rickair7777

EXACTLY.

The coal-conversion process is far too expensive to be economically viable right now. This might change with enough R&D and economy of scale, but it WILL NOT, WILL NOT, WILL NOT happen because of rising crude oil prices in the near future. Why? Because OPEC is NOWHERE NEAR THAT STUPID! If they raise prices high enough to force commercial-scale alternative fuel source development THEY ARE SCREWED AND THEY KNOW IT! They would never be able to put that genie back in the bottle!

Oil prices will be carefully managed to avoid driving the customers away until such time as oil reserves actually become scarce (50-100+ years from now).

The only way stuff like this is going to get going is if the government drives it artificially to reduce our dependence on forieg energy. This would be a great idea and might happen. Even bush has made moves in this direction.

jungle

California has been so clever about legislating energy that they have repeatedly been forced to buy electricity from powerplants in other states and then bemoaned the fact they were charged fair market prices.
To cripple the economy on promises of what might be and neglect current short term cures and the longer term prospect of plentiful nuclear energy is a questionable tactic for this countries interests.
We will run more alternative sources as they become economical, not when some politico deems them worthy of a subsidy.

ryane946

Nuclear power creates something called nuclear waste. It is not an environmentally friendly method to produce energy. It is unsafe. If you don't believe me, spend at least 2-3 hours researching what really happened at Chernobyl. Read about what they had to do to contain the radioactivity. The USSR basically had to call in their army and expose them to lethal doses of radiation for very short periods of time. They never actually fixed the problem. They just contained it. In fact there was enough nuclear fuel in there to last hundreds of years. The solid led container they build needs to be replaced. And radiation levels outside the plant are still incredibly high. Basically I will never live within 30 miles of a nuclear power plant and I hope none of you guys/gals do either.

Also, remember that the US makes up only 5% of the world's population. What about large countries that do not have a nuclear bomb, but want a solution to their energy problems. Should they be allowed to develop nuclear power plants in the way that Iran and North Korea are??? NO!!!!

If you want a long term, renewable, environmentally friendly, and global solution to our power needs, it is all about electricity and solar power.

rickair7777

As folks have mentioned, there are numerous alternative fuel sources available, and the vast majoroty of our civilization's energy generation and delivery needs could be covered by non-fossil sources if necessary:

Generation: Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal.

Delivery: Batteries, hydrogen, gyros, etc.


The one major energy using system we have that CAN NOT be practically supplied by alternative fuels is, you guessed it, commercial airliners!

1) System integration: Aircraft systems are so tightly integrated that modification of existing airframes to use an alternative fuel would be VERY difficult. It would be economically ludicrous, you would realistically have to build new airplanes from scratch. Capitalization is a huge issue here also... airplanes are designed to last for decades and are purchased and financed with that in mind.

2) Kerosene is an IDEAL fuel for airplanes. Aside from low cost and availability, it has many great technical properties:
-Light weight
-Non-explosive
-High energy density (lots of energy in a small volume)
-Non-corrosive
-Low-volatile (few explosive/poisonous vapors)
-Doesn't freeze or boil between -40C and +150C
-Doesn't boil at high altitudes (no need to pressurize the tanks)

Alternatives to kerosene and their major drawbacks:
-Gasoline: Very volatile. Lot's of exploding airplanes. Less energy density than kerosene.
-Ethanol: Low energy density.
-Hydrogen gas: requires very heavy pressure vessels. Low energy density.
-Methane (natural gas): requires very heavy pressure vessels. Low energy density.
-Liquid Hydrogen: EXTREMELY corrosive and hard to handle. Good energy content by weight, but low energy density...you would need a space-shuttle belly tank to carry the required volume.
-Liquid natural Gas (LNG): Lower energy density compared to kerosene. Would require insulated storage on the ground and some insulation in flight. This is probably the next-best thing available, but a 747 burning LNG would probably have enough range to fly from PHX to SAN without refueling.
-Batteries: Too expensive, too heavy, not enough energy density. The technolgy would have to improve by a factor of 1000 or more.
-Nuclear: This has been tried by the Air Force! It actually works great but the shielding required to keep crew/pax alive makes the airplane too heavy to fly. Politically a no-go anyway.
-Solar: Ludicrous. Shut up and go smoke another joint hippie. Energy density impossibly low and the only way to fix that is to "turn up the sun"
-Gyros: Energy density too low, plus precesion problems when the airplane manuevers.

