Replacing Fossil Fuels

[FuzzyKen]

On this we can do a great deal right now. The problem is that efforts to do so have been roadblocked because many in the current energy industry have spent millions in gifts to politicians to do just that.

In California, Solar energy was stifled when legislation was passed that would not allow an individual producing more energy than they used to sell it back to the power companies. Arnold Swarzenegger as Governor swore on a stack of Bibles that he would change this. It has never been changed.

In New Mexico all new public buildings (by law) must use what is called Geothermal heating and air conditioning systems because it is one of the most efficient systems beating out common air transfer systems by a wide margin. The entire campus including all dorms, administrative and class buildings of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces have been on Geothermal for years. In California, legislators have made it nearly impossible for any contractor to become licensed to install a geothermal system. The cost of the education for the license is so prohibitive that the systems sit. They have also made permits to install it so expensive that the power generation giants of that State profit greatly by the absence of this type of heating and air conditioning thereby wasting energy and scamming the consumer.

For those not knowing about Geothermal what this is is a heat pump system. Unlike conventional heat pumps that rely on outside ambient air temperature, geothermal systems pull heat and heat sink into the ground using what are called geothermal wells.

Though it is not a complete solution we can very easily convert our gasoline engine vehicle production over to clean diesel. New current diesels have a far lower carbon footprint than gasoline. In addition, biofuels do not need to be made from food items at all. There is an economical process which can make very clean biodiesel from a form of seaweed that is in essence a "weed". This can be cultivated and harvested for fuel usage. Diesel engines ARE performance engines with current technology. The 2011 Ford Powerstroke is rated at 390 horsepower and 735 foot lbs of torque. The 1.9L Volkswagen Jetta Turbodiesel is rated at 140 horsepower and also develops a great deal of torque at a low RPM.

One of our automobiles is an old Mercedes. The car has now gone over 500,000 miles and is still running well. Diesel engines can with good maintenance outlast gasoline by as much as 3 to 1 with proper maintenance. They have many advantages in that the performance does not deteriorate radically with changes in altitude because of the turbocharger. The new BMW and Benz Luxo diesels are rated at over 30 miles per gallon on the highway and they get that mileage driven sanely. The VW diesels can get up near 50 miles per gallon. Audi has been playing with a V-10 diesel version of their super high performance car the R-8 for some time. It has not been released because the torque output of that high performance diesel engine has so far trashed all the transmissions that they have put behind it.

Hybrid Vehicles in teh U.S. have only three which are proving to be decent and these are the Toyota Prius, the Honda and finally the newest kid which is the Ford Fusion Hybrid. I have friends with these cars who love them. Cutting consumption cuts the need for the oil and reduces our consumption of it. In Europe Ford, GM and Chrysler all offer vehicles with diesel engines that are sold in the United States Markets. All of the Chrysler Minivans have been available in the UK for years with diesel power. In the U.S. Chrysler dealers don't even know that these exist. Nissan Honda and Toyota all have diesels available in the Camry, Accord and Altima models in Europe. We can't mention those here!

When diesel fuel prices soared in California Big Oil was ready to stop those who would dare stop the rape of the consumer.

Big oil companies sponsored and were able to pass legislation in California to declare transport of vegetable oil in any amount greater than 5 gallons to be a biohazard thereby preventing the private manufacture of "biodiesel" using cheap available equipment to make their own fuel from recycled vegetable oil.

In certain areas, existing power companies have blocked the actual usage of wind turbine power generation. For those traveling between Los Angeles and Palm Springs there are thousands of these towers just west of Palm Springs in what is called the "Whitewater Pass". The power generated by these wind turbines is classified as "experimental" and as a result Southern California Edison the largest power supplier of the area takes the power, but does not consider it when charging their customers as high as 28 cents per killowatt hour for electricity in the Coachella Valley. In the San Francisco bay area PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) has used a similar ploy to increase rates and claim we have no power for years. If this was not enough, SDG&E (San Diego Gas and Electric) has also jumped on that bandwagon. Some have sponsored legislation to prevent the installation of private wind turbines by homeowners citing all kinds of bizarre things as reasons. In some places they have been successful.

New Mexico State Law and law in many other locations demands that power suppliers buy the power back from the consumer when that consumer generates it.

The largest energy consumers in our homes of electricity are as follows: Electric tank type Hot Water Heaters, Conventional Air Transfer Air Conditioners, Refrigerators and during the winter electric heat. Then after that comes electric dryers and then finally washing machines.

If someone wants to do something meaningful the first thing is to ban the manufacture and usage of any water heater in the United States that is not a demand based unit. Demand based or "tankless" are available in both gas and electric fuel sources. The United States is one of the few countries that still allows these fossils. European countries outlawed them decades ago. The ONLY place they are still found commonly is North America. Remember that each element in a 50 gallon electric water heater is somewhere between 4000 and 5000 watts! Conversion to a tankless unit is cheap if you have natural gas, and expensive if you have electric because some require incredible amperage capability. The secret is that they only operate when the faucet is running and do not store or constantly heat anything. Savings can be more than 50%!

The life of photovoltaic power cells is increasing and some are now offering 25 year warranties against failure. Major manufacturers are Kyocera, Siemens and others.

Lighting technology is changing very rapidly and improvements are coming. We right now have LED bulbs available that ARE comparable to incandescent or fluorescent, but those that are comparable are very expensive with the lumen equivalent of a 100w bulb costing about $125. Little by little more of the suppliers are having cheap crap built in China and then selling it here under their own names to see if we will accept this technology.

When it comes to a refrigerator people rarely look at the energy consumption of that unit. The FEDS have demanded usage labels for quite a while now. Buy the most energy efficient. If you must use a freezer NEVER buy an upright design, buy a chest type freezer. Whenever you open the door of an upright the entire air column is lost from the inside and the unit must run hard to compensate for the warm air entering. A chest type freezer based on hot air rising and cold air sinking will retain about 95% of it's efficiency in an average door opening situation.

Front loading Washing Machines have for decades been more efficient in both water consumption and power consumption because they require fewer moving parts and can use lower friction components. The problem is that some of us with back issues cannot easily load and unload them without discomfort even with the pedestals. If you want a "top loader" then make certain that you get one of the new models with a wobble plate agitator and a magnetic drive. (This was pioneered by Fisher and Paykel in Austrailia by the way) and these require less water and the magnetic drive requires less power than the conventional agitator.

