0
   

Wisconsin GOP takes deadly aim at envirowhack policies

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 12:49 pm
@CoastalRat,
As a dedicated leftie, let me point out that I and many of my fellow travelers well understand the need for maintaining conventional energy production sources until better ones can be developed. It should be understood, though, that these sources represent a stop-gap solution, not the future of energy production for our nation, as there are significant externalizes associated with them - not the least of which being exploding water due to hydro fracking.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 12:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The clueless is leading the blind... Awesome!
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 01:14 pm


There are significant externalized threats associated
with following radical liberal progressive democrats.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 02:50 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I had to highlight this one as an example where the "two party system" has it wrong on both sides. The righties only want to hear about "drill baby drill". The lefties only want to hear about alternative energy and conservation. WE NEED BOTH, and until the parties are at loggerheads we aint going anywhere. I listen to you and that idiot H2O man (who rarely has anything intelligent to say anyway) and , pf course Okie and all I hear is thios mantra of more petroleum. Thats basically stupid by itself. We should be uing these resources and changing to a gas economy nd col gasification (most of the coal thats left in the Appalachians is too close to inhabited areas and mining would cause major problems) . Gasification can result from steam injection or COs discharge into fracked coal measures.
As this is going on we need to be doing advanced research into battery tech, solar power, geothermal, nuke, etc.

Both sides have it wrong and both sides have a piece pf the right answer.


Well said.

The "either/or" political approach to energy policy, like its counterpart with respect to deficit reduction, leads only to the continuing paralysis we have come to consider as normal - at our very great peril.

I believe the core dilemma with respect to energy is that there are no cheap, scalable, clean alternatives to the sources we have today.anywhere on the horizon - and that is not likely to change anytime soon.

We have been studying clean fusion reactors for six decades now and with very little to show for it. The core problem is the containment of the high temperature plasma required to fuse hydrogen or other light elements. Periodically we see optimistic announcements of progress in this area, but the unhappy fact is that neutron embrittlement limits containment structures, and the remedies for it distort the plasma required to sustain the reaction - a deadend tradeoff.

So we are left in a situation in which we have (1) plentiful fossil fuels; coal, natural gas, even recoverable petroleum - but each with their own environmental problems, ranging from air pollution to the geological side effects of extraction ; (2) available "renewable" alternatives (chiefly wind & solar) that are relatively much more expensive, even with the "externalities" in mind , require lots of land for generation & transmission lines, produce electrical power when the sun shines & the wind blows, requiring power storage & recovery that is at best about 60% efficient; and (3) fission nuclear power which is cheaper than fossil fuel power and has a much lower environmental impact, but which spooks the hell out of everyone (26,000 dead & missing in Japan, but no one killed as a result of the reactor failures).

We have no choice but to continue using all three, while working to find acceptable ways of mitigating their defects and adverse side effects - knowing that none of the defects are likely to go away soon.

There are third and fourth generation fission reactor designs available that would very likely have remained intact even under a very unusual and extreme natural event like what struck northern Japan. It is noteworthy that the same earthquake also caused the catastrophic failure of a dam & hydroelectric plant which wiped out a town and a reported 1,800 homes. I haven't seen any details about fatalities, but it seems likely they were in the thousands - this element of the earthquake disaster has received almost no public attention. Should we take down all our dams?

H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:00 pm



The idiot left and their pseudo messiah Barry are working hard to destroy this countries capitalist economy
and they are using lame environmental issues to install their fascist economy. This constitutional republic is
doomed if these radical liberal progressive democrats succeed with their sinister plans. Don't let this happen!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:02 pm
@georgeob1,
The only thing I'd add to your list is geothermal power production - something that we've barely scratched the surface of (literally) and that produces a continual stream of power.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,


Caveat emptor

Geothermal power can waste a tremendous amount of precious water if not set-up correctly.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:33 pm
@H2O MAN,
home geothermal power are usually "closed loop" systems. Im not a big fan of unbridled high temperature geothermal until we develop a well design that, like fracking, doesnt allow leakage of recharge into possible mobile fault systems.

GEorgeob----

I include algae based and other sourced biodiesel as an alternative energy inquiry. We are making ALL our biodiesel needs for our trucks and 2 drill rigs rig. I can pass this saving on to clients in the east coast, but when I do work in our Argentina/Chile area--we have a huge fuel bill to pass on.



BAttery technology is making nice incremental advances based upon crystal symmetry research. The worlds supply of lithium and other rare earths is undergoing a nice exploration program that makes me always put my retirement on hold for a few weeks a month. The geochemists and physicists are recreating new crystal symmetry not seen in nature and these are adding incremental amnounts of "storage " and decreases in charge times to the life of new lithium batteries.