jungle

Chernobyl has nothing in common with a modern nuclear powerplant. I live close to a Nuke plant and feel they are one of the safest and most thoruoghly tested devices made by man. I have yet to see a solar farm produce even a tiny percentage of an existing nuclear plant.
Perhaps you can tell us where one exists?

rickair7777

Solar technology is not there, and is inherently limited by the energy density of sunlight, and the latitude and climate of the collecting site. Probably works fine for a rancher in AZ (if he can afford the hardware) but isn't going to be of much use for the city of Amsterdam...

Long-term, fusion power is probably the answer but the technology needs 50 - 100 years to develop and even that is a WAG. Fusion has all the benefits of nuclear fission, but no waste products (well there are a few, but their half-lives are measured in minutes or seconds...they wouldn't make it to the parking lot if they leaked).

Nuclear fission is the best answer in the near-term (until fusion becomes economically practical). It is pollution-free. It is has a very good safety record if done correctly...using the russians as an example of nuclear safety is like using them as an example of aviation safety Let's compare apples to apples. The french of all people have a great nuclear program, providing over half of their energy needs, with no significant problem history. The biggest thing that they did correctly (that the US did not) was to establish a SINGLE authorized plant design. This allowed common training for all operators and the opportunity to get a LOT of operating experience and work out all the bugs. In the US, every plant was different, so every operator was a test pilot..almost every significant nuclear power incident in history had operator error as the most significant factor.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established a standard design for the next generation of US reactors, with an emphasis on inherent safety features and ease of operation. We should have a lot of optimism about our future nuclear power program.

ToiletDuck

This is completely false. Ethanol gives more power not less. It also cuts down on NO2 and NO, which when sunlight causes them to react creates 03(ozone) which causes birth defects, respritory problems ect. Ethanol does however produce more SO4.

I think you have it backwards. As I was saying Ethanol loses about 55000BTU to PRODUCE. Which means if the farm equipment, vechiles, plants ect. were all ran off it we would be at a minus. However it is possible to beat this. 60% of human waste can be turned into ethanol. That 75% of the US needs to be corn is complete BS. The current amount of corn being produced is around 72.7million acres which MOST goes to cattle. That acreage alone is enough to produce 18,175,000,000 gallons of ethanol. We currently use about 74 billion. We could easily up production of corn with current producing land. I'm a rice farmer and we rotate crops. Every 3 years we have a field with rice on it. Between those years we could put corn.

However there is other hope. One being that we genetically modify the corn. Everything you've eaten has been modified. From rice, beans, corn, ect. Everything is modified to make plants that grow sweeter corn, more ears per stock, or for rice we've genetically changed it to be shorter so it resist wind damage yet produces more. We can, over a period of a few years, alter corn or other products so that they would be used completely for fuel and fuel only. We'd alter the plants so that they have a MUCH higher startch content. They'd taste nasty but be very much more efficeint.

That being said ethanol is a waste until that happens. However with the farming industry dieing it doesn't hurt to raise the prices of crops a little.

Electric is the way to go. Once better battery systems are developed there is an unlimited amount of electricity potential in the world. Where there's wind, ocean currents, empty desert ect. electricity can be made.

I forgot who it was but there was a completely electric airplane model jet flying around for testing purposes. They were beaming the power to it through a laser from the ground so it could stay up for long periods of time. I've personally seen a model of a satellite(about the size of a 16oz cup) be shot up 20 feet using nothing but lasers.

On another note California might be one of the biggest economies. That doesn't say anything about the place. Sure it's the biggest. It also operates with the biggest deficit of 31 billion per year, worst in the economy, which is 3 times that of the next closest state, New .York. Solar panels are extremely expensive and have a lifespan as well FYI.

Also Biodiesel isn't just cooking oil. This past year we farmed soybeans and sold them to a biodiesel plant. More of it comes from beans than cooking oil ect.

ryane946

I would like to see your sources about Ethanol. I think you are downright wrong. If you could show me the credible source, I may believe it.

