaving nothing but pure Hyrdrogen and pure carbon-black. But I saw that there has allegedly been a big breakthrough at MIT? I saw that but didn't have time to read it.

and so far nobody has sufficient on vehicle H2 storage (DoE target vehicle range 300miles - nobody is close yet). Anyway Wildman's posted piece from Robertson was about centralized hydro power.

LAWRENCE Livermore employees and visitors last January might have spotted a white Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle driving continuously around the square-mile site. The car was making history by setting a world record for the longest distance driven on one tank of fuel in a vehicle modified to run on hydrogen.

...The Prius, which has a combination electric motor and small internal combustion engine, traveled 1,050 kilometers (653 miles) on a tank containing 150 liters (almost 40 gallons) of liquid hydrogen. The overall fuel economy for the driving conditions used by the Livermore team was about 105 kilometers per kilogram of hydrogen, which is equivalent to about 65 miles per gallon of gasoline. Coincidently, 1 kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline. [continued]

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

 

[mheslep]

I didn't say H2 is common. I said it is already being used. There are certainly issues, but you made it sound like the over 15 pages of stations listed couldn't exist.

Sorry, I didn't intend that.

I would debate this point if only because in the end, the practical production of H2 might be done by means other than electric. For example, one facility intends to use solar flux to crack methane, leaving nothing but pure Hyrdrogen and pure carbon-black. But I saw that there has allegedly been a big breakthrough at MIT? I saw that but didn't have time to read it.

Yes Nocera's efficient electrolysis. Thats a big deal. With that coming down the pike, and setting storage aside for the moment, for fun I posted up somewhere the numbers to do an onsite solar fueling station. I came up with only ~3-5 acres out behind the station.

EDIT: Yes here's the solar powered fuel station musing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1850582&postcount=14

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

Yes liquid H2. The cryo process eats up ~30% of every unit of energy in the H2. IMO, it is compressed H2 at 10K PSI (carbon fiber tanks $$$) and the tanks are still 3-4x the volume of existing gasoline tanks, or some kind of chemical hydride storage, or nothing. Levin et al and their ultralight 'Hypercars' make a plausible case for compressed H2, they get ~300mi, but one has to completely redesign the car and thus the auto industry - no more steel, all carbon fiber, etc.

Some wild speculation now: I wonder if it makes sense at all to use local solar/grid electric/whatever to make methane and not H2? That is, use the Sabatier process or some such - H2 from electrolysis and pull CO2 from the atmosphere. That is still carbon neutral, the storage / transportation of methane is a not a problem, 8 million CNG vehicles on the road already (just not in the US )

 

[russ_watters]

I'd say you guys are talking past each other. mheslp is simply saying that it isn't viable, while Ivan is saying it is being done. But the fact that it is being done doesn't have anything to do with whether it is viable or not. What makes it not viable is that it can't provide anywhere near the same performance (specifically, range) in a car as gasoline. That's a storage problem. And he's right: "there is no workable solution" to the storage problem.

Moreover, energy production is a practical problem, while the storage issue is a technical problem. Practical problems are known to be solvable - we can just build more power plants. Technical problems are not necessarily solvable, but even if they are eventually, there is no answer right now.

 

[mheslep]

Yep, what RussW said.

 

[wildman]

On an earlier thread, someone said that you can't move H2 by pipeline. Why is that? Why can't we treat it the same as Natural Gas?

 

[russ_watters]

That said, there are also the issues of economic and political viability. These issues are somewhat a matter of will: we just have to decide to do it and if we wait, the decision will happen on its own. But the "it" of the capacity issue is big enough that if we wait, the consequences are disastrous. And really, there are two completely separate capacity problems. The first, what has just been discussed is 'where do we get the energy to power our cars when we run out of gas?' But the second is 'how do we stop pollution?' (global warming and otherwise). Answering the first question mandates that we add new capacity. Answering the second mandates that we replace our existing capacity (or augment it with nonexistent technology). These issues are big enough that this decision to go really needs to be made now. We need to decide to do the only viable (economically, politically, technically) thing to solve this two-pronged energy problem: start building nuclear plants at a rate of 20 a year for the next 40 years.

 

[mheslep]

On an earlier thread, someone said that you can't move H2 by pipeline. Why is that? Why can't we treat it the same as Natural Gas?

• H2 Diffusion. Crudely: A seal that's tight enough for a CH4 molecule looks like a window screen to the smaller H2 molecule.
• http://mechanicalplating.com/hydrogen.htm"
• Energy flow/pipe volume. For a given pressure, an H2 pipe needs 3.5X greater cross sectional area to push the same amount of energy down the pipe.

