Replacing Fossil Fuels

[798686]

Anyone mentioned cars/transport in terms of fossil fuel replacement?

A lot has been mentioned lately about electric vehicles, with zero emissions (Nissan Leaf, etc and MINI E), but...doesn't it still need the same amount of fossil fuel burning to produce the electricity in powerstations in the first place?

Tbh, for the moment (and until recharging infrastructure is in place) hybrid vehicles seem the best bet (Prius etc), or even low-emissions diesels, that get around 55-65 mpg.

 

[Jason]

If we started from scratch with the UK's power infrastructure we would surely go mostly for nuclear (fission) reactors - which is of course the French solution. In terms of developing future power we would put our energy into nuclear fusion technology, which promises very cheap, pollution free power.

Much of our rail network is already electric (and the remainder could be electrified). Electric cars are best when the power they use is not produced by burning fossil fuels, so there would be a real push for this mode of transport. We can use electricity for most of our power needs - planes and ships are the big exceptions.

Unfortunately our power generation policy has been led for years by public fear of nuclear. Now we have an uninformed public that think a few windmills and a bit of loft insulation are all that is needed to end our use of fossil fuels, and politicians who lack the courage to tell the truth.

 

[mako shark]

All right I had told myself that I wouldn't get into this conversation but....
Ice or cold water storage is used by large commercial facilities that have a PUD billing rate structure which involves "peak" utility charges. The large commercial facilities use their chillers to "charge" a huge tank or multiple tanks during the evening and then use small pumps to circulate the chill water through air handlers from about 12-6PM. This is because they would be billed at the "peak" rates if the chillers started causing high end-rush/amp draws.
Water source underground pumping systems are expensive and require considerable acreage/property (something that few residences have) to drill holes and install pipe three and four hundred feet into the ground. The earth's temperature remains very stable below the first 10" of soil. We have engineered a few systems for private citizens but once again this is usually done at larger facilities.
Good luck in your research fellas:smile:

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.

 

[FRE]

Anyone mentioned cars/transport in terms of fossil fuel replacement?

A lot has been mentioned lately about electric vehicles, with zero emissions (Nissan Leaf, etc and MINI E), but...doesn't it still need the same amount of fossil fuel burning to produce the electricity in powerstations in the first place?

Tbh, for the moment (and until recharging infrastructure is in place) hybrid vehicles seem the best bet (Prius etc), or even low-emissions diesels, that get around 55-65 mpg.

Even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels, electric cars could still reduce pollution and carbon dioxide emissions slightly, if the electricity is coming from a high efficiency coal-burning power plant. That's because electric motors and batteries, under common driving conditions, are much more efficient than gasoline engines. However, not all coal-burning power plants are highly efficient. Of course if the electricity is coming from a hydro plant or a nuclear plant, it's a different matter.

Battery electric vehicles could be recharged overnight at home for car owners who own their own homes and have a 240 volt receptacle available, particularly if it is a 30 amp or greater receptacle. They could be recharged from a 120 volt 15 amp receptacle, but that would be very slow. Unfortunately, probably most apartment dwellers would not be able to recharge at home.

The Chevrolet Volt uses the engine and generator as a range extender and is supposed to be able to go 40 miles, depending on driving conditions, without running the engine; it is a series hybrid. Many people don't drive more than 40 miles per day, so if they can recharge by plugging in, they would seldom need the engine. Unfortunately, parallel hybrids, such as the Prius, cannot go very far or over about 30 mph without running the engine.

Series hybrid vehicles seem to be a good transition technology until there are more places to recharge and until the price of batteries becomes lower. The cost of enough battery power to drive 200 miles would be very high right now and until the price becomes lower, probably could not be justified.

There is still the possibility of manufacturing artificial engine fuels if the cost of doing so becomes reasonable. Attempts to predict the future are notoriously inaccurate.

 

[niet]

If we started from scratch with the UK's power infrastructure we would surely go mostly for nuclear (fission) reactors - which is of course the French solution. In terms of developing future power we would put our energy into nuclear fusion technology, which promises very cheap, pollution free power.

Fusion power seems too far off; remember, it's always been "right around the corner". About a year ago, I was reading a nuclear reactor engineering textbook from the late 1960's which said "commercial nuclear fusion will likely be available sometime in the 1990's".
Mind you, this wasn't in an issue of Popular Mechanics, this was a college-level textbook written by a professor of engineering!

The only 'futuristic' nuclear technology that has caused me to raise an eyebrow is the so-called Traveling Wave Reactor, but some of the talk around it makes it sound like fusion all over again. "If it sounds too good to be true..."

 

[vince]

Anyone mentioned cars/transport in terms of fossil fuel replacement?

A lot has been mentioned lately about electric vehicles, with zero emissions (Nissan Leaf, etc and MINI E), but...doesn't it still need the same amount of fossil fuel burning to produce the electricity in powerstations in the first place?

Tbh, for the moment (and until recharging infrastructure is in place) hybrid vehicles seem the best bet (Prius etc), or even low-emissions diesels, that get around 55-65 mpg.