We have the power right now to begin change by buying products that are energy efficient and if we do enough of this the peaker power plants will not be necessary.

We also have the power as consumers to begin to change how we produce and utilize electricity as well placing profits in our pockets in the long term.

Another thing would be to require the installation of solar panels for electricity, pool heat and home heating in new construction. This will again greatly reduce power consumption the items to do this are available right now and you can buy them. If a builder offered me a home with a $50,000 price penalty for all the power generation stuff it it were in fact one that created a zero power bill I would still go for it. Lenders would also go for it because it would be an easier home to sell were it to be a foreclosure.

We can do things now. We just need to demand our elected representatives start representing us instead of "big business".

 

[Viking_UK]

Hydro power is actually pretty useful for peak generation. There's a power station in Wales, which is used to supply sudden demand spikes. It can go from idling to max output within seconds. As far as I know, no other type of power station can respond so quickly to increased demand. However, it's also one of the least efficent hydro stations in the country, because the water is then pumped back up into the upper reservoir in preparation for the next spike, using more power than it actually produced - all because people rush to boil the kettle during the ad breaks.

Wave generation is also a viable option in many countries, as is tidal power. Both are more reliable than wind generation and often have less of an impact on the environment, especially when incorporated into existing harbours and other structures.

Fusion is also becoming more of a possibility. There's a small experimental fusion reactor near me, which has produced encouraging results - so much so that one ten times the size is being built.

More and more developments in the UK are now using ground heating/cooling and there are incentives to install solar heating and generation systems as well as windmills. On top of that, any surplus electricity is sold to the grid and any electricity these homes and businesses take from the grid is charged below standard rate.

 

[vince]

Freyasworld,


Solar hot water heaters are common in countries where there is plenty of sun and other sources of energy are expensive. It’s basically a matter of economics. However, they do not provide free hot water!! A solar water heater typically costs considerably more than an electric or gas water heater and the interest on the investment has to be included in the cost. Presumably if you did not spend the money on a solar water heater, you’d be able to invest the money in stocks, bonds, or in some interest-bearing account. When I lived in Fiji (1994 – 2004), I had a solar water heater and rarely had to use the electric back-up. A discounted cash flow or internal rate of return analysis is needed to determine whether a solar water heater can be justified.

In the city I live in I would guess that 95% of our hot water comes from roof top solar heaters and they are not expensive. I had a deluxe stainless steel model with electric backup installed for 850 dollars US. The basic galvanized 180 litre model costs $350.00. From cold on a sunny morning, we have hot water in about 1 hour without using the electric. However it holds the heat well enough that in the morning there is still very hot water for showers.

The largest energy consumers in our homes of electricity are as follows: Electric tank type Hot Water Heaters, Conventional Air Transfer Air Conditioners, Refrigerators and during the winter electric heat. Then after that comes electric dryers and then finally washing machines.

I saw a photo of LA in the 1920's and every home in the picture had solar heater on the roof. I wonder what happened?

In cold climates, I don't understand why we can't have refrigerators that are cooled by a simple fan arrangement connected to the outdoors. In Canada we keep the beer on the back porch for much of the year, so why doesn't GE apply a little ingenuity to fridge design?

Electric dryers in a warm climate are another big waste. I haven't owned one for ten years. It takes 5 minutes to hang out a load of laundry and it's dry in about 1 to two hours. Even during our damp winters we hang them on a drying rack in the laundry room and turn on fan to move the air and the clothes dry fast. The one thing is the ironing, but that's the housekeeper's job. Clothes last much longer if you don't tumble dry them.

For my 2150 sq ft flat, my electric bill runs about 45 dollars per month from March through June and September to November. In July and August we must use some air conditioning.

Is there a practical solar air conditioning system on the market? I'd invest in one if there was.

 

[FRE]

In this post, I shall endeavor to answer the many questions which have been posted. Digging up the information has been very challenging (and time-consuming), and I have acquired much more knowledge in the process. I may discover some limit to the maximum post size. Let me know if there are any serious errors here; I’ve typed very fast.

Although my degree is in business administration, I am a gearhead and have studied most of the physics which would be required for an engineering degree. When I was a kid, I read material on steam boiler design; I preferred that to novels. So, much of what seems intuitively obvious to me is less so to many people.

I shall herewith explain why load following, i.e., continually changing the power delivered by a steam turbine system, reduces plant life. This applies to all power plants which use heat to generate power.

As we know, metals expand when heated and contract when cooled. We also know that constant bending will cause metals to crack and eventually break. Everyone who has had a year of physics at the college (tertiary) level has encountered the thermodynamic formula that determines the maximum possible efficiency of a heat engine under ideal conditions. The greater the difference in temperature between the high temperature and low temperature sides, the greater is the efficiency. Therefore, efficiency can be increased by increasing the input steam temperature and reducing the steam exhaust temperature. Modern coal fired power plants use such a high steam temperature that exposed pipes would glow in the dark. Obviously the turbine is subjected to that extreme temperature.

Steam turbines in a large plant are huge; they weigh many tons (tonnes). Let us see what happens to the turbine shaft as it is heated from cold to operating temperature. As the shaft is heated, obviously the outside of the shaft is hotter than the inside of the shaft ‘til operating temperature has been maintained for considerable time on the outside of the shaft. Thus, the outside of the shaft tries to expand more than the inside, creating stress. Conversely, as the shaft is cooled, the outside of the shaft is cooler than the inside of the shaft, and tries to shrink more than the inside of the shaft, and is put under tension. The more frequently and rapidly the temperature is cycled, the more likely stress cracks are to develop. This principal applies to all parts of the turbine, the pipes, boiler, etc. etc. The problem is less for smaller systems and engineers have ways to reduce the problems.

The web sites I found assume that visitors already know about the problems of load cycling, so they do not adequately explain it. They explain how the damaging effects of load cycling can be evaluated and minimized and provide additional information. But reading the material will confirm that load cycling does reduce the life of power plants.

http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/476

Reduce stress with proper on-line rotor temperature monitoring :: POWER Magazine :: Page 1 of 4

http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt2004/pdf/power_generation/795_johnston.pdf

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/1279/1/JSIR 66(7) (2007) 536-544.pdf

The following website contains graphics which show how much of the cost of generating power from coal is determined by the cost of the coal:

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Power Costs

I found the above web site by doing a google search on “economics coal power.” There were a number of interesting hits.