H2 pipes are therefore more elaborate than CNG pipes.

 

[mheslep]

...We need to decide to do the only viable (economically, politically, technically) thing to solve this two-pronged energy problem: start building nuclear plants at a rate of 20 a year for the next 40 years.

8000GW of nuclear? Why? Did you mean worldwide? Current US electric is 1000GW, transportation/heating/etc another 1000GW equivalent of fuel, and the growth rate is declining w/ increasing end use efficiency (as you've pointed out?).

The missing part of this or Sen. McCain's build nuclear proposal is the fix for the broken approval / regulatory process in the US, or whatever it is that drives the current plant proposal costs skyward. That is the hard part, as attempted remedies are bound to bring out protests. As it is, I wouldn't favor building even plant #1 at a cost of http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id=19482". It certainly means taxpayer financing as the private sector won't touch capital that big for 6 to 10 year projects; Moody's has said as much. For the waste issue, Yucca is fine IMO, but McCain needs to say he's going to go ahead and turn it on, now not later. I'd support a fix, but where's the plan?

 

[Count Iblis]

The waste problem is not as big a problem if you use fast breeder reactors. And why not use radioactive waste that cannot be reprocessed like caesium-137 as a heat source?

 

[mheslep]

... And why not use radioactive waste that cannot be reprocessed like caesium-137 as a heat source?

Cs-137 is bad juju. It enters biological pathways easily by chemically pretending to be potassium, stays in the body for a couple of months. We want to minimize hand-offs of Cs-137 and like biologically active radioisotopes, not increase them.

 

[Count Iblis]

Cs-137 is bad juju. It enters biological pathways easily by chemically pretending to be potassium, stays in the body for a couple of months. We want to minimize hand-offs of Cs-137 and like biologically active radioisotopes, not increase them.

Cs-137 will be produced anyway in nuclear fission reactions. So, why not design some fully automized factory in which you separate it and make some compound that contains it? This material would then presumably be red hot from all the heat generated by radioactive decay.

You can then make a heat exchanger out of it and use it in a powerplant or to produce warm water for homes. After 30 years the power of the Cs-137 heating element will be halved. You then recycle it in the nuclear waste reprocessing factory. The ability to do this safely depends on what we can do with machines and robots.

Robot technology is predicted to become much more powerful in the near future, so perhaps we should store radiaoactive waste in easy to access places.

 

[mheslep]

I know it is a byproduct of U fission. Again, you increase safety by minimizing the number of times its handled after its produced. I suggest: all reactors->truck/train-> single, permanent waste storage. Stop. Not: all reactors->truck/train->waste reprocessing->temporary storage->truck/trains in all directions ->install power plants -> remove from power plants -> temporary storage -> trucks/trains -> permanent waste storage.

 

[russ_watters]

8000GW of nuclear? Why? Did you mean worldwide? Current US electric is 1000GW, transportation/heating/etc another 1000GW equivalent of fuel, and the growth rate is declining w/ increasing end use efficiency (as you've pointed out?).

I think you slipped a decimal place there: Reactors (I said plants, but close enough) run at 1 GW apiece, so 800 of them is 800 GW. Assuming 2 per plant, that's 1600 GW, which would be enough to cover our electricity and most of our transportation, as well as convert much of our current fossil fuel heat to electric.

It was early, though - currently we have 100 plants, 300 reactors, so my math doesn't quite work out, but you get the idea.

 

[mheslep]

I think you slipped a decimal place there: Reactors (I said plants, but close enough) run at 1 GW apiece, so 800 of them is 800 GW. Assuming 2 per plant, that's 1600 GW, which would be enough to cover our electricity and most of our transportation, as well as convert much of our current fossil fuel heat to electric.

It was early, though - currently we have 100 plants, 300 reactors, so my math doesn't quite work out, but you get the idea.

Yes, arg, inventing zeros again.

 

[Astronuc]

Google CEO: How to fix U.S. energy problems
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10056099-54.html

SAN FRANCISCO--The United States government has been unable to fix the country's energy problems, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said, but the Internet giant on Wednesday proposed its own 22-year solution.

"We have seen a total and complete failure of leadership in the political parties of the United States," Schmidt said in a speech at the Commonwealth Club here. "We've been working on a plan to help solve this problem."

Earlier in the day, Google unveiled that plan, which doesn't lack for chutzpah: Clean Energy 2030 aims to wean the United States from its dependence on fossil fuels within 22 years.

. . .
Energy efficiency is at the forefront of Google's thoughts: the company operates hundreds of thousands of servers, and the company has warned that energy costs could outpace server hardware costs. So a decline in energy costs makes practical sense, Schmidt said. . . . .

