YA Hydrogen article - positive this time
H. E. Taylor
The cost of oil dependence has never been so clear. What had long been
largely an environmental issue has suddenly become a deadly serious
strategic concern. Oil is an indulgence we can no longer afford, not
just because it will run out or turn the planet into a sauna, but because
it inexorably leads to global conflict. Enough. What we need is a massive,
Apollo-scale effort to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually
unlimited source of power. The technology is at a tipping point.
Terrorism provides political urgency. Consumers are ready for an
alternative. From Detroit to Dallas, even the oil establishment is
primed for change. We put a man on the moon in a decade; we can achieve
energy independence just as fast. Here's how.
[...]
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen_pr.html
--
"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday
is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Jonathan Grobe
>2003/04/: Wired: How Hydrogen Can Save America
>
For me the key sentence started:
"Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times
more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
Comments?
--
Jonathan Grobe Books
Browse our inventory of thousands of used books at:
http://www.grobebooks.com
Jesse Spencer
>
> For me the key sentence started:
> "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times
> more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
>
> Comments?
Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel
cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true.
I think the key sentence was:
"Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice
as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
leaves only water behind."
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/11/2003
Neil Adams
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns
twice
> as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> leaves only water behind."
That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So
what are you going to make it with? It's like saying that we're going to
use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and
distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might
just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
Neil A.
>
Jesse Spencer
> more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries.
Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE.
Question is, is the article all wrong?
We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those
insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer
money, is this worthwhile?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Neil Adams wrote:
> That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
> and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
> So what are you going to make it with?
Ummm, ... energy?
> It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like
hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage
process. Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
> Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
So what.
> That plus the storage and
> distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
But I don't see you addressing them, nor do I so you acknowledging solutions.
> If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might
> just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
Ummm ... like the sun and the wind, for instance? Hydrogen and oxygen have a
lot going for them, especially for transportation applications. I am
particularly fond of oxygen. The emission product of hydrogen and oxygen
reactions is particularly useful. Optical photons are abundant on Earth and in
space.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
G. R. L. Cowan
Jesse Spencer wrote:
>
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
>
> The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries.
> Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE.
> Question is, is the article all wrong?
If those two points are what it stands or falls on,
yes, it is entirely wrong.
> We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those
> insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer
> money, is this worthwhile?
I didn't read all of it but it compares the establishment
of a hydrogen economy to the Apollo program.
That's a bad comparison because US federal, state, and local
governments are, together, probably the world's largest oil profiteer,
taking annually about 60 billion dollars.
Governments in 1960 did not have that sort of
pecuniary interest in not going to the Moon.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
100 watt-hours in a baby's fist
saict
> SNIP:
>
> > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns
> twice
> > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> > leaves only water behind."
>
> That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
> and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So
> what are you going to make it with?
Nuclear power.
> It's like saying that we're going to
> use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and
> distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
its own volition. If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> to make your hydrogen with,
Nuclear power.
> or to charge your batteries with, you might
> just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
Agreed.
quibbler
jspen...@stny.rr.com says...
>
> >
> > For me the key sentence started:
> > "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times
> > more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel
> cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true.
Perhaps. It remains to be seen if all the elaborate equipment and
infrastructure to implement hydrogen fuel technology can be realized so
cheaply.
> I think the key sentence was:
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries,
It's also far more corrosive and volatile.
> burns twice
> as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> engine
Lots of things are more efficient than internal combustion. Hydrogen is
OK, but I don't see why it should be the priority. The simple fact is
that most people don't need the ability to drive further than many
battery technologies provide, except on the occasional long trip, in
which case a plane or bus would do the trick.
> (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> leaves only water behind."
If we're just counting emissions then a normal electric car leaves
nothing behind. But I kinda doubt the usefulness of this kind of metric.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith
is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
Karl Johanson
>
> Neil Adams wrote:
>
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
> > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
>
> More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
Wow. You called someone else a moron. That must mean you're really smart.
Wait, you used it twice in one sentence, you're doubly smart.
> > So what are you going to make it with?
>
> Ummm, ... energy?
You need energy in specific forms. What you want is usable energy. When you
have usable energy, you have to make the case as to why you want to use it
to make hydrogen (to store a percentage of the energy) rather than to use it
directly. Then you have to make the case that using hydrogen will be a more
efficient, convenient and economical method of storing energy than other
storage technologies (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, compressed air,
boron/O2, etc.)
> > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
>
> Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like
> hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and
storage
> process.
We also use pumped hydro and compressed air for storage as well. The point
is that storage isn't a primary energy source, it's a technology for load
levelling or for off grid applications.
>Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
Yes, but converting usable energy from one form to another leaves you with
less usable energy. That's a physical law, not a technological shortcoming
of existing devices. The total amount of energy still exists, but much of it
is diffuse heat.
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
>
> So what.
So, referring to hydrogen as a 'source' of energy is wrong*. It's like
referring to buckets as 'sources' of water or refrigerators as 'sources' of
food.
(*Unless the conjectured 20 km deep pockets of free hydrogen turn out to be
real. It'll take us more than a decade to drill one test hole that deep
though.)
Karl Johanson
quibbler
jspen...@stny.rr.com says...
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
>
> The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries.
> Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE.
> Question is, is the article all wrong?
> We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those
> insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer
> money, is this worthwhile?
Certainly if we can afford to give 1.5 trillion dollars in tax rebates,
largely to people who don't even need the money, then we could have
afforded to spend that money on something else, like hydrogen fuel
research. I have no objection to improving fuel cells, but it seems like
fuel cells are only a secondary part of our energy needs. It's probably
more important to get more wind, hydro and solar power production
facilities online. These are direct energy producers that can reduce our
dependence on imported fuels right away. IMO, if we had to focus on a
single technology, it should be wind turbines. These can be sited and
installed faster than most fossil fuel plants and the electricity they
produce would free up resources like domestic natural gas, which can be
used to power vehicles.
quibbler
matic.com says...
> March 13, 2003
>
> Neil Adams wrote:
>
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
> > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
>
> More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
I presume you are referring to George W. Bush when you say, "from
morons".
>
> > So what are you going to make it with?
>
> Ummm, ... energy?
Yes and eggs come from the grocery store :) That doesn't tell us enough
about what we need to do in order to make more of them.
In order to implement this wonderful new hydrogen economy to replace
fossil fuels -- because that was the whole point -- we need to have
alternative energy production capacity online in substantial numbers.
But we don't have the energy production online. So it seems that we're
putting the fuel cell cart before the alternative energy horse.
Now, if we end up trying to get hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels, as some
people would have it, then it becomes highly questionable whether we
should have converted to hydrogen in the first place. We can get higher
efficiency and lower emissions without going to hydrogen technology at
all. IOWs, we need to consider the opportunity costs involved in a
hydrogen economy as opposed to some other possible variety.
>
> > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
>
> Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like
> hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage
> process. Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
Somebody sure is grumpy ... ;) Anyhoo, of course batteries fill the same
basic role as hydrogen and fuel cells, at least abstractly. But you
don't see anyone talking about a lithium or NiCad or capacitor "economy".
Part of the reason for that may just be that in the real world, the
details matter, even if thermodynamically it's all just about energy
storage.
>
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
>
> So what.
>
> > That plus the storage and
> > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
>
> But I don't see you addressing them, nor do I so you acknowledging solutions.
There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic
into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion
dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure
that the power is uniform and more or less continuous. Perhaps some
flywheels for storage or some backup biodiesel turbines need to be tacked
on for reliability.
>
> > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
>
> Ummm ... like the sun and the wind, for instance?
Sure, but we don't have these collection systems built up in sufficient
quantity to support our vaunted hydrogen economy. When we do build them
up then of course many people may prefer to use these power systems more
directly, as opposed to the hydrogen form. We probably will need
portable power sources for our cars, although I suppose it is possible
that we could put induction coils in our roadway, at least for urban
trolley systems. It seems like the present state of battery technology
is advancing to the state where hydrogen may not be necessary or worth
the expense as a fuel source.
> Hydrogen and oxygen have a
> lot going for them, especially for transportation applications. I am
> particularly fond of oxygen.
I'm kinda partial to gaseous O2 myself, mainly in its usefulness for
human power transportation :)
<snip>
Dr.Bob
"H. E. Taylor" <h...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:3E701A...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca...
You need to go to school and learn a little about chemistry, physics and
economics. When you parrot a statement like "unlock the potential of
hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power." you are demonstrating your
ignorance of the subject. The first thing to consider is where hydrogen
comes from and realize that it is not a source of anything. Start there. The
article makes all kinds of wild eyed statements and proposals but even it
talks about making hydrogen from methane. If you have methane why the hell
would you make hydrogen? It talks about wind energy but wind can't even
exist without government subsidies. It goes on to talk about using nuclear
power so this is really a pro-nuclear article isn't it? That's going to be
popular. Lets get all of the facts straight before we make wild
proclamations. Like it or not fossil fuels are going to be with us for a
long time and are not likely to be replaced by hydrogen.
Dr. Bob
quibbler
thur...@cscsw.com says...
> "Neil Adams" <neil...@NOSPAMmydestiny.net> wrote in message news:<b4pne3$rus$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>...
> > SNIP:
> >
> > > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns
> > twice
> > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> > > leaves only water behind."