The cost of gas is higher than the cost of coal but because far more power is generated with coal than with gas, I have not searched for more information on exactly what the relationship is between the cost of gas and the power generated therefrom.

Regarding hydro power, here in the U.S. most of the sites have already been developed, unless we want to develop the Grand Canyon and other sites which would raise a public outcry. Pumped storage can be combined with existing hydro power which could remove the intermittency problems of wind and solar power, but the economics of doing so would have to be determined and would not be the same in all places of the world. In places where fuel costs are high, such as Hawaii and some Pacific Island countries, I suspect that it could be economically justified.

Remotely controlled load shedding is not experimental; my own air conditioners can be powered down by the local utility. It’s mainly a matter of expanding the capability and it can definitely be economically justified. Customers receive some compensation for it and when managed properly it causes no problems for them.

The following web site provides information on concrete, steel, and land area requirements for wind, solar thermal, and nuclear power generation:
TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs
I don’t know why nuclear power plants use less steel than coal plants. However, boilers and their associated auxiliary systems probably require more steel than a nuclear reactor, but that would be offset to some degree by the fact that nuclear plants require bigger turbines because the lower operating temperatures result in lower thermodynamic efficiency.

The following is the home page for the above web site; you can find much interesting material:
BraveNewClimate


I question the practicality of installing solar systems in African deserts. Among other problems, the Sahara desert has moving sand dunes would greatly complicate maintaining access roads required to maintain the installations. Whether adequate water would be available, I don’t know.

DC power transmission is more efficient than AC power transmission with modern technology; it has been around for decades. Although DC transmission lines cost less than AC transmission lines, the investment costs of converting from AC to DC and back again are significant. However, under certain, but not all, circumstances, DC is more economical overall.

Note that in evaluating the cost of coal plants, the externalities are usually omitted and they are more than significant. Nuclear power has far lower external costs.

Nuclear plant building was halted in some countries because of the public reaction to the accidents. It’s interesting that accidents involving the use of fossil fuels do not result in public reactions of the same magnitude. However, as I have pointed out, nuclear power has been proven to be safer than other method of generating power. The Chernobyl accident was the result of extreme negligence, both in design and operation, and the only “disaster’ with Three Mile Island was extreme economic losses to the owners. Reactor designs, operator training, and reactor management have greatly improved in the last 40+ years.

Even given the several advantages of LFTRs, more PWRs will be build because workable designs already exist and have been approved. The LFTR has been successfully demonstrated, but was never fully developed for commercial use partly because it is unrelated to nuclear weaponry and because there was more experience with PWRs. I also suspect that there were personalities and politics involved. The following web site provides considerable information on LFTRs and a certain amount of information on other sources of energy: Energy from Thorium

Battery electric vehicles are not without challenges, as has been pointed out, but I think that they will play an important rôle in getting us off of oil. However, we’d be foolish to ignore other possibilities.

The nuclear waste issue is more political than technical. Some countries are already dealing with it by recycling it. LFTRs would be a good solution since they produce much less waste, the waste they do produce decays quickly enough that it needs to be sequestered for only about 500 years, and LFTRs can be configured to use our existing waste as fuel.

Dandeline said, “Unfortunately the timescale over which we must do this [get off of fossil fuels] is longer than the period in office of any politician, so no one in power sees any urgency.” That certainly seems to be true; let us hope that it changes.

The question about hydrogen has been dealt with by another poster; thank you.

Perhaps solar water heaters could become somewhat cheaper, but they are already been mass produced in countries in which they are in common use. Depending on economics, they could become more common here. The ones used in Fiji are manufactured in Australia where they are in common use in some areas. When I lived in Fiji, the roof-top solar water heaters performed well, but a different and more expensive type would have to be used where temperatures drop below freezing.

Regarding selling solar generated electricity back to power companies, I think that by showing that the cost of coal is less than 20% of the cost of generating power from coal, I have shown that it doesn’t make economic sense. Because solar power cannot be guaranteed to be available at all times, power companies cannot reduce their generating capacity because of the existence of PV panels. PV panels are useful where they are more convenient than connecting to the grid and the cost of rechargeable batteries is not a killer, but as a major source of power for a large country, they cannot be economically justified. Evenutally recycling them will be a challenge.

Geothermal heat pumps can often be economically justified. The performance of heat pumps has now been improved enough that air source heat pumps, which cost less, can also be practical. Some now use CO2 as the working fluid. Because of the economics and efficiency, they should be more commonly used.

Fuzzyken made some good comments, but no two thinking people will agree on everything. Although hybrid and other technologies improve vehicle efficiency, our long-term goal should be to ELIMINATE the use of fossil fuels for vehicles but until that goal is in sight, improved efficiency with petroleum-fueled vehicles is a reasonable stop-gap measure. On the matter of demand-type water heaters, whether they are more efficient depends on how they are used. If large amounts of hot water are used, they are less efficient. However, if not much not water us used and there are long time intervals between uses, they are more efficient.

According to my late father, solar water heaters were common when he lived in California but disappeared when inexpensive natural gas became available. I too have wondered why they don’t make refrigerators that can take advantage of cold weather. It should be possible to design them so that they can be connected to an outside coil mounted on the side of the house. Doing so would not require the discovery of a new principal of physics.

Solar air conditioning systems using the lithium bromide absorption system have been worked on. The stumbling block seems to be cost, but technically it should be possible. With a google search, you can find more information on this.

And now I am suffering from an advanced case of writer’s cramp!!

 

[FRE]

deleted duplicate post.

My above post is 1765 words!!