Energy independence or at least much less dependence on external resources makes good business sense - not to mention provides for more security.

 

[mheslep]

Seems like Google owes more attribution to Pickens or DoE than a 'they also have plans'. Google's electric plan attached. The biggest Google change by 2020 is a big push in wind. Good idea, but it is not their idea, nor do they address the hard parts of making wind work (transmission costs and right of ways, base load power - esp over 20% wind, they propose 28%).
Also, they simply claim geothermal will go from 2.5GW to 80, 33X, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary backup.

 

[Topher925]

Google is investing some big money into all types of alternative energy. For example they gave 10 mill to venture capital company Makani Power (my companies competitor) for a high altitude wind generator. Other than throwing money around, I don't really see them doing much of anything.

 

[vanesch]

Seems like Google owes more attribution to Pickens or DoE than a 'they also have plans'. Google's electric plan attached. The biggest Google change by 2020 is a big push in wind. Good idea, but it is not their idea, nor do they address the hard parts of making wind work (transmission costs and right of ways, base load power - esp over 20% wind, they propose 28%).

Also note the "savings from effciency", which just stands for "deficit I don't know how to fill in". Triple nuclear, and all the handwaving is gone... so are they going to spend some money on nuclear ? Or is that not Politically Correct ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'd say you guys are talking past each other. mheslp is simply saying that it isn't viable, while Ivan is saying it is being done. But the fact that it is being done doesn't have anything to do with whether it is viable or not.

Closely following a sighting of a Hydrogen-powered 7 series during testing, BMW officially announced the Hydrogen 7 today. The car is touted as the first hydrogen-drive luxury performance automobile for everyday use. The BMW Hydrogen 7 will be built in a limited series, and sold to select customers in the U.S. and overseas in 2007. The engine in the Hydrogen 7, a derivative of the 7 series 12 cylinder engine, is capable of running on gasoline or hydrogen, and produces 260 hp. The car will accelerate from 0 to 62.1 mpg in 9.5 seconds. The ability to run on both gasoline and hydrogen gives the Hydrogen 7 a range of more than 400 miles. The high tech hydrogen storage tank has a capacity of approximately 17.6 lb of liquid hydrogen, giving the Hydrogen 7 a cruising range in hydrogen mode upwards of 125 miles.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

As I said, it is being done today. If it is being used in practical applications, how is it not viable? Yours is a subjective interpretation; just as when mheslp argues that a range of 40 miles makes plug-ins viable. How can a 40 mile range be viable if 125 to 400 miles isn't? And with a 300 miles range on gasoline, they must have a full sized tank. So there is much more room for hydrogen storage.

Also, as posted earlier:

LAWRENCE Livermore employees and visitors last January might have spotted a white Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle driving continuously around the square-mile site. The car was making history by setting a world record for the longest distance driven on one tank of fuel in a vehicle modified to run on hydrogen.

...The Prius, which has a combination electric motor and small internal combustion engine, traveled 1,050 kilometers (653 miles) on a tank containing 150 liters (almost 40 gallons) of liquid hydrogen. The overall fuel economy for the driving conditions used by the Livermore team was about 105 kilometers per kilogram of hydrogen, which is equivalent to about 65 miles per gallon of gasoline. Coincidently, 1 kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline. [continued]

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also note the "savings from effciency", which just stands for "deficit I don't know how to fill in". Triple nuclear, and all the handwaving is gone... so are they going to spend some money on nuclear ? Or is that not Politically Correct ?

Pretty much everyone is on-board for more nuclear power now. It seems that people have forgotten the ineptitude of our bureaucracy, which is hard to understand given the credit crisis. But, either way, we will have better options before we can build many plants.

 

[vanesch]

Pretty much everyone is on-board for more nuclear power now. It seems that people have forgotten the ineptitude of our bureaucracy, which is hard to understand given the credit crisis. But, either way, we will have better options before we can build many plants.

Naaah, it won't take 200 years to build many plants, will it ?

 

[mheslep]

Google is investing some big money into all types of alternative energy. For example they gave 10 mill to venture capital company Makani Power (my companies competitor) for a high altitude wind generator. Other than throwing money around, I don't really see them doing much of anything.

Yes, same with some PV solar people. So far it appears to me as mostly marketing ala "dont be evil" which is fine, but they are still a search/information/advertising company. If they want to play in energy, spin somebody off and stop the amateur show.

 

[mheslep]

Naaah, it won't take 200 years to build many plants, will it ?