> >
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
> > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So
> > what are you going to make it with?
>
> Nuclear power.
Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast. Breeder types
need too much security. In both cases, the amount of waste produced is
considerable and must be factored into the operational cost. On top of
that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene. To produce
comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more
people, is much safer and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel. Other
than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
>
> > It's like saying that we're going to
> > use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> > manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and
> > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
>
> If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
> its own volition.
I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power
plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;)
You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
> If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually. Hydrogen is just
one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy. While storage is
important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
friendly manner.
>
> > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > to make your hydrogen with,
>
> Nuclear power.
Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both
rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
process. It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
>
> > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
>
> Agreed.
Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
Steve Spence
as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
leaves only water behind."
yep, with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole
article. hogwash.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"Jesse Spencer" <jspen...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SLUba.10342$Gk2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote
> >
> > Neil Adams wrote:
> >
> > > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first
> > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
> >
> > More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
>
> Wow. You called someone else a moron. That must mean you're really smart.
> Wait, you used it twice in one sentence, you're doubly smart.
No, it means that Neil is incapable of rendering basic thermodynamics in
mathematical form.
> > > So what are you going to make it with?
> >
> > Ummm, ... energy?
>
> You need energy in specific forms. What you want is usable energy. When you
> have usable energy, you have to make the case as to why you want to use it
> to make hydrogen (to store a percentage of the energy) rather than to use it
> directly. Then you have to make the case that using hydrogen will be a more
> efficient, convenient and economical method of storing energy than other
> storage technologies (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, compressed air,
> boron/O2, etc.)
For transportation applications I consider it done.
> > > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
> >
> > Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like
> > hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and
> storage
> > process.
>
> We also use pumped hydro and compressed air for storage as well. The point
> is that storage isn't a primary energy source, it's a technology for load
> levelling or for off grid applications.
No, hydrogen is stored energy for transportation applications and storage
applications where long term maintainability and durability is required.
> >Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
>
> Yes, but converting usable energy from one form to another leaves you with
> less usable energy. That's a physical law, not a technological shortcoming
> of existing devices. The total amount of energy still exists, but much of it
> is diffuse heat.
So, you propose that we just let the photons heat the Earth and radiate the back
into space nightly, without and intervening energy conversion processes. Very
efficient method of performing work that is.
> > > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit
> > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
> >
> > So what.
>
> So, referring to hydrogen as a 'source' of energy is wrong*. It's like
> referring to buckets as 'sources' of water or refrigerators as 'sources' of
> food.
More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
Thomas Lee Elifritz
"Dr.Boob" wrote:
> > Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy.html
> > H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
>
> You need to go to school and learn a little about chemistry, physics and
> economics.
And then you can go by the title Dr. Boob too!
> When you parrot a statement like...
I think he was rather posting news on a newsgroup. This is a newsgroup, isn't
it?
> Like it or not fossil fuels are going to be with us for a
> long time and are not likely to be replaced by hydrogen.
Well, some of us don't like it, and are willing to do the work necessary to
replace them with emission free alternatives, Dr. Boob. Not you, though.
Don Lancaster
>
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice
> as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> leaves only water behind."
>
> yep, with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole
> article. hogwash.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
And not the type that is a useful adjunct to porcine whole body
cleanliness, either.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Karl Johanson
news:MPG.18daa04f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <7eab6777.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> thur...@cscsw.com says...
> > "Neil Adams" <neil...@NOSPAMmydestiny.net> wrote in message
news:<b4pne3$rus$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>...
> > > SNIP:
> > >
> > > > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries,
burns
> > > twice
> > > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal
combustion
> > > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it),
and
> > > > leaves only water behind."
> > >
> > > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it
first
> > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
So
> > > what are you going to make it with?
> >
> > Nuclear power.
>
> Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast.
There's enough Uranium for millions of years, even without breeders.
>Breeder types need too much security.
Go with IFRs.
> In both cases, the amount of waste produced is
> considerable and must be factored into the operational cost.
In Canada and the US, the cost of dealing with spent fuel is factored into
the cost of the power. A decommissioning cost is tacked on as well.
>On top of
> that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
Nuclear energy is competitive. Candu's are cranking it out for around 3.5
cents US per kilowatt hour.
>To produce
> comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more
> people, is much safer
A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000 people
(estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease and
starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and Diama
dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed that
many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
>and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel.
The fuel costs of nuclear isn't that high.
>Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
> Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both
> rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> process.
Uranium isn't that rare (it makes up around 4 parts per million of the
Earths crust & Thorium is 4 times as common). Again, the fuel cost of
nuclear isn't that high.
Karl Johanson
Tequila
For example, are there any breakthrus in the area of H2 storage?
A new metal-hydride formulation?
A new miraculous storage tank for gasous H2?
Anything new in PEM fuel cells...(I am also interested in info about
current PEMfuelcell cost and platinum use.)
IMHO, all the stuff that gets published is just a re-hash of old news and old
technology.
An IC engine running on H2 from liquid, or compressed gas,
or from hydride-storage, is old news.
PEM fuel cells have been around for years... an affordable
and compact PEM-FC would be news.
The companies that make PEMfuelcells are tight lipped about how much their
fuels cells cost and how much platinum is used. Please, I am looking for
numbers on platinum use..
Many people seem to make the mistake of assuming that
something that is new TO THEM is a new developement
to the world of science.
Again, imho, I am not expectiong any developements here, because fuelcells and
H2 storage has been extensively and expensively studied by universities,
corparations, and gov't labs for years and years.
Reducing platinum use in FCs has been studied for yesrs and years.
When a new area of scientific investigation opens up,
I expect progress, in an old area of study...don't look for anything new
anytime soon.
T.
Karl Johanson
news:EM7ca.10552$b8.13...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns
twice
> as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> leaves only water behind."
>
>
> yep, with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole
> article. hogwash.
Well said.
One of the new things for fuel cells is to add the electrical and heat
energy they produce together and claim that that is the net efficiency of
the consumption of the hydrogen. (The funny thing is that they should add up
to 100%, but they're claiming a number in the 90s.) I think that's where the
latest round of inaccurate claims about fuel cell efficiency is coming from.
Similarly, internal combustion engines convert 100% of the energy of
combustion into motion, light, heat and sound. If someone claimed that the
ICE was 100% efficient that would be misleading though. The motion energy is
the relevant number, although the 'waste' heat can help warm the passenger
compartment of the car on cold days. Claiming that a hydrogen fuel cell is
close to 100% efficient, is similarly misleading, as the electricity
produced is the relevant point (even though the 'waste'; heat can help keep
your house warm).
Karl Johanson
quibbler
karljo...@shaw.ca says...
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18daa04f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > In article <7eab6777.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> > thur...@cscsw.com says...
> > > "Neil Adams" <neil...@NOSPAMmydestiny.net> wrote in message
> news:<b4pne3$rus$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg>...
> > > > SNIP:
> > > >
> > > > > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries,
> burns
> > > > twice
> > > > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal
> combustion
> > > > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it),
> and
> > > > > leaves only water behind."
> > > >
> > > > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it
> first
> > > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
> So
> > > > what are you going to make it with?
> > >
> > > Nuclear power.
> >
> > Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast.
>
> There's enough Uranium for millions of years, even without breeders.
That's not what I've seen in most books or on websites such as these:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
http://www.altenergy.org/2/nonrenewables/nuclear/depletion/depletion.html
If you have other information then please let me know. I don't wish to
turn this into a pissing contest as folks like Elifritz seem inclined to
do. You are probably talking about future sources of fission material
from which it is not presently practical to extract fuels, or using
techniques similar, but not identical, to those of breeder reactors.
>
> >Breeder types need too much security.
>
> Go with IFRs.
Granted, there are many good designs for reactors with a variety of
tradeoffs in terms of power capacity, cost, ease of weaponizing fuels,
etc.
>
> > In both cases, the amount of waste produced is
> > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost.
>
> In Canada and the US, the cost of dealing with spent fuel is factored into
> the cost of the power. A decommissioning cost is tacked on as well.
But it would be fair to question, I think, whether this tacked on cost is
a reasonably good effort for containing waste that may have to managed
and stored even with decent vitrification processes.
>
> >On top of
> > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
>
> Nuclear energy is competitive. Candu's are cranking it out for around 3.5
> cents US per kilowatt hour.
I was talking about the capital outlays to build them. Even the best
canadian reactors were around $1600 per installed kW, compared to about
half the cost for wind turbines. Actually, the costs of nuclear plants
in the US in the recent past have been even higher. It also takes
substantially longer to build nuclear power plants.
>
> >To produce
> > comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more
> > people, is much safer
>
> A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000 people
> (estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease and
> starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and Diama
> dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed that
> many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
There are definite problems with just about any energy collection
technology. Turbines kill birds and make noise. Dams radically alter
the landscape, trap huge sediment deposits and can't operate at full
capacity during droughts among other things. I'm not claiming that
they're perfect, although I think chernobyl shows that poorly designed
nuclear plants can be just as bad, if not worse.
But wind and hydro power plant design has progressed right along with
nuclear plant design, so I doubt that you will see things like a high,
rockfill dam collapsing any time soon.