 

[lucky8]

Good read. The future of solar power really lies outside the earth's atmosphere...Tesla's dream of witricity is in our not-so-distant future. Space based solar power will be more efficient due to the lack of environmental obstructions, plus we don't really have to worry about running out of room...Also, witricity has the potential to turn every industrialized country into electric car gurus if infrastructure is developed appropriately. Don't believe me? Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgBYQh4zC2Y . It's going to take awhile, but I imagine within 2 decades this idea will really be taking off

 

[FRE]

Good read. The future of solar power really lies outside the earth's atmosphere...Tesla's dream of witricity is in our not-so-distant future. Space based solar power will be more efficient due to the lack of environmental obstructions, plus we don't really have to worry about running out of room...Also, witricity has the potential to turn every industrialized country into electric car gurus if infrastructure is developed appropriately. Don't believe me? Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgBYQh4zC2Y . It's going to take awhile, but I imagine within 2 decades this idea will really be taking off

It would be unwise to state that something is impossible, but I didn't find the video convincing. The demonstrator didn't do anything that was really unusual. High frequency power can easily be transmitted between coils which are part of tuned circuits which are tuned to the same frequency. Although it is easy to transmit small amounts of power for long distances, and transmit large amounts of power for short distances, transmitting large amounts of power for long distances is another matter.

When I was a kid, I had a crystal radio. Without being connected to a power source, connecting it to a ground and to an antenna was all that was required to drive earphones to an ample volume from an AM radio station several miles away.

Again, perhaps a practical way will be found to transmit large amounts of power for long distances without wires, but I have doubts and will not hold my breath.

 

[mako shark]

From a guy that has built, maintained and operated nuclear power, non-nuclear (Petro-coke),Peaker Plants, PV grids and all related emergency diesel back-up systems, it is nice to see conversations about what to do next to reduce our oil dependancy. FYI, I recently toured the Bloom Energy facility in Sunnyvale, CA and the hydrogen fuel cell is going to be a player as well.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Good read. The future of solar power really lies outside the earth's atmosphere...

It's going to take awhile, but I imagine within 2 decades this idea will really be taking off

It's an old idea from the 70's but gets more practical with every advance in solar technology and space launches. Currently the best and super super expensive cells get above 40% efficiency. One reason why the Mars rovers have far outlived their expected life.
Space Future - The Promise of Electricity from Space for World Economic Development

It might be coming sooner than you think in 2009 PG&E signed an agreement to buy electricity from space based solar beginning in 2016. It has an estimated 97% capacity factor. That's as good or better than all current generation. Just put in storage (probably in the form of CAES) to protect against solar storms and you might be looking at a viable solution.
PG&E makes deal for space solar power - Space- msnbc.com

Beam electricity 92miles, yes miles. The end result was a bit disappointing but it was largely a budget for tv (Discovery Channel mini-series Project Earth), proof of concept, not a commercial test scale. It beamed 20watts. The former NASA exec and physicist in charge estimates it could go as high as 64% efficiency. So there needs to be more research in this area. But it is exciting.
Researchers Beam ‘Space’ Solar Power in Hawaii | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[FRE]

From a guy that has built, maintained and operated nuclear power, non-nuclear (Petro-coke),Peaker Plants, PV grids and all related emergency diesel back-up systems, it is nice to see conversations about what to do next to reduce our oil dependancy. FYI, I recently toured the Bloom Energy facility in Sunnyvale, CA and the hydrogen fuel cell is going to be a player as well.

I think that work should proceed on the hydrogen fuel cell because it would really be helpful if all the problems with it and hydrogen could be solved. Although it doesn't look very practical now, that could change. However, it would be a mistake to count on it too heavily.

It has taken much time and effort to gather and compile information on various energy technologies. There really should be books and web sites designed to enable the public to acquire the information conveniently. Unless the public is well informed, we will probably make very expensive mistakes. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, either because groups with an agendum seek intentionally to mislead the public, or because they themselves don't know any better.

Germany, a country that is often cloudy, spent huge amounts of money on PV panels before learning the expensive and hard way that they are not a practical source of large amounts of power there. England spent considerable funds on wind power in a place where the wind is not reliable and for several months, the wind generators generated very little power.

Before spending huge amounts of money on an energy technology, it is critically important to do the necessary research and analysis rather than send funds on something because it is popular.

 

[dandelion]

The web sites I found assume that visitors already know about the problems of load cycling, so they do not adequately explain it. They explain how the damaging effects of load cycling can be evaluated and minimized and provide additional information. But reading the material will confirm that load cycling does reduce the life of power plants.

your references made a few points. That some generators designed with 10,000 hours life are still going at 20,000, that modern sensor equipment allows for much better startup to minimise damage, that startup times we are talking about might be in the region of 1 hour. I think there are two types of startup: from stationary cold and from idle to maximum power running. I am still not clear on real timescales, or how much cycling how often will reduce working life. An owner would naturally be concerned even by a 1% lifetime reduction if you treat it roughly, so I dont have a handle on the magnitude of the problem. But anyway, running the generators at a constant power seems to work best and might be the most efficient, even if power is wasted. What do generators do now over the 24hr cycle? Are coal/nuclear stations run down at night?

The cost of gas is higher than the cost of coal but because far more power is generated with coal than with gas, I have not searched for more information on exactly what the relationship is between the cost of gas and the power generated therefrom.

In the Uk in recent years the privatised generating companies have almost excluysively built gas fired stations. This may be in part because they were underrepresented in the existing power plants, but everyone kept saying it was the cheapest form of generating. I dont know if plant design is different and thus easier startup, or maybe gas can be used as fuel in different designs of plant.

Nuclear plant building was halted in some countries because of the public reaction to the accidents. It’s interesting that accidents involving the use of fossil fuels do not result in public reactions of the same magnitude.

Unsurprising though. Coal mine accidents in russia seldom result in bans on eating livestock raised in the UK.

However, as I have pointed out, nuclear power has been proven to be safer than other method of generating power.

I would take a lot of convincing about that. The safety assesments carried out on early US reactors were rubbish by modern standards, and many many improvements have ben made. I havnt seen a similar analysis for the Uk (so its not that im singllng out the US as a bad example). This debate about new reactor designs can only highlight the problems with existing designs, by proclaiming the relative advantages of the new ones. This pattern is very familiar in any field: new is always safer than old. I remember maybe 10-20 years ago the permitted radiation exposure for UK nuclear workers was lowered. Not because anyone thought radiation was more dangerous than previously believed, but because improved safety measures meant workers were customarily getting much lower doses, so they could reduce max permitted exposure without having to sack everyone who would have already passed that dose.

The Chernobyl accident was the result of extreme negligence, both in design and operation,

which only goes to prove the adage that if anything can go wrong, it will. We have another example of that right now in the gulf of mexico. twist all the knobs and dials on a coal power station and it blows up the site. Do the same to a nuke and it makes uninhabitable the county/country.

and the only “disaster’ with Three Mile Island was extreme economic losses to the owners.

which did not stop operators/legislators implementing a massive national insurance program to both pay the costs of a really serious accident and also limit the liabilities of operators. Someone believes there is a risk.

