Powerl, Fuel, Global warming, and you

[JonathanB]

Heh!

Ppl never fail to amaze me...

Gasoline is $3.00 a gallon, and rising -- and not a peep!

Royalties for free Internet radio stations is going up, and it's the end of the world as we know it...

In the be careful what you wish for category...

Sometimes I wish the price of gas would go up 10 bucks a gallon. Then instead of people whining about our addiction to foreign oil, they might actually do something about it.

But that's another thread...

[Ron]

(In some ways) I was thrilled when we hit $80 a barrel for oil, as that's about the price where alternative energy sources start to become financially competitive.

[mattsiegman]

Ethanol will never be financially competitive, and causes more environmental damage then using oil... And there's the fact that it drives up food prices because farmers start growing more corn for ethanol... Ohhhhhh, don't get me started....

[Vin DSL]

This is GREAT!

Every time I start feeling weird, ppl like you make me feel normal again...

So, now, you don't care about the price of gasoline, because it hurts others. You're the smart ones, and everyone else deserves to be punished -- except for music, which you hold dear to your confused hearts...

Um...

Am I getting close?!?!?

[Ron]

No, Vin, I care.

I know that oil is a finite resource. I know there is some data that shows that CO2 is at least partly responsible for an increase in global temperatures (for good or for bad).

Our country is sending our treasure and our future overseas to purchase the oil we need to keep the economy going. In order that we become self sufficient we MUST move to non-oil forms of energy, and in my opinion the sooner the better.

Matt, I don't know if ethanol-from-corn is a good thing or a bad thing. I DO know that previous studies have suggested that what you have posted is true, and I also know that there have been some improvements in technology and some economies of scale achieved that may make ethanol production at least energy neutral, which is pretty horrible.

[the_ancient]

No, Vin, I care.

I know that oil is a finite resource. I know there is some data that shows that CO2 is at least partly responsible for an increase in global temperatures (for good or for bad).

Damn your a tree Hungger to, of course it is kinda ironic that the tree huggers are against the trees "air". After all tree CONSUME CO2 and PRODUCE O2

Also, as I am sure your aware , the earth NATURALLY produces TONS of CO2 gas every year. In fact the latest reports show 95% of CO2 come from NATURAL sources.

It is PURE arrogance to assume we know what is going on, If the earths life was consolidated to 1 hr of time our history would be but a fraction of a microsecond. We lack the historical data to know if we are causing some problem or the more likely event that we are in merely a normal earth cycle, After all what data we have retrieved from Ice cores and other sources show similar CO2 build ups during the time that Dino;s roamed the earth, and I have yet to see the Dino Version of the Hummer

Our country is sending our treasure and our future overseas to purchase the oil we need to keep the economy going. In order that we become self sufficient we MUST move to non-oil forms of energy, and in my opinion the sooner the better.

Yes and no, At some point we WILL have tap our reserves, I would much rather use theirs up NOW, and then use ours AFTER they have none, than to Tap ours and then have a Beg for Scraps when our reserves our gone. Plus it is Easier and Cheaper to refine Light Sweet Crude in to gas than it is to Refine the Heavy Sour Crude found in the Gulf.

And what Alternative forms of Energy to you propose for Cars? Most of the viable Technologies have been Banned or Tax/regulated out of Possibility by your great and wonderful EPA (another worthless and unconstitutional Organization)

Matt, I don't know if ethanol-from-corn is a good thing or a bad thing. I DO know that previous studies have suggested that what you have posted is true, and I also know that there have been some improvements in technology and some economies of scale achieved that may make ethanol production at least energy neutral, which is pretty horrible.

cellulosic ethanol Nuff Said...

If you dont know what that is, Stop talking about this subject because you dont have a clue

[JPC-Greg]

And what Alternative forms of Energy to you propose for Cars? Most of the viable Technologies have been Banned or Tax/regulated out of Possibility by your great and wonderful EPA (another worthless and unconstitutional Organization)

ethanol isnt viable. Hydrogen fuel cells are the future.

[Ron]

I used to think the same thing, Greg but I have changed my mind. Hydrogen cars may be the future, but they aren't the near future.

The efficiency of the fuel cell is around 60%. That's a big (huge!) problem. Taking into account the costs of hydrolizing or otherwise producing the hydrogen from water the "wheel to well" cost of hydrogen is too high. Way too high.