Now as far as wind producing trivial amounts of power, the fact that it
hasn't been widely utilized doesn't imply that it can't be. There are
plenty of great sites in the US that could provide a substantial fraction
of our present power consumption needs.
>
> >and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel.
>
> The fuel costs of nuclear isn't that high.
But it is higher than zero :). As a matter of fact, as a commodity the
price is bound to fluctuate. OTOH, the total cost of wind power, for
example, is much better understood.
>
> >Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
>
> > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both
> > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> > process.
>
> Uranium isn't that rare (it makes up around 4 parts per million of the
> Earths crust & Thorium is 4 times as common). Again, the fuel cost of
> nuclear isn't that high.
Yes, but ultra-pure isotopes are needed which are more rare and expensive
to refine.
I'm not against nuclear power in general, but I think it's already been
developed to a level where we can use existing capacity. OTOH, we could
vastly expand something like wind power and reap a lot of new benefits
not afforded by nuclear, including decentralization and wise use of
existing resources.
Jesse Spencer
> Again, imho, I am not expectiong any developements here, because fuelcells
and
> H2 storage has been extensively and expensively studied by universities,
> corparations, and gov't labs for years and years.
Not to mention about $15B burned by Ballard, and then the venture cap money
dried out, and still no products available. I do believe that they mostly
drooling over the wrong market, now with govenment money possible.
A fuel cell that can use natural gas to provide electric and hot water and
or some heat to a home seems simpler.
Maybe we use less fuel oil that way too.
Hydrogen cars may have to wait for the nanotech era.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003
Karl Johanson
> > > Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast.
> >
> > There's enough Uranium for millions of years, even without breeders.
>
> That's not what I've seen in most books or on websites such as these:
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
Good site. They include:
"Measured resources of uranium, the amount known to be economically
recoverable from orebodies, are thus also relative to costs and prices. They
are also dependent on the intensity of exploration effort. Changes in costs
or prices, or further exploration, may alter measured resource figures
markedly. At ten times the current price, seawater becomes a potential
source of vast amounts of uranium. Thus, any predictions of the future
availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current
cost and price data and current geological knowledge are likely to be
extremely conservative. "
10 times the current cost of Uranium wouldn't alter the cost of nuclear
energy much.
Also, there's 4 times as much Thorium. India is already using Thorium in
Candu clones.
> http://www.altenergy.org/2/nonrenewables/nuclear/depletion/depletion.html
> If you have other information then please let me know. I don't wish to
> turn this into a pissing contest as folks like Elifritz seem inclined to
> do.
You seem more apt to discuss than to have pissing contests. I think
Elifrritz's propensity for insults and such is a result of his grumpiness
about the guys who build Biosphere II getting more attention than he does.
>You are probably talking about future sources of fission material
> from which it is not presently practical to extract fuels, or using
> techniques similar, but not identical, to those of breeder reactors.
>
> >
> > >Breeder types need too much security.
> >
> > Go with IFRs.
>
> Granted, there are many good designs for reactors with a variety of
> tradeoffs in terms of power capacity, cost, ease of weaponizing fuels,
> etc.
>
> >
> > > In both cases, the amount of waste produced is
> > > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost.
> >
> > In Canada and the US, the cost of dealing with spent fuel is factored
into
> > the cost of the power. A decommissioning cost is tacked on as well.
>
> But it would be fair to question, I think, whether this tacked on cost is
> a reasonably good effort for containing waste that may have to managed
> and stored even with decent vitrification processes.
Quite so. In the Yucca example, I expect the US government could manage to
fritter away all the money raised for the waste disposal fund thus far
(between 10 & 20 billion thus far). The Canadian government hasn't seemed to
have figured out that they can spend money studying the same location over &
over for decades. Not that they haven't found some pretty spectacular ways
to waste money mind you.
> > >On top of
> > > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
> >
> > Nuclear energy is competitive. Candu's are cranking it out for around
3.5
> > cents US per kilowatt hour.
>
> I was talking about the capital outlays to build them. Even the best
> canadian reactors were around $1600 per installed kW, compared to about
> half the cost for wind turbines.
And 1970's design nuclear plants can last twice as long as 21st century
design wind turbines. You pay the construction cost twice (or more) for
power over the same length of time.
>Actually, the costs of nuclear plants
> in the US in the recent past have been even higher.
Some of that was political delays and repeated changes of regulations during
construction. Some was bad planning on the builder's part.
>It also takes
> substantially longer to build nuclear power plants.
A one megawatt wind turbine certainly takes less time to build than a 1,000
megawatt nuclear plant. However, it takes you 3,600 1 megawatt wind
turbines (25% capacity factor) to give you the power of a 1,000 megawatt
(90% capacity factor) nuclear plant. (The number can be adjusted up or down
for different capacity factors, of course. Off shore wind might be a bit
higher.) You need to compare the construction time of around 3,600 wind
turbines to a nuclear plant, not 1 to 1. Also, you need to build the wind
turbines twice, over the expected lifespan of the nuclear plant.
> >To produce
> > > comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs
more
> > > people, is much safer
> >
> > A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000
people
> > (estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease
and
> > starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and
Diama
> > dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed
that
> > many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
>
> There are definite problems with just about any energy collection
> technology.
Well said.
Also, my point isn't that we shouldn't use hydro. Rather that we should
recognize its dangers and note that it isn't established that hydro is safer
than nuclear (and I suggest that the opposite is true).
>Turbines kill birds and make noise. Dams radically alter
> the landscape, trap huge sediment deposits and can't operate at full
> capacity during droughts among other things. I'm not claiming that
> they're perfect, although I think chernobyl shows that poorly designed
> nuclear plants can be just as bad, if not worse.
You think Chernobyl killed more than 86,000?
> But wind and hydro power plant design has progressed right along with
> nuclear plant design, so I doubt that you will see things like a high,
> rockfill dam collapsing any time soon.
>
> Now as far as wind producing trivial amounts of power, the fact that it
> hasn't been widely utilized doesn't imply that it can't be.
I didn't mention that wind energy is trivial to claim that it always will
be. Rather to point out that the small number of wind related fatal
accidents is coupled to a small amount of power. I think wind energy will
expand, but that it will remain a minor player, because it's diffuse and
intermittent. Also, anti-wind protests are increasing. I was on the radio
last year supporting a proposed off shore wind energy project near here
(pending environmental review). Protestors (including the local mayor) got
the idea cancelled in the planning stage.
>There are
> plenty of great sites in the US that could provide a substantial fraction
> of our present power consumption needs.
>
> >
> > >and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel.
> >
> > The fuel costs of nuclear isn't that high.
>
> But it is higher than zero :). As a matter of fact, as a commodity the
> price is bound to fluctuate.
The price of Uranium tend to decrease, not increase. Regardless, the cost of
Uranium doesn't affect the cost of nuclear energy that much. The recent
increase in the cost of natural gas has had a significant affect on the cost
of that energy source.
>OTOH, the total cost of wind power, for
> example, is much better understood.
Not necessarily. Much of grid tied wind energy can be lost in load
following. That cost hasn't been worked out precisely.
> > >Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
> >
> > > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise,
both
> > > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> > > process.
> >
> > Uranium isn't that rare (it makes up around 4 parts per million of the
> > Earths crust & Thorium is 4 times as common). Again, the fuel cost of
> > nuclear isn't that high.
>
> Yes, but ultra-pure isotopes are needed which are more rare and expensive
> to refine.
You've mixed up terminology here. Uranium ore must be purified in order to
be made into nuclear fuel, to be sure. Extremely pure isotopes aren't
necessary. Natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238 and .7%U-235 (and small amounts of
Uranium 234). This Uranium isn't very expensive and is the Grade used in
Candus. Light water reactors use Uranium enriched to about 3.5% U235.
> I'm not against nuclear power in general, but I think it's already been
> developed to a level where we can use existing capacity. OTOH, we could
> vastly expand something like wind power and reap a lot of new benefits
> not afforded by nuclear, including decentralization and wise use of
> existing resources.
Wind is supplemental power. You need other power to back it up if you get a
significant amount of your power from it. Nuclear is good for base load
power.
Karl Johanson
Scott A Crosby
>
> Somebody sure is grumpy ... ;) Anyhoo, of course batteries fill the same
> basic role as hydrogen and fuel cells, at least abstractly. But you
> don't see anyone talking about a lithium or NiCad or capacitor "economy".
> Part of the reason for that may just be that in the real world, the
> details matter, even if thermodynamically it's all just about energy
> storage.
>
IMHO, its about total capacity.
> There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic
> into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion
> dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure
> that the power is uniform and more or less continuous.
> Perhaps some flywheels for storage or some backup biodiesel turbines
> need to be tacked on for reliability.
Next time be more feasible. Try to come up with a storage system that
can store, say, 300,000,000 kw*h. Thats not too much energy, 10^15
joules, or 30GW*10H. It also happens to be California's nightly
electrical energy use. [1] We'd need 10 such plants for the rest of
the US. We also need the ability to release this energy at a rate of
about 20-40GW.
Lets look at a few ideas:
* Store in the form of pumped storage.
Well, 10^15 J is enough to lift 10^12 kg by 100 meters. Roughly, raise
a 100 km^2 lake---100m above a second resivror---by 10 meters every
night.