Reactor designs, operator training, and reactor management have greatly improved in the last 40+ years.

Exactly. The risks run in the initial nuke stations are no longer considered acceptable.

Even given the several advantages of LFTRs, more PWRs will be build because workable designs already exist and have been approved. The LFTR has been successfully demonstrated, but was never fully developed for commercial use partly because it is unrelated to nuclear weaponry and because there was more experience with PWRs. I also suspect that there were personalities and politics involved.

The reason the Uk power program was so expensive was because they kept changing reactor design. But this was also because it was experimental and people kept trying to improve the designs. It is certainly cheaper to stick with one design, but there is an enormous public safety/security argument for halting pwrs and investing in the improved systems. Unless of course people are still holding out for fusion. Like, sometime never. Maybe the western countries now have enough weapons grade nuclear material so its development technology is no longer needed?

Battery electric vehicles are not without challenges, as has been pointed out, but I think that they will play an important rôle in getting us off of oil. However, we’d be foolish to ignore other possibilities.

The future of peronal transport has to be the sinclair C5. (that is a joke which may be lost on americans) But the future is light weight highly efficient vehicles. I see this as a big issue with heavy batteries. The catalytic converter has done wonderful things to reduce poisonous exhaust emissions, but it decreases fuel efficiency quite deliberately. At the time they were introduced in the UK engine manufacturers were hopping mad that it made pointless their expensive work on making clean burning engines, because all vehicles had to have converters anyway.

The nuclear waste issue is more political than technical. Some countries are already dealing with it by recycling it.

You cannot recycle it all. You can reprocess eg fuel and use some of it. However, all reprocessing generates a greater volume of lower grade waste.

LFTRs would be a good solution since they produce much less waste, the waste they do produce decays quickly enough that it needs to be sequestered for only about 500 years.

Considerably longer than the existence of the USA.

and LFTRs can be configured to use our existing waste as fuel.

have yet to see a comforting assesment of how much nucler fuel exists or could be found. How many years supply is there for world electricity production?

Dandelion said, “Unfortunately the timescale over which we must do this [get off of fossil fuels] is longer than the period in office of any politician, so no one in power sees any urgency.” That certainly seems to be true; let us hope that it changes.

No sign of it. Is the US introducing heavy taxes on fuels? Simple measure which would massively help reduce US fuel consumption and raise revenue at the same time. Is it happening? Proper regulation of the oil industy? is it heck! You persistently remark on the small proportion of generating costs which is the fuel. I think your numbers are wrong, and they will get even less true quite quickly. The US probably has the option to develop coal mining and burn that, but do we or do we not take global warming as a serious threat? Really the best solution is to greatly reduce consumption. This solution is streets ahead of any other benefits wise.

Regarding selling solar generated electricity back to power companies, I think that by showing that the cost of coal is less than 20% of the cost of generating power from coal, I have shown that it doesn’t make economic sense.

I agree it doesnt make financial sense now, but I think the reality is distibuted generation has to grow. It will therefore need a subsidy now. The nuclear industry which you seem to prefer has been subsidised massively since its inception. Otherwise we would not have any now. Which might be a good thing because we would be starting with better technology without existing vested interests in one system. But on the other hand, the UK Thatcher government used nuclear power to break the coal mining unions. So there is a political aspect to diversity of generation, not simply an economic one.

Because solar power cannot be guaranteed to be available at all times, power companies cannot reduce their generating capacity because of the existence of PV panels. PV panels are useful where they are more convenient than connecting to the grid and the cost of rechargeable batteries is not a killer, but as a major source of power for a large country, they cannot be economically justified.

As I say, we seem to be heading towards intermittent power supply s a normal way of life.

Geothermal heat pumps can often be economically justified.

Simple water through a plastic pipe works fine without technological complications. Needs space, though.

Fuzzyken made some good comments, but no two thinking people will agree on everything. Although hybrid and other technologies improve vehicle efficiency, our long-term goal should be to ELIMINATE the use of fossil fuels for vehicles but until that goal is in sight, improved efficiency with petroleum-fueled vehicles is a reasonable stop-gap measure. If we are going to keep personal transport (big if) the actual fuel is not so much the issue as where the energy comes from. We can grow or make liquid fuels. Commuting lifestyles are unsustainable if we are any way serious about reducing energy consumption. No more long distance travel.

According to my late father, solar water heaters were common when he lived in California but disappeared when inexpensive natural gas became available.

Quite. cheap fuel is the problem. People erroneously think it is cost free if they dont have to pay.

 

[FRE]

Dandelion,

You raised some good points. However, ‘til a few months ago, I myself was unaware of load following, the problems associated with changing output levels, spinning reserve, etc. It took considerable reading for me to get that information. Understanding it wasn’t difficult, though, because I have a reasonably good background in physics.

From what I’ve read, it appears that some coal plants are either shut down or idled at times when the power is not needed. It’s my educated guess that doing that is more practical with small plants because with smaller and lighter parts, thermal cycling would obviously be less of a problem. However, from what you have written, it is clear that you do have a basic understanding of the problem.

Generators better last for more than 10,000 or 20,000 hours; there are 8760 hours in a year and a generator that would last for only 20,000 hours would have a life of only about 2.3 years, but we know that many actually last for 40 or more years when run continuously. That would be 350,400 hours. Perhaps you misplaced the decimal point.

There are two ways to use gas for generators. Boilers can be run on gas, but I’d guess that a boiler designed to run on gas could not easily be converted to coal if gas became too expensive. Gas turbines run on gas, but they tend to be less efficient than generating plants that use boilers and steam turbines, at least so far as I know. It seems short sighted, from the economic standpoint, to build plants that run on gas if they will be used for base load. The amount of gas available is much less than the amount of coal available and the price of gas is more volatile. However, gas is more clean burning, a factor which should be considered.