That said, producing hydrogen from massive solar electric farms in the desert southwest might be an acceptable way of transporting solar-derived energy from that region to other areas of the coutry, regardless of the inefficiencies.

Some form of stored electricity is likely to be the car of the near future. The Tesla looks to be a really really cool all-electric vehicle. http://www.teslamotors.com/

ancient, stop being a troll. Although you're right we don't know (in my opinion) whether global warming is a good thing or a bad thing, the science is pretty clear at this point that increased carbon dioxide from human activity (the burning of fossil fuels primarily) is partly responsible for a small amount of the increase in global temperatures. You are right: Nobody is asking the right questions which is Global Warming: Real or not, is it good or bad?, and article I wrote almost 2 years ago.
Finally, why wouldn't we want to develop the alternative energy technologies NOW instead of when oil hits $500 a barrel?

[JPC-Greg]

Ron theres a new company and development using hydrogen that gets a much better return. In fact the vehicle is nearly self sufficient. Taking the vehicle from its current prototype concept to mass production I imagine would be at least a decade or more away though. Its actually a competition and goal right now among various groups to win the prize of developing an efficient low cost hydrogen car. Worlds full of water, we should use it. Best part of hydrogen is the exhaust is just water and air (more fuel) .

[JonathanB]

In fact the latest reports show 95% of CO2 come from NATURAL sources.

And what is your source for this "latest report?"

When people post things like "in fact" or "studies have shown" I want some kind of verification, or it's just hearsay.

[mattsiegman]

The efficiency of the fuel cell is around 60%. That's a big (huge!) problem. Taking into account the costs of hydrolizing or otherwise producing the hydrogen from water the "wheel to well" cost of hydrogen is too high. Way too high.

Actually, that's EXTREMELY efficient. A gasoline engine can't really get efficiency that's very good because of massive thermal leakage losses. No engine can be 100% efficient, in fact, nothing can get anywhere near 100%. It's actually a thermodynamic law. (I'm working on an engineering degree, and Thermodynamics covered this topic--a lot)

The problem with hydrogen is that producing it requires power, and will do some interesting things. If you use electrolysis to extract Hydrogen from water, you will have massive amounts of Oxygen gas around, which wll make it much easier for things to combust. If you extract it from the atmosphere, that WILL screw it all up.

Now, it would not be a good idea to deny that the planet is warming. It is; however, thinking that mankind caused it is arrogance. We are exiting a small ice age. in the 12 & 1300s, Parts of Greenland that are currently covered in ice were being farmed by the Vikings. In the 1300s, the written instructions on reaching Greenland started to change, mentioning that ice was becoming a major obstacle en route to Greenland. The areas covered by glaciers now were farmable then. That means that the planet use to be hotter than it is now, before we had the whole industrial revolution thing. (There is much more regarding the written record of man, and archeological finds that corroborate this explanation. This site: http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/index.html explains everything pretty well. I didn't get my info from there, but it does have everything I'd say on there, and then some...)

Despite my views on global warming, I do believe that cleaning up our emissions can only help things. I honestly don't have a problem when private companies do this voluntarily. (I agree that the EPA is run by a bunch of idiots, and is waaaaay to powerful.)

One final note: solar power is not a good method of electric generation. The best way to do it is nuclear. (Did you know that nuclear plants actually produce less toxic & radioactive waste than a Coal burning plant.)

[Ron]

Not such a good thing if you've got thousands of cars sitting in rush hour traffic dumping water on the roads in New England in the winter It will need to be stored.

[Ron]

60% is horribly inefficient COMPARED to all electric, battery stored. That's the yardstick, the gold standard, if you will. Until we approach the efficiencies of battery powered vehicles, the technologies can't be economically viable. Again, COMPARED TO ALL ELECTRIC.

We're really efficient at locally generating transmitting and storing (in small quantity) and using electricity. The losses are tiny compared to anything else, in addition we can recapture some energies during braking -- which we could also do in a advanced hybrid vehicle of some sort, but if you're already including the motor/alternators and storage... just make the thing electric. I'd actually like to see an oil/steam/electric vehicle LOL Actually since current stupid fuel cell technology gets up to what, 700 degrees? you could make steam there too.

Nuclear may be a part of it. I used to be greatly in favor of nuclear until I realized we are creating all of this highly durable and radioactive material on the earth that just didn't exist before. We need to develop a method of dealing with this before we continue.