* Flywheel storage:
At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
sound. Thats at least one-ton flywheel for every fifteen residents in
the state. Any ballpark figures for how much that will cost?
If we go by [3], 100kJ/kg, which is ten million tons of steel
flywheels. If the average car weights 2 tons, this is enough steel to
produce one automobile for every sixth person in the state.
* Battery storage?
The advanced battery goal [3] is about 6 times better than a steel
flywheel, or 1.6 million tons. If we stick with lead-acid, thats only
5 million tons of lead acid. About 300 pounds of lead-acid battery for
every person in california.
* Hydrogen?
There are three considerations, production, storage, and consumption.
I don't know how what the production rates for hydrogen are with
differing technology.
At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of
hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of
1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about
30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting
catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
* Biodiesal turbines?
Well, with 45 MJ/kg,[4] and, say, 30% conversion efficiency, we'd need
100 million kg of diesel nightly, or 36 billion kg/year. From the data
at [6], US yearly production is 8 billion kg/year on 300,000 km^2 of
land. Just to satisfy california's nightly energy use would require
quadrupling that. To satisfy the other 90% of the country would
require another factor of 10.
**
Hydrogen storage and production, I don't know.. But the choices would
seem to be either that or pumped storage. (Though for pumped storage,
one must have suitable topography.
Scott
[1] http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
[2] http://www.processassociates.com/cgi-bin/hc_gas.exe
[3] http://www.spinglass.net/scooters/thumb.html
[4] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=diesel+%22heat+of+combustion%22&btnG=Google+Search
[5] http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/prod_quality.pdf
[6] http://www.unitedsoybean.org/soystats2001/page_11.htm
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Steve Spence wrote:
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice
> as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion
> engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and
> leaves only water behind."
>
> yep,
Does that mean 'yes' in redneckese?
> with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole
> article.
Let me try this here redneckicle dialect. Nope?
> hogwash.
Suuuwweeeee? Is that correct redneck lingo?
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> Claiming that a hydrogen fuel cell is
> close to 100% efficient, is similarly misleading, as the electricity
> produced is the relevant point (even though the 'waste'; heat can help keep
> your house warm).
Hey, so can a hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engine, as long as you use
a heat exchanger and don't run it into the living room. Just ruin every one
else's environment, but not yours.
Funny how Karl never discusses carbon monoxide deaths.
Karl is a Darwinist. It's their fault they died.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> India is already using Thorium in
> Candu clones.
India also has the bomb and is threatening to use it.
Don't you just love it when third world countries get the bomb?
> > If you have other information then please let me know. I don't wish to
> > turn this into a pissing contest as folks like Elifritz seem inclined to
> > do.
I piss on sewers.
> You seem more apt to discuss than to have pissing contests. I think
> Elifrritz's propensity for insults and such is a result of his grumpiness
> about the guys who build Biosphere II getting more attention than he does.
Hey, it was Ed's money, he can do whatever he want's with it. But unless it uses
solar energy, he can hardly call it a 'biosphere'. That 5 MW gas fired turbine
makes their scientific claims look a bit suspicious.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Scott A Crosby wrote:
> Hydrogen storage and production, I don't know.. But the choices would
> seem to be either that or pumped storage. (Though for pumped storage,
> one must have suitable topography.
Also : high temperature superconductivity. Move it to where you need it.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.altantic.net
Richard Bell
Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:
>March 14, 2003
>
>Karl Johanson wrote:
>
>> India is already using Thorium in
>> Candu clones.
>
>India also has the bomb and is threatening to use it.
>
>Don't you just love it when third world countries get the bomb?
In WWII, the US proved that nuclear weapons have an exactly -ZERO-
dependance on the existence of a nuclear electrical generating
capacity. Third world countries get the bomb, because they feel
that it serves their interests, not because they have power reactors.
There are people worried about Saddam having, or developing, nuclear
weapons, yet I am sure that there are no nuclear power plants there.
Your comments are a non-sequitur in this discussion.
Richard Bell
>
>Karl Johanson wrote:
>
>> Claiming that a hydrogen fuel cell is
>> close to 100% efficient, is similarly misleading, as the electricity
>> produced is the relevant point (even though the 'waste'; heat can help keep
>> your house warm).
>
>Hey, so can a hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engine, as long as you use
>a heat exchanger and don't run it into the living room. Just ruin every one
>else's environment, but not yours.
>
>Funny how Karl never discusses carbon monoxide deaths.
>
Strawman argument: Karl never suggested running ICE's in the livingroom,
you are the one who seems unconcerned with CO deaths.
For efficiency, you would run the ICE to drive a heat pump, which would
provide more heat into the house than merely liberating the heat from the
fuel. When it becomes so cold that the COP is too low to be efficient,
you just burn the fuel in a properly designed (and inspected) heat exchanger.
Cracked heat exchangers and blocked chimneys account for many CO poisonings,
during the heating season. The rest are people using outdoor heaters indoors.
saict
> > If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
> > its own volition.
>
> I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power
> plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;)
> You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
medium, you can use a truck to distribute it. If it's simple as well,
you don't even have to distribute it. Make it at home when the sun
shines and save it for when the sun goes down. If you can store it,
you can move it, and in many cases you don't even have to.
> > If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
>
> We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually.
Reasonable in what way? Our interpretations of "reasonable" are
different in this regard.
> Hydrogen is just
> one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy.
At 10,000 psi or 20K? Or what chemical scenario do you have in mind?
Actually I don't have any problem wih 10,000 psi if it can get through
congress. But Don Lancaster has threatened to pickett, and he's not
the only one.
> While storage is
> important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
> first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
> friendly manner.
There are any number of ways to generate hydrogen, cheaply, simply,
safely, reliably and in an environmentally friendly manner. Use the
sun, use the wind, use the tides or the horse. Hook up an
electrolyzer to your treadmill. If you need several trillion joules
for a major project, fire up that nuclear power plant. If you can
truly store it, it doesn't matter when, where or how you generate it.
> > > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > > to make your hydrogen with,
> >
> > Nuclear power.
>
> Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content.
Yes. By several orders of magnitude.
> Otherwise, both
> rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> process.
As far as mining and collection go, Uranium wins again by an order of
magnitude.
> It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
Reverse that. Many are completely ignoring the opportunity to use
nuclear power which is clean, safe, and would be cheap but for the
loud ignorance of a few who make it expensive by political and
litigious means.
> > > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
While I'm waiting for you tell me a good storage mechanism for
elemental hydrogen, my plan is to encourage and support research of
all forms with the goal of simple, clean, efficient and cheap storage
of energy. Batteries are ridiculously expensive for the amount of
energy you get out of them. Gasoline is not clean. Renewable energy
is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
inefficient.
A good energy storage mechanism could serve to take down that ugly,
dangerous grid. In addition to simple, clean, efficient and cheap, if
we can possibly add light, then it will also serve as the final
divorce papers between the West and the Middle East.
Steve Spence
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:b4srth$avv$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <3E71DBE4...@reverse-o-matic.com>,
> There are people worried about Saddam having, or developing, nuclear
> weapons, yet I am sure that there are no nuclear power plants there.
not any more .....
Karl Johanson
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:b4srth$avv$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca...
Karl Johanson
> Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:
> >Karl Johanson wrote:
> >
> >> India is already using Thorium in
> >> Candu clones.
> >
> >India also has the bomb and is threatening to use it.
> >
> >Don't you just love it when third world countries get the bomb?
I'm not a big fan of any type of weapon in the hands of anyone.
> In WWII, the US proved that nuclear weapons have an exactly -ZERO-
> dependance on the existence of a nuclear electrical generating
> capacity.
Quite so. You can enrich Uranium with any electricity source. Solar, wind,
chicken manure burners, whatever. (90% of the US's weapons grade material is
Uranium enriched using coal energy). All electricity generation is a
proliferation risk.
India used a CIRUS (non power plant) research reactor to make their first
bomb. Canadian engineers working in India told the Canadian government that
India was producing weapons grade Plutonium, before the weapon was
detonated. The US used Plutonium production reactors to make weapons grade
Plutonium. One of these production reactors was retrofitted to produce some
electricity for a time, as well.
>Third world countries get the bomb, because they feel
> that it serves their interests, not because they have power reactors.
India was concerned about China when the detonated their first nuclear
weapon.
> There are people worried about Saddam having, or developing, nuclear
> weapons, yet I am sure that there are no nuclear power plants there.
Iraq had an Osirak research reactor which could have been used to
efficiently produce weapons grade plutonium. Israel blew the reactor up. An
interesting this is that the research reactor used weapons grade plutonium.
They could have just made three nuclear weapons by using the fuel directly.
After the reactor was blown up, the Plutonium fuel was given to the IAEA.
Iraq, or any other country, could enrich Uranium, as you say regardless of
the presence of nuclear power plants.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> > > If you have other information then please let me know. I don't wish
to
> > > turn this into a pissing contest as folks like Elifritz seem inclined
to
> > > do.
>
> I piss on sewers.
Hey, that's not very nice. Urinating on people just because they like to
sew.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> March 14, 2003
>
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
> > Claiming that a hydrogen fuel cell is
> > close to 100% efficient, is similarly misleading, as the electricity
> > produced is the relevant point (even though the 'waste'; heat can help
keep
> > your house warm).