The hell of it is that, no matter what the "drill baby drill" guys keep bleating, the entire world (Other than the US) is waaay out in front in solar, magnetism, geothermal, and battery tech. We can sit back and watch or we can get our **** together and corral this "either/ or" mentality that keeps the D's and the R's from making progress).



georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Interestingly the Sierra club and other environmental advocacy groups are dead set against geothermal power. At one point the SC even expressed a preference for nuclear power development in northern California in an attempt to block PG&E's geothermal projects near Mt Shasta.

There are some valid environmental concerns attendant to geothermal. Some involve transport & geological issues similar to those getting so much press with gas exploration lately. There are also some difficult engineering issues associated with corrosive elements in the deep, hot groundwater.

All of these problems should be regarded as serious challenges to be overcome or (more likely) slowly mitigated or reduced through better design and choice of site and power source. Instead we see a continued argument for "all of this and none of that" or vice versa. Farmerman had it right.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:00 pm
@farmerman,


Closed loop is the way to go, but many are open loop and they waste a huge amount of H2O.
The water used must be treated and it's pH must not be of a corrosive nature.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:08 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

BAttery technology is making nice incremental advances based upon crystal symmetry research. The worlds supply of lithium and other rare earths is undergoing a nice exploration program that makes me always put my retirement on hold for a few weeks a month. The geochemists and physicists are recreating new crystal symmetry not seen in nature and these are adding incremental amnounts of "storage " and decreases in charge times to the life of new lithium batteries.
True enough, but even these batteries involve hysteresis and substantiual loss of energy, and none of them is remotely capable of storing energy in MWhr scales. The Lake Smith dam in southwest Virginia has been the East Coast's main energy storage device for over a generation. At night excess electrical power is used to pump water up from the lower lake, and at peak demand hours it flows back down to generate new power. However, as you know, we get back only about 60% of what is put in. New techniques may raise the recovery efficiency to (say) 70%, but more is not likely.

farmerman wrote:

The hell of it is that, no matter what the "drill baby drill" guys keep bleating, the entire world (Other than the US) is waaay out in front in solar, magnetism, geothermal, and battery tech. We can sit back and watch or we can get our **** together and corral this "either/ or" mentality that keeps the D's and the R's from making progress).


I'm not so sure about that. Iceland is certainly a world leader in geothermal, but they have no coal, petroleum, few trees, and live on a major geological hotspot. However, apart from Norway, the rest of Europe has little geothermal development. I just returned from a very pleasant visit to Germany where the press commentary involved a lot of discussion of how much they have spent on wind power and how little they have got from it -on one side - and we must shut our nukes down now! on the other. Very much the "either/or" mentality we wring our hands about here. (Meanwhile the French and Spanish are steadily building more 3rd generation nuke plants, and the Chinese are eclipsing both of them.) I fear it is the human condition.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:30 pm
@georgeob1,
I look at the energy needs to do the tasks unique to that generation/storage medium. I see battery tech as a "mobile energy source" Weve already got cubic xl lithium '(X) batteries that can be applied to a battery pack for an auto that will go for 400 mi per charge and the charge only takes 2 hours ) Incremental changes to battery tech will have us developing a good "california style" commuter car that can recharge during the work day. I also see pool and pub transit on battery power for inter city transport and inner city transp[ort. The magic number of 1000 miles and 2 hour charge time will be on us by 2015 Ill wager. AND itll be CHINESE tech . We developed the lattice chemistry and they ran with it. We are too busy eating each others lunch.

The actual title of this thread is an example of how the lack of understanding that stewardship can be a BUSINESS PLAN, not an end run.

Ill bet you represent industries that 25 years ago were in court pleading "not guilty" and these same industries today are leading in means of "Green tech"
We do work for a major local company that has entire divisions associated with green products that are no longer"better things for better living through chemistry".
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:48 pm
@farmerman,
True enough, but the electrical power that charges the battery will be produced from coal, nuclear plants or, increasingly gas turbine plants. There are substantial power losses between the heat engines used to produce the electricity and the power delivered to the battery (over 30%). Indeed if one imagines the electricity was produced in a gas turbine plant, one could argue that using the gas to power a CNG fuelled IC engine in the vehicle would be more efficient than the electrical vehicle even one with a super battery.

You are right that technical progress is continuous and many folks cling to outmoded methods. Where one stands very often depends on where he sits.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:50 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

True enough, but the electrical power that charges the battery will be produced from coal, nuclear plants or, increasingly gas turbine plants. There are substantial power losses between the heat engines used to produce the electricity and the power delivered to the battery (over 30%). Indeed if one imagines the electricity was produced in a gas turbine plant, one could argue that using the gas to power a CNG fuelled IC engine in the vehicle would be more efficient than the electrical vehicle even one with a super battery.


Does that count the transport cost of gasoline and oil, and the cost of cleaning up the pollution that emits from the car? I doubt it. Not to mention the fact that IC engines are dreadfully inefficient.