6 to 10 years each, so far. Blame law suits and and red tape if you like, but someone proposing a big push in nuclear ought to fix that first.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

As I said, it is being done today. If it is being used in practical applications, how is it not viable? Yours is a subjective interpretation; just as when mheslp argues that a range of 40 miles makes plug-ins viable. How can a 40 mile range be viable if 125 to 400 miles isn't? And with a 300 miles range on gasoline, they must have a full sized tank. So there is much more room for hydrogen storage.

Also, as posted earlier:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

The problem with the BMWr is not its range, as we all frequently point out, the issue lies with the energy hit taken in creating the H2. Liquification uses 35% of the energy of the energy contained therein vs 10% for compression. For that reason, the serious players (DoE/EERE, Honda, etc) only consider H2 in compressed form for vehicles, and compression still has tank size problems.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Since we've already discussed the problems with H2 transport, consider the somewhat more plausible scenario of distributed/local H2 production: the cryogenic equipment required for the 'H2 station' would be vastly more expensive than simple compressors.

Regards EV range I agree that the range limitations of pure EVs make them non-viable. However a hybrid plug-in, such as PHEV-40 Chevy Volt has a total range of 360 miles, the forty mile range is the all electric range. After that (or in combination if you like) it runs from gasoline to achieve 360.

 

[russ_watters]

As I said, it is being done today. If it is being used in practical applications, how is it not viable?

You are a good enough businessman to know that people sometimes do things just to prove they can be done, even if it means losing vast amounts of money on the project. The hope is that someday that loss will turn into a gain.

Yours is a subjective interpretation...

No, what we have are different opinions/speculations on what kind of performance is necessary for viability. But...

...just as when mheslp argues that a range of 40 miles makes plug-ins viable. How can a 40 mile range be viable if 125 to 400 miles isn't?

...performance is only one piece of the viability equation. There is also cost and target market. There are already perfectly viable small electric vehicles in use all over the world. They are called golf carts. Besides usage on a golf course, they are also used by large corporations for on-campus transportation. But that doesn't mean they are a viable replacement for cars in other applications. So you need to be very specific about what you mean when you say such things. Ie:

-A 40 mi range electric car could be viable as a commuter car. What fraction of passenger cars they could possibly replace, I don't know. Perhaps 20-50%.
-In order to replace regular passenger cars completely, the replacement must equal their performance to be viable. That's 300-400mi.
-That doesn't help us much with light trucks and SUVs, much less larger trucks.

Now having a 40 mi range, of course, is not enough to declare a new electric car "viable". It also needs to have a competitive price and that price needs to be real. Toyota sold the Prius at a loss initially (not sure if they still do) and that is not a business model that is sustainable. A 40 mi range car, to be viable, has to cost, in my estimation, a maximum of $15,000 and yet still be profitable for the car company. That's going to be a tall order for decades to come, unless there is an enormous and unexpected breakthrough in battery technology.

[edit] Oh, and we can't forget that the cost analysis must include the fuel cost, which is a serious source of viability issues for hydrogen and electric cars. For the electrics, people tend to trumpet the low cost of night-time electricity, but neglect the fact that the batteries will need to be replaced periodically. Even if they last for a thousand charges, people will be swapping them out every 40,000 miles. People cringe at paying $200 every couple of years for tires - imagine having to drop $5000+ on a new battery pack for your $15,000 car!

 

[russ_watters]

Pretty much everyone is on-board for more nuclear power now. It seems that people have forgotten the ineptitude of our bureaucracy, which is hard to understand given the credit crisis.

Given that the bureaucracy was caused by the opposition, if it really is true that people are onboard, then the bureaucracy will go away and the time from announcement to tape-cutting should drop to 6-10 years.

I won't be holding my breath, but if you are right (and I hope you are), we could double or triple our nuclear output by that 2030 timetable in that Google chart.

 

[mheslep]

Also note the "savings from effciency", which just stands for "deficit I don't know how to fill in". Triple nuclear, and all the handwaving is gone... so are they going to spend some money on nuclear ? Or is that not Politically Correct ?

It is not reasonable to call efficiency savings hand waving any more. There is a large body of work now, and data and experience, showing end user efficiency savings in kWh are something one can buy as surely as one can buy kWh from another power plant, up to a point. There's little dispute about the savings available in buildings via thermal management and lighting (California standards / LEEDs buildings in the US) with available and already proven technology. Similarly there's little dispute that 5 passenger vehicles can eventually hit 40+ mpg using advanced combustion engines, forget about EVs for the moment. Its just a matter of buying the savings, and one can buy quite a bit for $17B ( per 2GW nuclear plant.)