From the statistical standpoint, nuclear power has proven to be he safest energy source. We know about coal mine accidents, the health effects resulting from burning coal, and deaths resulting from boiler accidents. With hydro power, accidents occur when dams are being constructed. People have fallen off of roofs when installing PV panels. People have been killed in wind generator accidents. There is no totally safe method of power generation. By doing a google search on “wind generator accidents,” I found quite a few. Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-cRuYAxg0

Many of the safety improvements made in PWRs have been made not in response to actual accidents, but in response to potential accidents, which is reasonable. The newest Westinghouse PWR design, which hasn’t yet been licensed, has totally passive emergency cooling which should greatly reduce the risk of a melt down. However, even if a melt down did occur, a properly designed reactor vessel combined with a well designed containment building, should offer adequate protection.

It’s interesting that coal plants actually emit more radiation than nuclear plants are permitted to emit. That’s because coal contains trace amounts of thorium and uranium. As it turns out, there is more energy available from the trace amounts of thorium and uranium than there is from the combustible content of coal.

I’ve read a few studies on the risks of radiation exposure. We all know that we are constantly exposed to naturally-occurring background radiation.; that varies considerably with location. Studies have found that people living where the background radiation level is high do not have shorter life spans than people living where the background radiation level is low. Therefore, it appears that there is a threshold below which an increase in radiation exposure has no negative consequences. On the other hand, there are those who object to that theory. Their objections are based on the theory that the consequences of radiation exposure are linear at all levels and they have extrapolated backwards to reach their conclusion. We know that excessively high levels of vitamin A are toxic and if we used backwards extrapolation, we could reach the incorrect conclusion that vitamin A is toxic at any level. Although extrapolation can be useful, the conclusions reached are not always correct. Using google, you can do your own research on this.

It looks as though the escalation costs of nuclear power in the UK are caused by the same factors as in the U.S.

Reprocessing nuclear fuel reduces the final volume of waste to a tiny fraction of what we would otherwise have. And, as I understand it, that final volume has a much shorter life than waste from a once-through system.

Weapons-grade uranium from the former Soviet Union is being down-blended and used as reactor fuel. As I understand it, there are huge amounts available, enough to eliminate the need for mining for decades when combined with the already existing DU. Also, reprocessing waste reduces by many times the amount of uranium which would have to be mined. Thorium is believed to be about four times as abundant as uranium; because it is found with rare earth elements, most of it is a byproduct of rare earth element mining. It looks as though there is enough available, by mining, to last many centuries. Also, there are trace amounts in sea water which could be recovered, although I don’t know the economics of it. But attempting to plan hundreds of years ahead may not be a reasonable thing to do.

It would probably be politically impossible to increase fuel taxes significantly. However, it might be politically possible to shift part of the tax burden from the income tax to a tax on fossil fuels; I don’t understand why that hasn’t been proposed.

Although nuclear power has been subsidized, I don’t know by how much. However, if one considers the external diseconomies of coal, it has been very heavily subsidized, probably to a much greater degree than other sources of energy. Wind and solar are also subsidized.

There is a limit to the extent to which people would accept intermittent power. Probably a hospital patient on life support would not be enthusiastic about it, but presumably only some uses of power would be intermittent.

It has taken me the better part of a year to acquire much of what I know about power sources. Although I can remember the basics well enough, I can’t always remember the sources and finding them can really be challenging. You seem able to understand the issues quite well and are willing to consider multiple viewpoints. Have you considered doing some research to ferret out more information? Unfortunately, it is not easy to do. The mass media are useless; they feed us nothing but pabulum and the writers often are technically incompetent. Environmental organizations often have an agendum and will fire any staff members who disagree with it.

I was hoping that this thread I started would encourage others to do independent research; perhaps it will.

 

[FRE]

Some environmental groups oppose nuclear power and support wind and solar. The end result of this would be to prolong our dependence on fossil fuels after spending huge amounts of money on energy sources that cannot meet our requirements. When the lights go out, people would demand action, and the quickest way to get the action they demand would to be to increase the use of fossil fuel.

Let us also look at China and India. The population density of China is 361 people per square mile; the population density of India is 981 people per square mile; the population density of the U.S. is only 83 people per square mile (information from the following link: List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Even if we could somehow use wind and solar power to meet all our electrical needs here in the U.S., the population density of China and India is so much greater than our population density that they could never allocate sufficient land area. Nuclear power requires less land area than any other energy source.

It has been proposed that we reduce our energy requirements and get used to intermittent sources of electricity so that we could get by on wind and solar power. That might be possible if we lived under a dictatorship with the power to force people to live much as our ancestors did in the early 19th century, but surely that is unrealistic, and probably impossible. Even cooking would be a problem because with our population much higher than it was in the early 1800s, burning wood for fuel, as our ancestors did, would create an environmental disaster. In any case, we couldn’t force China, India, and other countries to follow suit; they are already increasing their use of nuclear power and there is no way we could stop them from doing so.

Rather than trying to slow down or halt the development of nuclear power, we should be taking action to implement the best nuclear technology available and export the technology to ensure that other countries would use the best nuclear technology available. That would maximize safety and minimize environmental impact.

 

[FuzzyKen]

By the way FRE nice to see a fellow New Mexican with a great deal to contribute.

I am a big believer in bio fuels as a major stage in conversion because I have personally seen these work very well.

I believe also that there is a future in hydrogen. Our problem right now is that the cost of production is in and of itself to the best of my personal knowledge an energy consumer so a great deal of the advantages are offset by the cost of producing it.

Honda has an experimental hydrogen powered vehicle available for lease right now. The vehicle is not available for sale and is a lease only, but it is a big step in the right direction. Hydrogen mileage computes differently, but according to a figure of one of the automotive journals, the equivalent mileage that this Honda vehicle demonstrated (and it is the size of an Accord) was over 77 miles per "gallon".

With current technologies, demand type water heaters are outstanding for residential usage, but, they are less of an advantage under commercial usage. That is agreed and a mute point. Where they save is in the down time. An average residential application would benefit greatly.

In southwestern New Mexico, we have more days of sun than anything else. We also have a great deal of vacant land which could be used for "power farming". I have proposed a whole concept of economical "power farming" to a United States Congressman that I know well, and he loves it, but has told me that the GOP will do everything possible to kill it because it takes money out of the pockets of existing power generators and distribution concerns.

In New Mexico, we are lucky because we have a great deal more at our fingertips than most do with regards to "green thinking". Today, with an investment of less than $500,000 one could on vacant land build a "solar farm" that would supply a great deal of power.