>
> Hey, so can a hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engine, as long as
you use
> a heat exchanger and don't run it into the living room. Just ruin every
one
> else's environment, but not yours.
>
> Funny how Karl never discusses carbon monoxide deaths.
Go to www.deja.com do a search on 'karl johanson carbon monoxide'. You'll
find a number of posts I've made about the dangers of carbon monoxide & it's
relationship to fossil fuels and biomass energy. For example:
1997/03/24
"A few years back a Popular Science article said
that CO (carbon monoxide) from people own furnaces kills roughly 200
people in the US every year. That's around 2,200 in the US alone since
Chernobyl."
2000/03/22
"A 1,000 megawatt coal plant would also emit roughly 8 tons of uranium (and
its daughter isotopes), 35 tons of thorium (and its daughter istotopes)
and hundreds of tons of radioactive potassium and rubidium. Also 20,000
tons of nitrogen oxides, several thousand tons of carbon monoxide and
7,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide."
(I should have mentioned in the above that that's an estimate of the yearly
emissions, not the emissions over the lifet time of the plant.)
2001-06-24
"In 1991 alone 36 people died in the US from carbon monoxide poisoning from
burning charcoal. 13 more died from CO from wood stoves.
(http://www.enmet.com/nfpaart.html)"
2002-04-22
"I also note that the optic nerve can be extremely sensitive to carbon
monoxide (in some people with mitochondria problems and glaucoma patients)."
1997/08/23
And I posted this quote from Sci Am:
"Traditional stoves produce a noxious mix of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide and particles that help make acute respiratory diseases, such as
pneumonia, the leading heath hazard in the developing world. Such
illnesses cause an estimated 4.3 million deaths every year." (Gary Stix
"Simply The Best" Scientific American. April 1995)
What I find fascinating about you Thomas isn't so much how often you're
wrong, but how often you're spectacularly wrong on things you could easily
look up.
> Karl is a Darwinist. It's their fault they died.
I have a great deal of respect for Charles Darwin. His ideas on evolution
didn't include discussions of 'fault'. The fact of evolution is that
inheritable variation leads to differential reproductive success. Some
political philosophers, post Darwin, used misinterpretations of his ideas to
'justify' deaths of some people. Politicians who want to kill, or ignore
health issues don't need to misinterpret Darwin to 'justify' it. That sort
of person uses anything and everything they come across to 'justify' their
pre-decided upon opinions.
Karl Johanson
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Richard Bell wrote:
> >Hey, so can a hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engine, as long as you use
> >a heat exchanger and don't run it into the living room. Just ruin every one
> >else's environment, but not yours.
> >
> >Funny how Karl never discusses carbon monoxide deaths.
> >
>
> Strawman argument: Karl never suggested running ICE's in the livingroom,
> you are the one who seems unconcerned with CO deaths.
What does a 'straw man' have to do with anything we were discussing, besides being
combustible?
I am not unconcerned with CO deaths, but Karl is always quoting who dangerous energy
conversion is, but he seems to never address that point. What I am concerned about is
EMISSIONS.
> For efficiency, you would run the ICE to drive a heat pump, which would
> provide more heat into the house than merely liberating the heat from the
> fuel. When it becomes so cold that the COP is too low to be efficient,
> you just burn the fuel in a properly designed (and inspected) heat exchanger.
And how will that eliminate emissions?
> Cracked heat exchangers and blocked chimneys account for many CO poisonings,
> during the heating season. The rest are people using outdoor heaters indoors.
I see, were they using alternative energy, electrocatalysis, properly designed and
insulated buildings or hydrogen? What were their contribution to emission
elimination, besides killing themselves and taking themselves out of the gene pool?
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Richard Bell wrote:
> In WWII, the US proved that nuclear weapons have an exactly -ZERO-
> dependance on the existence of a nuclear electrical generating
> capacity. Third world countries get the bomb, because they feel
> that it serves their interests, not because they have power reactors.
I see, then what is all that refined uranium for, and where does the
plutonium come from? Feel free to name one country that has the bomb that
does not have nuclear reactors.
> There are people worried about Saddam having, or developing, nuclear
> weapons, yet I am sure that there are no nuclear power plants there.
You can rest assured there is refined uranium there, and even if there is
not, they can simply buy them or steal them from someone who has nuclear
reactors, North Korea, Former Russian Republics, China or Pakistan, for
instance.
> Your comments are a non-sequitur in this discussion.
Please, I don't speak latin or greek. Try english.
Besides, this isn't a discussion, it's the usenet.
quibbler
karljo...@shaw.ca says...
<snip>
> And 1970's design nuclear plants can last twice as long as 21st century
> design wind turbines. You pay the construction cost twice (or more) for
> power over the same length of time.
I'll have to look at some of the lifespan statistic. But I was
under the impression that substantial parts of the reactor, heat
exchanger, etc have to be replaced because they become too radioactive to
work with. OTOH, there are some turbines turning at altamont pass that
have been there since the 1980s. (With a bit of maintenance of course).
There's also a potential to construct behemoth towers, 500-700 feet tall
that might be able to stand for 100 years. Of course they have be able
to construct these as economically as possible. But if more financing
was forthcoming, they probably could put up mass-produced super
structures like this.
> >Actually, the costs of nuclear plants
> > in the US in the recent past have been even higher.
>
> Some of that was political delays and repeated changes of regulations during
> construction. Some was bad planning on the builder's part.
>
> >It also takes
> > substantially longer to build nuclear power plants.
>
> A one megawatt wind turbine certainly takes less time to build than a 1,000
> megawatt nuclear plant. However, it takes you 3,600 1 megawatt wind
> turbines (25% capacity factor) to give you the power of a 1,000 megawatt
I've seen wind farms citing 35% and 40% fairly routinely these days.
Obviously that means you'd only need about 2250 1 megawatt fans.
It's also my understanding that as a rule of thumb a wind turbine will
produce about 1.5 times average wind power. Most turbines today are
sited in pretty windy areas with say 15 mph year average winds at 100
feet. Since I believe capacity factor is directly proportional the total
power produced, in general they can increase their capacity by building
bigger towers so they can access higher speed winds that are less subject
to shear.
> (90% capacity factor) nuclear plant. (The number can be adjusted up or down
> for different capacity factors, of course. Off shore wind might be a bit
> higher.)
Sure. In the grand banks I think they have high availability coupled
with incredible 900 W/m^2 wind power. Of course the challenge there is
getting the power back to land. Hydrogen storage was one proposal. It's
also of course much more expensive to build offshore and floating wind
turbines.
> You need to compare the construction time of around 3,600 wind
> turbines to a nuclear plant, not 1 to 1. Also, you need to build the wind
> turbines twice, over the expected lifespan of the nuclear plant.
I'm not sure that we need to compare them directly. There are simply
certain parts of the country that have large wind resources. It would be
silly to continue to waste this resource, particularly as wind generators
get more efficient. There are lots of ways that present turbine cost
could probably be brought down many times through process engineering,
using federal lands, building towers with multiple fanheads and possible
getting dual use out of these towers as radio repeaters.
>
>
> > >To produce
> > > > comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs
> more
> > > > people, is much safer
> > >
> > > A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000
> people
> > > (estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease
> and
> > > starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and
> Diama
> > > dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed
> that
> > > many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
> >
> > There are definite problems with just about any energy collection
> > technology.
>
> Well said.
>
> Also, my point isn't that we shouldn't use hydro. Rather that we should
> recognize its dangers and note that it isn't established that hydro is safer
> than nuclear (and I suggest that the opposite is true).
You wouldn't happen to be a nuclear engineer by any chance, would ya? ;).
I have a buddy who's a nuclear engineer and he's told me many of the same
things.
>
> >Turbines kill birds and make noise. Dams radically alter
> > the landscape, trap huge sediment deposits and can't operate at full
> > capacity during droughts among other things. I'm not claiming that
> > they're perfect, although I think chernobyl shows that poorly designed
> > nuclear plants can be just as bad, if not worse.
>
> You think Chernobyl killed more than 86,000?
The number of people it injured was pretty high. The immediate vicinity
is still virtually uninhabitable. People take a lot longer to get sick
from radiation exposure. But definitely many thousands of people were
exposed to dangerous amounts of radiation.
>
> > But wind and hydro power plant design has progressed right along with
> > nuclear plant design, so I doubt that you will see things like a high,
> > rockfill dam collapsing any time soon.
> >
> > Now as far as wind producing trivial amounts of power, the fact that it
> > hasn't been widely utilized doesn't imply that it can't be.
>
> I didn't mention that wind energy is trivial to claim that it always will
> be. Rather to point out that the small number of wind related fatal
> accidents is coupled to a small amount of power. I think wind energy will
> expand, but that it will remain a minor player, because it's diffuse and
> intermittent. Also, anti-wind protests are increasing. I was on the radio
> last year supporting a proposed off shore wind energy project near here
> (pending environmental review). Protestors (including the local mayor) got
> the idea cancelled in the planning stage.
Interesting. In general it seems like it would be better to concentrate
on building on land, where it's cheaper, at least at first. But I know
that companies, even including enron have built some off shore generators
in Europe.