Re: battery technology, do either of you guys have any experience with molten-salt batteries? I've been reading interesting articles about them lately but don't have much background as to whether they are feasible in the large-scale.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Does that count the transport cost of gasoline and oil, and the cost of cleaning up the pollution that emits from the car? I doubt it. Not to mention the fact that IC engines are dreadfully inefficient.


I think the point was that a CNG powered car would consume less fuel and emit less pollution than would be involved in generating the electrical power (using the same natural gas) to propel an electrical vehicle. Even without understanding the thermodynamics or engineering involved, one can easily verify this on the Department of energy website. They have data on the fuel (coal, gas, etc) energy that is used to power our electrical grid and the equivalent electrical power that is delivered from these sources to the consumer. The losses can readily be seen.

There are transmission & conversion losses in our electrical grid as well as losses in the transport of fuel. Moving energy in the form of gasoline in a tanker truck is about as efficient as pushing electrons through a copper wire. All heat engines are "dreadfully inefficient" - including those involved in the generation of electricity.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 05:21 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Does that count the transport cost of gasoline and oil, and the cost of cleaning up the pollution that emits from the car? I doubt it. Not to mention the fact that IC engines are dreadfully inefficient.


I think the point was that a CNG powered car would consume less fuel and emit less pollution than would be involved in generating the electrical power (using the same natural gas) to propel an electrical vehicle. Even without understanding the thermodynamics or engineering involved, one can easily verify this on the Department of energy website. They have data on the fuel (coal, gas, etc) energy that is used to power our electrical grid and the equivalent electrical power that is delivered from these sources to the consumer. The losses can readily be seen.


At least some power can be generated on-site and avoid much of those losses. I have friends who charge their electric cars primarily through the solar panels on their roofs. Now, this isn't cost-effective when compared to gasoline today; but these are leading-edge, early-adopter guys. Improvements in both solar panels, home power grids, and battery technology will make this only more and more attractive over time.

Quote:
There are transmission & conversion losses in our electrical grid as well as losses in the transport of fuel. Moving energy in the form of gasoline in a tanker truck is about as efficient as pushing electrons through a copper wire.


No way, because that tanker truck is also producing emissions the whole way. Unless you are skipping the cost of dealing with those emissions - which you are - it isn't anywhere near as efficient.

Quote:
All heat engines are "dreadfully inefficient" - including those involved in the generation of electricity.


True - which is why it's not a great way to produce anything, be it electricity or motion.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 06:20 pm
@farmerman,
georgeob1 wrote:

True enough, but the electrical power that charges the battery will be produced from coal, nuclear plants or, increasingly gas turbine plants.


Yes...

Vehicles that plug-in to recharge rely heavily on the burning of coal.
Obama and the radical liberal progressive democrat enviroweenies are hell bent on busting the coal industry in America.

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 06:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
There are transmission & conversion losses in our electrical grid as well as losses in the transport of fuel. Moving energy in the form of gasoline in a tanker truck is about as efficient as pushing electrons through a copper wire.


No way, because that tanker truck is also producing emissions the whole way. Unless you are skipping the cost of dealing with those emissions - which you are - it isn't anywhere near as efficient.
You are correct that the truck's engine is consuming energy and producing emissions along the way - that is the cost & loss associated with moving the energy stored in the gasoline. However, you are incorrect in assuming that no energy is lost in moving electrical energy across our grid and stepping the voltage up & down through transformers. These losses are comparable per unit of energy delivered to those in the truck. The difference is that they occur at the point of generation of the electrical power and the losses go into heat and electrical fields along the way.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
All heat engines are "dreadfully inefficient" - including those involved in the generation of electricity.


True - which is why it's not a great way to produce anything, be it electricity or motion.

I think you are ignoring important features of physics and thermodynamics here. Windmills and solar cells are far less efficient in extracting the "available" energy from sunlight or wind movement than are (say) IC engines in extracting the available energy from their gasoline fuel. The same goes for nuclear powerplants that capture only a tiny portion of the mass energy converted in fission as useful heat. The difference is that the perceived sources of energy for windmills, solar cells and nuclear reactors are far more abundant and their inefficiencies don't matter much.

Moving electrical energy isn't free either , as I noted above, Moreover transforming it to heat or motion also involves very substantial losses.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 07:36 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Moreover transforming it to heat ... also involves very substantial losses.


I thought that electric heat, say, powering baseboard heaters, is 100% efficient. For every KWH put in, 3413 BTUs of heat come out, which is what one KWH has. The inefficiencies are in producing, and as you say, delivering electrical energy.

gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 08:07 pm
@JTT,
That's probably the most expensive way to heat anything that there is. Heat pumps are better if you have to have electric heating.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:33:04