The largest factor to me is National Security. I personally think that one of our weakest areas is our power grid. This has been proven multiple times when for common reasons one power station trips off line. That one trip off causes others to trip to save themselves and all of a sudden because the loads are so high, we have a blackout of an entire part of the country. There have been times as you know that a minor cause will have Americans without electric power for 36-72 hours simply because the interlinking is so tight and demand so high that very careful start up procedures are needed to prevent damage to transmission systems. That being obvious the easiest way to cripple this country is by dealing a blow in multiple well planned main power links between major cities. Aggressive power farming would during daylight hours lighten the power load sufficiently to greatly aid a restart and it could during daylight hours without external help maintain power to a number of smaller communities allowing the work in larger ones to be sped up because of reduced load factors.

My personal observations on Bureaucratic Bungling and corruption are somewhat scary.

In Riverside County, California, the County demands that builders in the Palm Springs area where ambient air temperatures have on occasion exceeded 120 peak degrees are only required by law to supply air conditioners to new residential construction with only an 8 SEER rating. When one considers that units are now available nearing an SEER rating of 20 this is an abomination.

In the Coachella Valley, there are now over 150 golf courses. Of the 150 golf courses less than 50 of them offer public access. The other 100 which consume staggering amounts of water and other resources are private and a membership in the given country club is required to "play" them. There are now so many golf courses in that area that in parts of the Coachella Valley, the use of high efficiency evaporative air conditioning is useless because the watering of these golf courses has raised the humidity level to such a point that they cease to function well. This means we now need refrigerated where a swamp cooler worked well ten years ago.

As a fellow New Mexico resident, you know well that we have homes equipped with both.

My ranch home, which is rural, is equipped with both twin 6500 cfm "master cool" type evaporative units and in addition a full refrigerated unit. Though we maintain the refrigerated unit it has not been necessary to actually use that unit since we have lived here simply because the evaporative cooling works so well it is not necessary.

I have seen solar swimming pool heating work extremely well in the Palm Springs area of Southern California. It works very well here in Southwestern New Mexico, but would as we both know be far less efficient in other areas with less sun.

There is a company by the name of SolarsHeat. This company makes solar home heating systems. A system which during sunlight hours will heat 1,500 square feet costs about $3,500 and is simple to install. Even the fan which intakes cool air and blows it through the heating chamber is solar powered using no grid based energy.

Where I am at 4,600 foot elevation we get cold winters. A unit such as this would make a big difference and greatly reduce my daytime propane consumption. That reduces the carbon footprint of the propane I have to burn to keep my home at a reasonable temperature.

Again things are available now and these currently existing things used in new construction could radically reduce energy demand.

 

[FRE]

I agree that air conditioning could be made much more efficient. There are types of air conditioning that should be much more common than they are.

One type of cooling chills the ceiling by having water tubing in the ceiling. It is more energy efficient for these reasons:

1) Because a chilled ceiling re-radiates less heat to the room occupants, they are comfortable at a somewhat higher temperature, so there is less heat gain from outside.

2) Because the refrigeration system runs at a somewhat higher temperature, its coefficient of performance (COP) is higher.

3) It takes considerably less energy to circulate water than to circulate air.

4) It is easily zoned, so the cooling can easily be shut off in unoccupied areas.

The system has been used successfully in Europe, but is almost unknown here in the U.S., which is why I didn't consider it in my new house.

A disadvantage is that obviously the ceiling cannot be chilled below the dew point. Thus, the latent portion of the heat load has to be provided by other means, such as a ducted dehumidifier.

Another system is valance cooling. It is conceptually similar to radiant baseboard heating except that the finned pipe is located near the ceiling instead of near the floor and there is provision to catch the condensate. It is somewhat more efficient because it is easily zoned and because it requires less energy to circulate water than air. Both the chilled ceiling and valance systems are quiet.

It is somewhat unfortunate that here in the U.S., we compare efficiency by using SEER instead of COP. The difference is that SEER uses one unit (watts) for power and another unit (BTUs) for heat whereas COP uses the same units for both. Knowing that, one can convert from one to the other. However, COP was used by engineers for decades before SEER was invented.

At one time, I looked into absorption cooling, but the COP is generally less than 0.9 or so which is unacceptably low unless there is waste heat to drive it. Solar heat to drive it would be another possibility. One would expect a good electric system to have a COP > 3.5, so 0.9 seems very low. However, if one considers the efficiency of the power plant and transmission losses, a COP of 0.9 doesn't seem quite so bad when driven by natural gas.

It is possible that hydrogen will have a place in the future, but right now it doesn't look promising. It would, however, be a mistake to rule it out since solutions for the several problems could be found. It may be more practical to produce artificial fuels which are less reactive and can be liquified at normal temperatures and convenient pressures.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Air conditioning alternatives to traditional a/c.

Use cheap offpeak night time electricity to make ice. Use the ice during the hottest part of the day for the air conditioning. Uses 95% less peak energy.
Ice-powered air-conditioner could cut costs - CNET News

ice-energy.com

Desiccant-Enhanced eVaporative air conditioner (DEVap), 50-90% less energy, and works where swamp coolers won't. Will be on the market in a few years.
NREL: News Feature - Energy Saving A/C Conquers All Climates

Of course ground source heat pumps provide both cooling and heating abilities and are more practical on an energy related basis for most of the country. Although designing buildings that use less energy in the first place is best.

 

[FRE]

I was aware that some some systems produce ice during off-peak times then use the ice for cooling during peak times. It's a good idea. Unfortunately, I was not offered that option to cool my house.

There is another possibility that would work in colder climates. During the winter, use cold outside air to produce ice in a large underground tank and during the summer, use the ice to cool the building. It could be designed so that the ice making portion of the cycle would use no energy.

The DEVap system was totally new to me, although I've always been aware that there were ways to improve evaporative cooling systems.

I considered a ground source heat pump for my new house, but the cost was beyond what I could justify. In the future it would not be too difficult to convert to it if the economics change. I have radiant floor heating and a ground source heat pump would work very well with that.

 

[FuzzyKen]

Hey FRE,
The main thing on the GeoThermal or "ground source heat pumps" is to really shop them. The equipment is not that expensive, the drilling of geothermal wells is also not that big of a deal. Where the problem lies is the out and out robbery being done by many of the A/C contractors on these systems. Take your time and keep looking on this one. There are reasonable people out there.