I guess I can buy that. But right now we use so little wind, that even
doubling our usage wouldn't be particularly controversial. OTOH, trying
to build substantially more nuclear plants would be much more
controversial.
Karl Johanson
> Richard Bell wrote:
>
> > In WWII, the US proved that nuclear weapons have an exactly -ZERO-
> > dependance on the existence of a nuclear electrical generating
> > capacity. Third world countries get the bomb, because they feel
> > that it serves their interests, not because they have power reactors.
>
> I see, then what is all that refined uranium for,
Uranium enriched to 3.5% is fuel for light water, power plant reactors.
Weapons grade Uranium is for nuclear weapons.
>and where does the plutonium come from?
Weapons grade plutonium comes from weapons grade plutonium production
reactors.
>Feel free to name one country that has the bomb that
> does not have nuclear reactors.
Israel has no nuclear power plants. (100% of their electricity is from
fossil fuels.)
Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
> > There are people worried about Saddam having, or developing, nuclear
> > weapons, yet I am sure that there are no nuclear power plants there.
>
> You can rest assured there is refined uranium there, and even if there is
> not, they can simply buy them or steal them from someone who has nuclear
> reactors, North Korea, Former Russian Republics, China or Pakistan, for
> instance.
>
> > Your comments are a non-sequitur in this discussion.
>
> Please, I don't speak Latin or Greek. Try English.
'Non sequitur', while etymologically from Latin, is part of English.
Similarly, one can say "solar power" rather than "sun power" and be using
correct English, even though "solar" has etymological origins in Latin as
well.
Also, your favourite grade two insult, "moron" is from Greek. It's now also
part of English as well. Be proud that you use it so well.
Karl Johanson
TCS
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
>> > its own volition.
>>
>> I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power
>> plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;)
>> You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
>
> Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
> medium, you can use a truck to distribute it. If it's simple as well,
> you don't even have to distribute it. Make it at home when the sun
> shines and save it for when the sun goes down. If you can store it,
> you can move it, and in many cases you don't even have to.
That's a pretty big if that goes against all of hydrogen's attributes.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> Go to www.deja.com do a search on 'karl johanson carbon monoxide'. You'll
> find a number of posts I've made about the dangers of carbon monoxide & it's
> relationship to fossil fuels and biomass energy. For example:
Ok, I was wrong, you are totally obsessed with death. That explains your
obsession with nuclear energy.
I am obsessed with life, that explains my obsession with hydrogen energy
science.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> Weapons grade Uranium is for nuclear weapons.
Myth # 1.
> >and where does the plutonium come from?
>
> Weapons grade plutonium comes from weapons grade plutonium production
> reactors.
Myth # 2.
> >Feel free to name one country that has the bomb that
> > does not have nuclear reactors.
>
> Israel has no nuclear power plants. (100% of their electricity is from
> fossil fuels.)
So they say. And I suppose you believe them.
http://www.fas.org/news/israel/000505-israel1.htm
> Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
Wrong.
http://physics.sci.geneseo.edu/padalino/first_nuclear_pile.htm
Try speaking mathematics, it's one language I know very well.
Brad Tittle
life. Those who can't accept death, have difficulty making decisions.
quibbler
>
> > > If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
> > > its own volition.
> >
> > I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power
> > plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;)
> > You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
>
> Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
> medium, you can use a truck to distribute it.
That's a nice and expensive way to distribute tiny quantities. Solving
the problem that way will guarantee that hydrogen never replaces other
fossil fuel sources. We might as well just keep doing what we're doing
if we aren't going to be serious about the alternatives.
> If it's simple as well,
> you don't even have to distribute it. Make it at home when the sun
> shines and save it for when the sun goes down. If you can store it,
> you can move it, and in many cases you don't even have to.
>
> > > If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> > > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> >
> > We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually.
>
> Reasonable in what way? Our interpretations of "reasonable" are
> different in this regard.
>
> > Hydrogen is just
> > one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy.
It doesn't even have to be chemical. We can store energy in a massive
fly wheel, or compressed air, or in the case of heat in a well insulated
container if need be.
>
> At 10,000 psi or 20K?
How about a couple hundred thousand RPMs instead?
> Or what chemical scenario do you have in mind?
> Actually I don't have any problem wih 10,000 psi if it can get through
> congress. But Don Lancaster has threatened to pickett, and he's not
> the only one.
>
> > While storage is
> > important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
> > first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
> > friendly manner.
>
> There are any number of ways to generate hydrogen, cheaply, simply,
> safely, reliably and in an environmentally friendly manner.
What you're generating is energy. You can put your energy into H2
production if you want. Others of us will make use of it more directly.
> Use the
> sun, use the wind, use the tides or the horse. Hook up an
> electrolyzer to your treadmill. If you need several trillion joules
> for a major project, fire up that nuclear power plant. If you can
> truly store it, it doesn't matter when, where or how you generate it.
Even to build the infrastructure to store it in major cities it is going
to take large infrastructure investments. We don't really have the
ability to store it, except in tiny quantities.
>
> > > > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > > > to make your hydrogen with,
> > >
> > > Nuclear power.
> >
> > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content.
>
> Yes. By several orders of magnitude.
The sun produces even more than that. What's your point?
>
> > Otherwise, both
> > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> > process.
>
> As far as mining and collection go, Uranium wins again by an order of
> magnitude.
Are you aware of the mining procedures used? Do you know what kinds of
health problems third world miners suffer? Do you know what kinds of
environmental problems are create by the "cheap" techniques they use,
like pumping boiling sulfuric acid into crevices to extract ore?
>
> > It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> > the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
>
> Reverse that.
How does alternative energy ignore externalities. It doesn't. Wind
power plants don't need the government to build waste containment
facilities for them. We don't have to build wind power plants in mexico
to take advantage of lower environmental standards.
> Many are completely ignoring the opportunity to use
> nuclear power which is clean, safe,
When people use words like "clean" right off the bat to describe nuclear
power one wonders if these people know what the words mean. An industry
that produces thousands of tons of radioactive waste annually doesn't
sound particularly clean. Even if there were good containment
facilities, which have yet to fully come on line, that would not make
them clean. They are only clean in the same sense that my yard is clean
if I dump my shit over my neighbors fence.
As far as safety, it's true that nuclear plants don't have a lot of
major accidents. Modern plants should never melt down for example. But
secondary accidents where radioactive contaminants are released are much
more common and safety inspectors often find numerous minor violations at
any given plant. We can't afford to take a cavalier attitude about
nuclear power and there's not a lot of evidence that the industry has
reformed enough to want to expand it substantially. Lots of little
mishaps could add up into major hazards.
> and would be cheap but for the
> loud ignorance of a few who make it expensive by political and
> litigious means.
You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry that the
only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter" is a few
dirty, smelly hippies. The nuclear industry in the US was spectacularly
mismanaged. They overran on construction costs by billions of dollars
and then only operated at partial capacity. They took a see no evil,
hear no evil approach to waste disposal. Don't believe the rush limbaugh
hype. As it turns out, countries with the most successful nuclear
programs often had far more government control and vertical integration
of support industries. Our glorious private enterprise system failed us
pretty badly in the process of trying to take us nuclear and blaming a
couple sign waving protesters just ain't gonna cut it.
>
> > > > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> >
> > Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
>
> While I'm waiting for you tell me a good storage mechanism for
> elemental hydrogen,
I didn't claim that hydrogen was the only storage medium we should use.
> my plan is to encourage and support research of
> all forms with the goal of simple, clean, efficient and cheap storage
> of energy. Batteries are ridiculously expensive for the amount of
> energy you get out of them.
But if you succeed in making better batteries might this not make a
"hydrogen economy" even less attractive than it already is?
> Gasoline is not clean.
I agree with you there, but how is it that you've concluded this about
gas and not nuclear. After all, gasoline engines have things like
catalytic converters. Some systems have double catalytic converters that
lower emissions even more.
> Renewable energy
> is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
> inefficient.
Actually, storage is not so hard, when it needs to be stored and it is
not inefficient. Conversion factors for hydroelectic are about the
highest that you will find anywhere. The bottom line is that the power
is there, waiting to be used, in many cases with minimal environmental
impact. Wasting 100% of this energy is surely less efficient than
building costly nuclear behemoths that can belch dozens of tons of
nuclear waste per plant per year.
>
> A good energy storage mechanism could serve to take down that ugly,
> dangerous grid. In addition to simple, clean, efficient and cheap, if
> we can possibly add light, then it will also serve as the final
> divorce papers between the West and the Middle East.
That's why were pour all of like 2 billion dollars into research while we
give 1.5 trillion in rebates to wealthy tax traitors who try to keep us
dependent on oil, I suppose?
Karl Johanson
2003
>
> Karl Johanson wrote:
> > Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
>
> Wrong.
>
> http://physics.sci.geneseo.edu/padalino/first_nuclear_pile.htm
The Fermi nuclear pile wasn't a power plant.
Karl Johanson
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Brad Tittle <bti...@charter.net> wrote in message :
[nothing of significance]
I used to be obsessed with top posting too, but I got over it.
G. R. L. Cowan
quibbler included:
>
> You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
Sounds as though we in this forum who are
members of that very industry, or who
promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
We won't even have to write our responses!
The hydrocarbon lobby will write them for us.