I don't understand how you can say that solar is no good, btw. Such a small area of land can generate such vast amounts of usable energy....

I have two questions, Matt.
1) Are there any chemical processes that will convert CO2 into a combustable liquid or solid. Regardless of the level exogenous energy required in the process.

2) How does solar energy collection alter the heat cycle? ie does the colleciton of solar energy increase the energy sotred on the earth, would the solar energy be reflected back to space and now will be captured and stored on earth?

[JPC-Greg]

Nuclear may be a part of it. I used to be greatly in favor of nuclear until I realized we are creating all of this highly durable and radioactive material on the earth that just didn't exist before. We need to develop a method of dealing with this before we continue.

Nothing a cheap rocket to the sun cant handle. Or better yet there is a lab in europe thats close to producing a mini sun in a lab. With a energy source like that on earth we could just vaporize the waste , no?

[mattsiegman]

60% is horribly inefficient COMPARED to all electric, battery stored. That's the yardstick, the gold standard, if you will. Until we approach the efficiencies of battery powered vehicles, the technologies can't be economically viable. Again, COMPARED TO ALL ELECTRIC.

We're really efficient at locally generating transmitting and storing (in small quantity) and using electricity. The losses are tiny compared to anything else, in addition we can recapture some energies during braking -- which we could also do in a advanced hybrid vehicle of some sort, but if you're already including the motor/alternators and storage... just make the thing electric. I'd actually like to see an oil/steam/electric vehicle LOL Actually since current stupid fuel cell technology gets up to what, 700 degrees? you could make steam there too.

Generating electricity is actually very inefficient. There is constant research being done in this area, because a 1-2% increase in efficiency can mean hundreds of thousands more watts for the same amount of money. Local generation isn't much better. Almost every power plant on the planet revolves around a steam cycle, which involves heating water to a very high temperature, and VERY high pressure. They are very particular about steam quality, because if ANY of the steam goes from a gaseous state to a liquid state, it would ruin the turbine blades. (I don't remember the velocity, but I'm thinking 1-2k mph.) Generating electricity is a lot harder than it would seem

Nuclear may be a part of it. I used to be greatly in favor of nuclear until I realized we are creating all of this highly durable and radioactive material on the earth that just didn't exist before. We need to develop a method of dealing with this before we continue.

Yucca mountain facility being planned would work great. The only problem is all the NIMBYs out there. Currently, the nuclear waste is stored on site at all these plants. Per kWhr, you have much less waste from a nuclear plant than a coal plant, because much more coal must be burned. More toxic waste (not radioactive, toxic [which will never be non-toxic]) is created at a coal plant.

Anyhow, power plants fascinate me, and I'm rambling.

I don't understand how you can say that solar is no good, btw. Such a small area of land can generate such vast amounts of usable energy....

I have two questions, Matt.
1) Are there any chemical processes that will convert CO2 into a combustable liquid or solid. Regardless of the level exogenous energy required in the process.

Not that I know of. I know that plants convert break down CO2. I'm sure that someone could come up with something. If you can seperate out the O2, you can create a very good environment for combustion, at the very least.

You'd probably have to combine the CO2 with significant quantities of some nasty chemical to create a combustible material.

2) How does solar energy collection alter the heat cycle? ie does the colleciton of solar energy increase the energy sotred on the earth, would the solar energy be reflected back to space and now will be captured and stored on earth?

Well, my first argument may seem rather silly, but: if you put solar panels over a large portion of the desert, say several hundred square miles, it could create a noticeable effect on the crust temperature. Instead of the thermal energy going toward heating the crust, most of it is focused on the solar panels. I don't know how much water this explanation holds, but it does make sense to me.

Solar power is additionally susceptible to many things, such as clouds and that whole night time thing. If it was just susceptible to night, solar power would be much better. One of the hardest things for the generation facilities to handle is the peak load on the power grid during a hot summer day. The only problem with depending on solar power for this kind of demand is that it could be raining on the solar panels. (It does rain every once in a while in the desert.) Utilities would be forced to have multiple generators (probably natural gas, they are the quickest to get on & ramped up to proper output) waiting on standby for this case.

I do think solar power is cool, but it is rather expensive, and if I remember correctly, manufacturing the panels is not an easy, cheap or environmentally friendly process.