Right now I use swamp/evaporative coolers out here on the ranch. I however have a few things that I intensely dislike and the main one is the changes in humidity that they create inside the home. I have "summer door sizes" and "winter door sizes" because the wood on the doors swells slightly from the increased humidity of the coolers.

In the desert southwest there was a third type of A/C by the way. in the late 1940's and early 1950's they used what were called "water chillers". These in essence submerged the air conditioning condensers on a conventional refrigerated A/C unit into a water bath and then ran a bath of water over them.

My parents owned a home in Palm Springs that had this kind of system. The system had been installed in the late 1940's and was made by Lennox. That system on a 115 degree day was capable of getting the inside of the house down so cool that you could not stand it. That system in that home was in essence a commercial system using multiple staged compressors. Today with scroll compressors and other features the water chiller feature could again boost efficiency a great deal. These water chiller units which offer what is called a "cooling tower" or "water tower" for the A/C condenser are still available for commercial applications, and if you scream loud enough for your home. The ONLY difference is the way the condenser works and is bathed in water. Up in Albuquerque you have the problems of Winter Snow and sub freezing temperatures so the unit would have to be drained at the end of the season, but they are still substantially more efficient than air exchange units.

 

[FRE]

Hey FRE,
The main thing on the GeoThermal or "ground source heat pumps" is to really shop them. The equipment is not that expensive, the drilling of geothermal wells is also not that big of a deal. Where the problem lies is the out and out robbery being done by many of the A/C contractors on these systems. Take your time and keep looking on this one. There are reasonable people out there.

Right now I use swamp/evaporative coolers out here on the ranch. I however have a few things that I intensely dislike and the main one is the changes in humidity that they create inside the home. I have "summer door sizes" and "winter door sizes" because the wood on the doors swells slightly from the increased humidity of the coolers.

In the desert southwest there was a third type of A/C by the way. in the late 1940's and early 1950's they used what were called "water chillers". These in essence submerged the air conditioning condensers on a conventional refrigerated A/C unit into a water bath and then ran a bath of water over them.

My parents owned a home in Palm Springs that had this kind of system. The system had been installed in the late 1940's and was made by Lennox. That system on a 115 degree day was capable of getting the inside of the house down so cool that you could not stand it. That system in that home was in essence a commercial system using multiple staged compressors. Today with scroll compressors and other features the water chiller feature could again boost efficiency a great deal. These water chiller units which offer what is called a "cooling tower" or "water tower" for the A/C condenser are still available for commercial applications, and if you scream loud enough for your home. The ONLY difference is the way the condenser works and is bathed in water. Up in Albuquerque you have the problems of Winter Snow and sub freezing temperatures so the unit would have to be drained at the end of the season, but they are still substantially more efficient than air exchange units.

I appreciate the information. However, my new house was finished in May 2009, at which time I moved into it. At some future date I may make HVAC changes, but for financial and other reasons, this is not a good time to do it.

There are also AC condensing units that have variable speed compressors. With those, instead of having the compressor cycle on and off, it's speed varies over a wide range and it shuts off only when little or no cooling is required.

In some countries, window A/Cs are unusual; they use mini-split A/Cs instead. I had one of those in my bedroom when I lived in Fiji. They tend to be more efficient than window or through the wall units and are much quieter; they are also more expensive. Until recently, they were almost unknown here in the U.S., but are now becoming more common.

Regarding cooling towers for home A/C, they could significantly improve efficiency, especially in a dry climate. However, unless they are carefully operated, they can breed bacteria, including the bacteria which cause legionair's disease. I do remember when home central A/C systems used city water cooling and when that was made illegal to save water. Air cooling the condensers obviously saved water, but it also increased power consumption.

In my old house, I had two evaporative coolers. Because I was not satisfied with the controllers that came with them, I designed and made my own controllers which worked much better; they kept the temperature within a much narrower range instead of having the annoyingly wide temperature swings. It would be better if evaporative coolers had variable speed blowers instead of two-speed blowers, but there wasn't much I could do about that. The main reasons I didn't have evaporative cooling installed in my new house are that it tends to be noisy (although it wouldn't have to be, but just try to get installers to make a very quite installation!!) and that they blow dust in from outside.

As I have said before, the best way to achieve improved energy efficiency would be to have a heavy tax on fossil fuels to replace a significant portion of the income tax. The change could be implemented gradually over a five or ten year period to avoid disruptions. That would avoid the need for complicated energy regulations which are expensive and difficult to enforce.

 

[TomCat84]

I appreciate the information. However, my new house was finished in May 2009, at which time I moved into it. At some future date I may make HVAC changes, but for financial and other reasons, this is not a good time to do it.

There are also AC condensing units that have variable speed compressors. With those, instead of having the compressor cycle on and off, it's speed varies over a wide range and it shuts off only when little or no cooling is required.

In some countries, window A/Cs are unusual; they use mini-split A/Cs instead. I had one of those in my bedroom when I lived in Fiji. They tend to be more efficient than window or through the wall units and are much quieter; they are also more expensive. Until recently, they were almost unknown here in the U.S., but are now becoming more common.

Regarding cooling towers for home A/C, they could significantly improve efficiency, especially in a dry climate. However, unless they are carefully operated, they can breed bacteria, including the bacteria which cause legionair's disease. I do remember when home central A/C systems used city water cooling and when that was made illegal to save water. Air cooling the condensers obviously saved water, but it also increased power consumption.

In my old house, I had two evaporative coolers. Because I was not satisfied with the controllers that came with them, I designed and made my own controllers which worked much better; they kept the temperature within a much narrower range instead of having the annoyingly wide temperature swings. It would be better if evaporative coolers had variable speed blowers instead of two-speed blowers, but there wasn't much I could do about that. The main reasons I didn't have evaporative cooling installed in my new house are that it tends to be noisy (although it wouldn't have to be, but just try to get installers to make a very quite installation!!) and that they blow dust in from outside.

As I have said before, the best way to achieve improved energy efficiency would be to have a heavy tax on fossil fuels to replace a significant portion of the income tax. The change could be implemented gradually over a five or ten year period to avoid disruptions. That would avoid the need for complicated energy regulations which are expensive and difficult to enforce.

I love this last idea, actually. We could probably make a whole new thread based on reworking the tax code.