On any recent day the nuclear industry, worldwide,
used less than US$3.5 million worth of uranium
to produce energy that with oil takes about 100 times more.
Governments take most of the profit on that
three or four hundred million dollars a day.
So it has always seemed likely that those "hippies"
have government and corporate backing.
Wow, novel thought, eh.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
100 watt-hours in a baby's fist
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> > > Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > http://physics.sci.geneseo.edu/padalino/first_nuclear_pile.htm
>
> The Fermi nuclear pile wasn't a power plant.
Sure it was, semantically speaking, nuclear energy converted radioactive
uranium into radionuclides, including radioactive plutonium, thus, it was a
nuclear reactor generating nuclear power. They simply weren't converted that
nuclear energy into electrical energy for public consumption, although it
left plenty of radionuclides around, which were subsequently available for
public exposure.
Karl is a semanticists and lives to sew, I mean sow, misinformation.
Karl may be referred to as a nuclear propagandist.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
quibbler wrote:
> > Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
> > medium, you can use a truck to distribute it.
>
> That's a nice and expensive way to distribute tiny quantities. Solving
> the problem that way will guarantee that hydrogen never replaces other
> fossil fuel sources. We might as well just keep doing what we're doing
> if we aren't going to be serious about the alternatives.
Actually, the entire tractor trailer and train infrastructure could be converted to
cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen propulsion, and that would solve a major problem right
there.
> > If it's simple as well,
> > you don't even have to distribute it. Make it at home when the sun
> > shines and save it for when the sun goes down. If you can store it,
> > you can move it, and in many cases you don't even have to.
> >
> > > > If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> > > > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> > >
> > > We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually.
> >
> > Reasonable in what way? Our interpretations of "reasonable" are
> > different in this regard.
> >
> > > Hydrogen is just
> > > one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy.
>
> It doesn't even have to be chemical. We can store energy in a massive
> fly wheel, or compressed air, or in the case of heat in a well insulated
> container if need be.
Basic physics seems to escape you.
> > At 10,000 psi or 20K?
>
> How about a couple hundred thousand RPMs instead?
Can you calculate angular momentum and moment of inertia? What happens when you change
your inertial reference frame?
> > Or what chemical scenario do you have in mind?
> > Actually I don't have any problem wih 10,000 psi if it can get through
> > congress. But Don Lancaster has threatened to pickett, and he's not
> > the only one.
> >
> > > While storage is
> > > important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
> > > first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
> > > friendly manner.
> >
> > There are any number of ways to generate hydrogen, cheaply, simply,
> > safely, reliably and in an environmentally friendly manner.
>
> What you're generating is energy. You can put your energy into H2
> production if you want. Others of us will make use of it more directly.
Others of us find a need for propulsion.
> > Use the
> > sun, use the wind, use the tides or the horse. Hook up an
> > electrolyzer to your treadmill. If you need several trillion joules
> > for a major project, fire up that nuclear power plant. If you can
> > truly store it, it doesn't matter when, where or how you generate it.
>
> Even to build the infrastructure to store it in major cities it is going
> to take large infrastructure investments. We don't really have the
> ability to store it, except in tiny quantities.
No, we have the ability to store in in large dewars and use it in propulsion
applications until it is exhausted.
> > > > > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > > > > to make your hydrogen with,
> > > >
> > > > Nuclear power.
> > >
> > > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content.
> >
> > Yes. By several orders of magnitude.
>
> The sun produces even more than that. What's your point?
That is the point.
> > > Otherwise, both
> > > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> > > process.
> >
> > As far as mining and collection go, Uranium wins again by an order of
> > magnitude.
>
> Are you aware of the mining procedures used? Do you know what kinds of
> health problems third world miners suffer? Do you know what kinds of
> environmental problems are create by the "cheap" techniques they use,
> like pumping boiling sulfuric acid into crevices to extract ore?
Introducing ... a star called the Sun!
> > > It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> > > the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
> >
> > Reverse that.
>
> How does alternative energy ignore externalities. It doesn't. Wind
> power plants don't need the government to build waste containment
> facilities for them. We don't have to build wind power plants in mexico
> to take advantage of lower environmental standards.
Good for the wind! It often blows at night too.
> > Many are completely ignoring the opportunity to use
> > nuclear power which is clean, safe,
>
> When people use words like "clean" right off the bat to describe nuclear
> power one wonders if these people know what the words mean. An industry
> that produces thousands of tons of radioactive waste annually doesn't
> sound particularly clean. Even if there were good containment
> facilities, which have yet to fully come on line, that would not make
> them clean. They are only clean in the same sense that my yard is clean
> if I dump my shit over my neighbors fence.
I agree.
> As far as safety, it's true that nuclear plants don't have a lot of
> major accidents. Modern plants should never melt down for example. But
> secondary accidents where radioactive contaminants are released are much
> more common and safety inspectors often find numerous minor violations at
> any given plant. We can't afford to take a cavalier attitude about
> nuclear power and there's not a lot of evidence that the industry has
> reformed enough to want to expand it substantially. Lots of little
> mishaps could add up into major hazards.
Not to mention nuclear weapons proliferation.
> > and would be cheap but for the
> > loud ignorance of a few who make it expensive by political and
> > litigious means.
Good for them! Lawyers and politicians are people too :-)
> You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry that the
> only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter" is a few
> dirty, smelly hippies. The nuclear industry in the US was spectacularly
> mismanaged. They overran on construction costs by billions of dollars
> and then only operated at partial capacity. They took a see no evil,
> hear no evil approach to waste disposal. Don't believe the rush limbaugh
> hype. As it turns out, countries with the most successful nuclear
> programs often had far more government control and vertical integration
> of support industries. Our glorious private enterprise system failed us
> pretty badly in the process of trying to take us nuclear and blaming a
> couple sign waving protesters just ain't gonna cut it.
I agree, science seems to back up their ludicrous hippy claims
> > > > > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > > > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > > > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
> >
> > While I'm waiting for you tell me a good storage mechanism for
> > elemental hydrogen,
>
> I didn't claim that hydrogen was the only storage medium we should use.
No, it's just the most environmentally realistic.
> > my plan is to encourage and support research of
> > all forms with the goal of simple, clean, efficient and cheap storage
> > of energy. Batteries are ridiculously expensive for the amount of
> > energy you get out of them.
>
> But if you succeed in making better batteries might this not make a
> "hydrogen economy" even less attractive than it already is?
Well, there is that little fundamental physics problem again.
> > Gasoline is not clean.
>
> I agree with you there, but how is it that you've concluded this about
> gas and not nuclear. After all, gasoline engines have things like
> catalytic converters. Some systems have double catalytic converters that
> lower emissions even more.
cough cough, but not even close to entirely. Isn't it warm in here? I feel dizzy.
> > Renewable energy
> > is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
> > inefficient.
>
> Actually, storage is not so hard, when it needs to be stored and it is
> not inefficient. Conversion factors for hydroelectic are about the
> highest that you will find anywhere. The bottom line is that the power
> is there, waiting to be used, in many cases with minimal environmental
> impact. Wasting 100% of this energy is surely less efficient than
> building costly nuclear behemoths that can belch dozens of tons of
> nuclear waste per plant per year.
Hey, don't nuclear power plants create a lot of heat? Where are those darn vector
bosons when you need them.
> > A good energy storage mechanism could serve to take down that ugly,
> > dangerous grid. In addition to simple, clean, efficient and cheap, if
> > we can possibly add light, then it will also serve as the final
> > divorce papers between the West and the Middle East.
Hooray for the good guys!
> That's why were pour all of like 2 billion dollars into research while we
> give 1.5 trillion in rebates to wealthy tax traitors who try to keep us
> dependent on oil, I suppose?
Boo for the bad guys!
saict
I believe I already made that point.
quibbler
>
>
> quibbler included:
> >
> > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> > that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> > is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
>
> Sounds as though we in this forum who are
> members of that very industry, or who
> promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
I will take that to be a "Yes" that you do believe the hype. Let's ignore
the billions of dollars in cost overruns. Let's ignore the massive
corruption and kickbacks, cover up of safety violations and hundreds of
mishaps yearly which often result in plant workers getting exposed to
serious doses of radioactive contamination. Let's ignore the substantial
contamination produced by processing facilities like Rocky Flats.
>
> We won't even have to write our responses!
Who is "we" exactly? Does it include you?
> The hydrocarbon lobby will write them for us.
Whatever, I await an actual response.
>
> On any recent day the nuclear industry, worldwide,
> used less than US$3.5 million worth of uranium
> to produce energy that with oil takes about 100 times more.
Actually, fission can release 100 million times more energy than chemical
reactions. But what do you know about the procedures used to mine and
process this fuel? Are you telling me that you think it has a spotless
safety record? At the moment we have cheap supplies of uranium coming
from Russia. Do you know what kinds of techniques the russians used to
obtain their uranium?
> Governments take most of the profit on that
> three or four hundred million dollars a day.
I see. Now it's guv'mit taxation. If it wasn't for that, why I'm sure
they'd plow all that money directly into safety. Do you think that the
government levies fees on the industry for any particular reason, like to
support clean up and inspection, or is it just because they feel like
being assholes?
> So it has always seemed likely that those "hippies"
> have government and corporate backing.