Batteries and fossil fuels are not the only way to store energy. One of the most promising near-zero emission systems is the compressed air engine. It's an old idea that has been revived and improved by the French company MDI.

MDI Enterprises S.A. - Air compressed cars - Flowair - Clean cars - Sustainable technology.

The first model is a lightweight urban car which they claim has an operating cost of 1 euro per 200 km! They are also developing dual fuel vehicles with a range of 1500 km at 2 litres per 100km.

Zero Pollution compressed Air Car set for U.S. launch in 2010

 

[FRE]

Fusion power seems too far off; remember, it's always been "right around the corner". About a year ago, I was reading a nuclear reactor engineering textbook from the late 1960's which said "commercial nuclear fusion will likely be available sometime in the 1990's".
Mind you, this wasn't in an issue of Popular Mechanics, this was a college-level textbook written by a professor of engineering!

The only 'futuristic' nuclear technology that has caused me to raise an eyebrow is the so-called Traveling Wave Reactor, but some of the talk around it makes it sound like fusion all over again. "If it sounds too good to be true..."

Bill Gates and others are investing into traveling wave reactor development. It looks to me as though it could have possibilities, especially for small countries for which large reactors would not be appropriate. It is supposed to function for up to 30 years on the fuel with which was originally equipped at which time it will be exchanged for a new reactor.

Here is a thread on the traveling wave reactor:

Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum • View topic - Traveling Wave Reactor

Whether anything will come if it I don't know, but surely it is an idea worth pursuing.

 

[B_crackoff]

Oh FFS

TIDAL POWER (for countries with a lot of coast)

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Completely predictable, unlike wind.

We just have useless scientists incapable of the genius of the giants on whose shoulders they stand.

They can't find a way of storing the energy!

FRE - do that!

And please tell me why the windmills only have one f*cking fan each!!! Anyone could design a way to have at least 2 surely! And why the one's at sea aren't connected to tidal/wave barrages - it's so f*cking dumb, & inefficient.

 

[FRE]

Oh FFS

TIDAL POWER (for countries with a lot of coast)

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Completely predictable, unlike wind.

We just have useless scientists incapable of the genius of the giants on whose shoulders they stand.

They can't find a way of storing the energy!

FRE - do that!

And please tell me why the windmills only have one f*cking fan each!!! Anyone could design a way to have at least 2 surely! And why the one's at sea aren't connected to tidal/wave barrages - it's so f*cking dumb, & inefficient.

Perhaps you could explain the configuration you have in mind when you suggest that windmills could have more than one fan.

 

[B_crackoff]

Perhaps you could explain the configuration you have in mind when you suggest that windmills could have more than one fan.

And steal my prototype. Never!

Sheez, it isn't hard. Have you ever seen a toy windmill with multiple fans? It could be configured part forward for one or 2, crucifix or tripod shaped etc...the permutations are endless.

It is however completely redundant to have one fan, when we know that that will never recoup its cost.

You could have more in a field if you also used increasing, & ajdustable heights of the actual structures laid possibly in a V formation.

What we have now is just inept.

Just find a way of storing it - you'll be rich!

 

[FRE]

And steal my prototype. Never!

Sheez, it isn't hard. Have you ever seen a toy windmill with multiple fans? It could be configured part forward for one or 2, crucifix or tripod shaped etc...the permutations are endless.

It is however completely redundant to have one fan, when we know that that will never recoup its cost.

You could have more in a field if you also used increasing, & ajdustable heights of the actual structures laid possibly in a V formation.

What we have now is just inept.

Just find a way of storing it - you'll be rich!

There would be no benefit from putting more than one turbine on a shaft since the upstream turbine would reduce the wind available from the downstream turbine. That's why they don't locate wind generators in such a way that one would reduce the wind available for another.

As for putting more than one turbine on a pole, that would not make economic sense. The wind increases significantly with height, so the lower turbine would not get as much wind as the upper turbine. Also, as the wind direction shifts, it is necessary to re-aim turbines so that they face directly into the wind. That would be very difficult and expensive to do if there were multiple turbines on a pole, especially since a turbine with its nacelle weights many tons.

Although the poles / towers are no doubt expensive, the major cost of wind generators lies elsewhere, so there would be no benefit from putting multiple wind generators on a pole / tower.

Wind generators, except in special situations, are not practical anyway. Unfortunately, the public may not realize that until hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on wind generators.

There is work being done on methods to store energy because the benefits of being able to do so are enormous. It can be done, but the cost is so great that is is not economically justifiable except in certain limited circumstances. That could change and if it does, it would make it much easier for utilities to deal with load variations.

 

[arkfarmbear]

Last week CNBC presented a program dealing with these issues. Since they tend to rerun their shows very frequently it will probably be on again soon.
It was a very insightful program.
There were "guests" from almost every group that is trying to find an answer.
One guy was criticized for being overly negative but I think he presented the most likely outcome.
He said that he is not optimistic because no politician can win an election if he tells the truth. He said any party that tried to get elected by being truthful will be slaughtered in the election.
One of the participants was T. Boone Pickens. He agreed with Mr. Negative. Pickens got rich as an oilman.
Pickens said he believes we can and should find alternatives. He also said we will still be using some fossil fuels 50 years down the road.