California does not have a deficit. We have a surplus. We had a deficit in 2003. You may remember we had an economic recession. We had a dot com bust. We had a liberal governor who was recalled. Of course our deficit was a higher amount because we have a high population. So this year our surplus is high. Probably higher than any other state. Why? Because we have a higher population. But you must not live here. That's too bad!

Electricity and solar power are the way to go. That's what all my posts have been advocating. Where as rickair mentioned the energy solution of nuclear fusion is 50-100 years down the line, efficient solar cells are right around the corner. We just have to stop wasting money throwing it into worthless fuel like E85 and cooking oil. Reinvest that same money into solar cells and in a few years we could have a 50,60,70,80% efficient solar cell that is cheap to produce.

I agree that kerosene is the way to go for aircraft. Atleast as far as I can tell.


Anyway, could you please share a credible source for that information on ethanol. I know for a fact that ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline! But I would like to see what is swaying your opinion.

ToiletDuck

Well as far as my info on ethanol goes I graduated from Baylor University with a degree in Aviation Sciences... So take a look here and see what we worked on.

http://www.baylor.edu/bias/index.php?id=5302

Randomly did a search and hit this:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question707.htm

You can then search for the production of corn in the US and find the average production per acre, I based it off how much we grow which is average or slightly more. Then do the math.

As for it being genitically modified.. A&M along with other programs come to us to plant new types of rice to test it. Or if they want to make a new breed that is short and bountiful we take short rice, plant one section of it, then we take rice that produces a bunch and plant a section of it right next to it. Each is usally 15 foot or so. Then they come in with helicopters during the right time and hover up and down over it causing the two blends of rice to cross-breed. Then you get your shorter heavier rice. They do it with all kinds of crops.

As far as 60% of human waste being usable we've done test. Japan actually has eliminated a landfill doing it. We first started using old M&M's and McDonalds leftovers. Anything that has starch can be made into fuel.

As far as saying you're wrong about biodeisel being stupid because it needs cooking oil was based on the fact that my family farms and last year we sold soybeans to biodiesel plants. So that was first hand knowledge again.

And yes... we grow corn and sell that to plants. This year especially.

While ethanol has less BTU's that means nothing. The fuel responds better at higher compression rates. Just think about it. It's alcohol not gas. What do you think is giving cars lower pollutants? The fuel they are burning helped quite a bit. 1/3rd of all gass produced had ethanol in it last year. However this isn't always the case. The Hybrids ethanol/gas will suck for a while because they either need to be 100% ethanol or 100% gas. To put ethanol in the gas engine without upping the compression causes a little loss in total milage.

It was also found that ethanol can absorb moisture. Didn't find any studies done besides the one my professor was doing. However by placing engines on the test stand they found at about 17% water in ethanol you actually got a little extra boost. Engines ran with up to 30/70 mix of water/ethanol successfully.

Solar power cost over twice the amount of traditional power. Nuclear/wind/tidal is the way to go. Our atmosphere kills the efficiency of solar power.



So instead of thinking I'm wrong why don't you look things up a little first. I'm not. I've worked with it. I've made it. Now back at home my family grows for it(and biodiesel). I'm not worried about feeding the world we already have plenty of food for that just most of it doesn't make it. We produce 10million pounds of rice a year alone. Or did until this year we just did 400 acres instead of 1k like normal. Market was bad.

BTW nuclear fusion has never been demonstrated(and I don't mean putting in a billion times the power you get out of it). A few people claimed it (using water) however they were never able to reproduce it. If they had we'd have it within a few years. It could still very well be impossible.

rickair7777

This is not exactly correct. It was true a number of years ago, and steady progress is being made. The current state of the art allows slightly more core energy output then the input required to initiate the process, so it has broken the Output > Input barrier. A massive, multi-billion dollar, internationally funded research reactor (tokamak type) is under construction france...so it is being taken very, very seriously. There is no reason to believe that it cannot be successfully devoloped.

A key, but little-understood advantage of fusion power is scalability...sources like solar and wind are not very scalable. Once you install facilities at the best sites, it becomes more and more difficult to add additional sites due to geography, latitude, climate, environmental, and encroachment issues. With fusion, even if you achieved a very low 2% net output from a fusion plant, the scalability would allow you to build a 1000 gigawatt plant that had a net output of two gigawatts...that's significant juice.