I'm opposed to the offshore drilling ban.
I'm sure I will get blasted from others for posting this opinion.
Americans don't want drilling off our coasts. We don't want to be held hostage by OPEC and other nations that hate us and try to foment hatred of America.
Yet, we (I'm guilty of this, too) get all upset when gas prices exceed $2.00 per gallon.

 

[vince]

And steal my prototype. Never!

Sheez, it isn't hard. Have you ever seen a toy windmill with multiple fans? It could be configured part forward for one or 2, crucifix or tripod shaped etc...the permutations are endless.

It is however completely redundant to have one fan, when we know that that will never recoup its cost.

You could have more in a field if you also used increasing, & ajdustable heights of the actual structures laid possibly in a V formation.

What we have now is just inept.

Just find a way of storing it - you'll be rich!

Here you go Crack-

 

[FRE]

Here you go Crack-

That looks more expensive than four entirely separate units.

 

[vince]

That looks more expensive than four entirely separate units.

Could be. But it sure is more pretty! When driving through Holland, I find the monotonous wind towers to be blight on the landscape.

 

[B_crackoff]

Here you go Crack-

Thar she blows! Cheers Vince!

FRE - being as all wind turbines have a stall device, which cuts out the power as soon as winds increase beyond quite a moderate level, anything that reduces the wind to one turbine, will surely prevent stalling at such a lower level!

The V shaped (well V concentric - continuous V patterns inside a larger V, at increasing heights) scenario would increase output too, & all could be directional, with slightly adjustable heights.

That wind has to go somewhere! The cost of a turbine is disproportionatley allocated to its foundations.

Furthermore, the problem is in the engineering, & the company ojectives of those who make it.

Look at those ones in the sea. You could design to attach a wave barrage, & a tidal turbine to all of them. That would lead to continuous, if not consistent power generation.

Of course wind is stronger higher up, but these turbines can't stand a 55mph wind, let alone a 200mph wind.

We have a problem, we have a requirement: design an economic solution. None of this has been reverse engineered efficiently, or have engineers lost their imagination.

Giant tape players, Sony Walkman, Ipod - I rest my case - perhaps it's only the duds who exist in the fields of renewables.

Being unable to store electricity, or even deploy for other uses & parasitically convert, is appalling in this so called technological era.

 

[Smaccoms]

as I understand it, the miles put in to build a hybrid in the first place is enormous, since apparently the parts that go into making it are very widespread. In comparison the parts for a 12 mile per gallon car are all local, meaning the mileage on the car before it's even sold is much smaller. In this stream of thought, hybrids actually significantly increase the amount of petroleum used in the vehicle system correct? (I have also not read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I am currently in a hurry)

 

[B_crackoff]

as I understand it, the miles put in to build a hybrid in the first place is enormous, since apparently the parts that go into making it are very widespread. In comparison the parts for a 12 mile per gallon car are all local, meaning the mileage on the car before it's even sold is much smaller. In this stream of thought, hybrids actually significantly increase the amount of petroleum used in the vehicle system correct? (I have also not read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I am currently in a hurry)

I believe you are correct sir. But 12mpg! My Ferrari only does 6 @ full speed with the aircon on, & my custom quad speakers on to the max.LOL. Wow, the minimum for a car should be 25 in overall use - & taxed at POS accordingly!

Remember also that Nuclear power plants & waste have unlimited potential decommissioning costs - especially as we've never decommissioned the waste from one completely. Total costs per plant projected are £3BN in the UK.

Total costs from any accidents in decommissioned, active, or planned = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

 

[FRE]

Could be. But it sure is more pretty! When driving through Holland, I find the monotonous wind towers to be blight on the landscape.

Perhaps the turbines could be made in different colors.

 

[FRE]

as I understand it, the miles put in to build a hybrid in the first place is enormous, since apparently the parts that go into making it are very widespread. In comparison the parts for a 12 mile per gallon car are all local, meaning the mileage on the car before it's even sold is much smaller. In this stream of thought, hybrids actually significantly increase the amount of petroleum used in the vehicle system correct? (I have also not read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I am currently in a hurry)

Probably the parts that go into making a hybrid do come from far ranging areas, but isn't that also true of non-hybrids? Probably some of the parts used to make American cars with conventional power trains also come from many places, including China and Japan. More important is the percentage of the total weight of a car that comes from far flung areas. Also, the fact that parts come from long distances doesn't mean that they need to. For example, we import soap from China, but we also know that it could be made locally.

Check out the following web site:

GreenChoices - Green driving tips

Here is a quotation therefrom:

Old or new?

Standards are rising, so newer cars generally have cleaner and more efficient engines.

An older car will probably use more fuel per mile during its remaining time on the road. However, manufacturing a car takes a lot of energy and materials - some estimates say this embodied energy equals 15% of the total fuel used during the life of vehicle - so many people still see an older car as the greener choice.

So it appears that the embedded energy in the car is a small part of the total energy. Then, when you consider that only a portion of the total weight of the car consists of parts gathered from far-flung regions, it would seem that the hybrid car would still use far less energy.