What in the world does government involvement in our nuclear program have
to do with hippies or anyone else. What affect does this alleged
taxation have on the nuclear industry anyway? Is it responsible for
their safety record? Is it responsible for fewer plants being built.
What in particular are you even claiming? In many countries like France,
there is substantially more government oversight and involvement and they
still manage to get most of their power from nuclear sources.
>
> Wow, novel thought, eh.
It's not a very developed one though. Please show how it's even relevant
to discussion. Why is it that the government would decide to arbitrarily
pick on one energy industry and not other? I'm always a bit suspicious
when people offer a simplistic excuse for all their woes.
Brad Tittle
> From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com>
> Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen
> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:51:30 GMT
> Subject: Re: YA Hydrogen article - positive this time
>
> March 15, 2003
>
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
>>>> Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> http://physics.sci.geneseo.edu/padalino/first_nuclear_pile.htm
>>
>> The Fermi nuclear pile wasn't a power plant.
>
> Sure it was, semantically speaking, nuclear energy converted radioactive
> uranium into radionuclides, including radioactive plutonium, thus, it was a
> nuclear reactor generating nuclear power. They simply weren't converted that
> nuclear energy into electrical energy for public consumption, although it
> left plenty of radionuclides around, which were subsequently available for
> public exposure.
>
Pot... Kettle .... huh?
> Karl is a semanticists and lives to sew, I mean sow, misinformation.
>
> Karl may be referred to as a nuclear propagandist.
>
> Thomas Lee Elifritz
> http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
>
Karl is one of cornerstones of this board. He recognizes a very simple
concept that eludes a majority of the population. Risk is everywhere. That
he has the patience to keep debating the likes of TLE and Mook is admirable.
That you refuse to understand his message of relative risk only makes you
look irrational and not nearly as smart as you want everyone to think you
are.
You seem to have something to offer this group, but the bandwidth can be
shared with little difficulty. If you don't like listening to others turn
off your modem and hide out on your island.
brad
quibbler
matic.com says...
> March 15, 2003
>
> quibbler wrote:
>
> > > Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
> > > medium, you can use a truck to distribute it.
> >
> > That's a nice and expensive way to distribute tiny quantities. Solving
> > the problem that way will guarantee that hydrogen never replaces other
> > fossil fuel sources. We might as well just keep doing what we're doing
> > if we aren't going to be serious about the alternatives.
>
> Actually, the entire tractor trailer and train infrastructure could be converted to
> cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen propulsion, and that would solve a major problem right
> there.
Trucking in itself would not be a practical way to deliver a bulk
commodity like hydrogen.
>
> > > If it's simple as well,
> > > you don't even have to distribute it. Make it at home when the sun
> > > shines and save it for when the sun goes down. If you can store it,
> > > you can move it, and in many cases you don't even have to.
> > >
> > > > > If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> > > > > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually.
> > >
> > > Reasonable in what way? Our interpretations of "reasonable" are
> > > different in this regard.
> > >
> > > > Hydrogen is just
> > > > one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy.
> >
> > It doesn't even have to be chemical. We can store energy in a massive
> > fly wheel, or compressed air, or in the case of heat in a well insulated
> > container if need be.
>
> Basic physics seems to escape you.
Since you claim this about everyone but yourself I'll just ignore that.
>
> > > At 10,000 psi or 20K?
> >
> > How about a couple hundred thousand RPMs instead?
>
> Can you calculate angular momentum and moment of inertia?
Yep. I can calculate a lot more than that. What's your point.
> What happens when you change
> your inertial reference frame?
You mean what happens when you try to use it to propel a vehicle, for
example. There's a lot of research on that very subject. The problem is
by no means intractable.
>
> > > Or what chemical scenario do you have in mind?
> > > Actually I don't have any problem wih 10,000 psi if it can get through
> > > congress. But Don Lancaster has threatened to pickett, and he's not
> > > the only one.
> > >
> > > > While storage is
> > > > important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
> > > > first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
> > > > friendly manner.
> > >
> > > There are any number of ways to generate hydrogen, cheaply, simply,
> > > safely, reliably and in an environmentally friendly manner.
> >
> > What you're generating is energy. You can put your energy into H2
> > production if you want. Others of us will make use of it more directly.
>
> Others of us find a need for propulsion.
I suppose that if what you need to propel is a rocket then I might be
sympathetic.
>
> > > Use the
> > > sun, use the wind, use the tides or the horse. Hook up an
> > > electrolyzer to your treadmill. If you need several trillion joules
> > > for a major project, fire up that nuclear power plant. If you can
> > > truly store it, it doesn't matter when, where or how you generate it.
> >
> > Even to build the infrastructure to store it in major cities it is going
> > to take large infrastructure investments. We don't really have the
> > ability to store it, except in tiny quantities.
>
> No, we have the ability to store in in large dewars and use it in propulsion
> applications until it is exhausted.
If it can be carried on a vehicle being used for transportation then it
is not large by the "major city" standard I specified.
>
> > > > > > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > > > > > to make your hydrogen with,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nuclear power.
> > > >
> > > > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content.
> > >
> > > Yes. By several orders of magnitude.
> >
> > The sun produces even more than that. What's your point?
>
> That is the point.
I'm glad we all agree then.
>
> > > > Otherwise, both
> > > > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> > > > process.
> > >
> > > As far as mining and collection go, Uranium wins again by an order of
> > > magnitude.
> >
> > Are you aware of the mining procedures used? Do you know what kinds of
> > health problems third world miners suffer? Do you know what kinds of
> > environmental problems are create by the "cheap" techniques they use,
> > like pumping boiling sulfuric acid into crevices to extract ore?
>
> Introducing ... a star called the Sun!
hel-lo.
>
> > > > It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> > > > the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
> > >
> > > Reverse that.
> >
> > How does alternative energy ignore externalities. It doesn't. Wind
> > power plants don't need the government to build waste containment
> > facilities for them. We don't have to build wind power plants in mexico
> > to take advantage of lower environmental standards.
>
> Good for the wind! It often blows at night too.
Sure does, by golly.
>
> > > Many are completely ignoring the opportunity to use
> > > nuclear power which is clean, safe,
> >
> > When people use words like "clean" right off the bat to describe nuclear
> > power one wonders if these people know what the words mean. An industry
> > that produces thousands of tons of radioactive waste annually doesn't
> > sound particularly clean. Even if there were good containment
> > facilities, which have yet to fully come on line, that would not make
> > them clean. They are only clean in the same sense that my yard is clean
> > if I dump my shit over my neighbors fence.
>
> I agree.
>
> > As far as safety, it's true that nuclear plants don't have a lot of
> > major accidents. Modern plants should never melt down for example. But
> > secondary accidents where radioactive contaminants are released are much
> > more common and safety inspectors often find numerous minor violations at
> > any given plant. We can't afford to take a cavalier attitude about
> > nuclear power and there's not a lot of evidence that the industry has
> > reformed enough to want to expand it substantially. Lots of little
> > mishaps could add up into major hazards.
>
> Not to mention nuclear weapons proliferation.
Of course that can largely be mitigated by threats of assured
destruction, should some tiny country decide to get frisky or give
weapons to terrorists. That's why we have things like nuclear subs and
neutron munitions. But we can't stop all the crazies that might be out
there, so it is worth our effort to look at alternatives.
>
> > > and would be cheap but for the
> > > loud ignorance of a few who make it expensive by political and
> > > litigious means.
>
> Good for them! Lawyers and politicians are people too :-)
>
> > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry that the
> > only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter" is a few
> > dirty, smelly hippies. The nuclear industry in the US was spectacularly
> > mismanaged. They overran on construction costs by billions of dollars
> > and then only operated at partial capacity. They took a see no evil,
> > hear no evil approach to waste disposal. Don't believe the rush limbaugh
> > hype. As it turns out, countries with the most successful nuclear
> > programs often had far more government control and vertical integration
> > of support industries. Our glorious private enterprise system failed us
> > pretty badly in the process of trying to take us nuclear and blaming a
> > couple sign waving protesters just ain't gonna cut it.
>
> I agree, science seems to back up their ludicrous hippy claims
Amazingly, the gungo ho pro-nuclear folks, who like to label everyone
else ignorant, seem extremely ignorant of the thousands of mishaps in the
US nuclear programs alone which have exposed workers to high doses of
radiation, not to mention shutting down power production for days at a
time. They also seem to be willfully, or perhaps just blissfully
ignorant, of the appalling techniques used to mine uranium in the third
world. They've got guys walking through contaminated mud up to their
knees and then going home to their families. But I guess it doesn't
matter how many people die as long as they aren't americans. That at
least seems to be the attitude. I think some of these nuclear advocates
should take a job as a uranium miner if they think it's so benign.
>
> > > > > > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > > > > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > > > > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > >
> > > > Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
> > >
> > > While I'm waiting for you tell me a good storage mechanism for
> > > elemental hydrogen,
> >
> > I didn't claim that hydrogen was the only storage medium we should use.
>
> No, it's just the most environmentally realistic.
We will definitely use some fucking hydrogen, OK. Are you happy now :) A
lot of power can be provided on demand without need for long term storage
at all.
>
> > > my plan is to encourage and support research of
> > > all forms with the goal of simple, clean, efficient and cheap storage
> > > of energy. Batteries are ridiculously expensive for the amount of
> > > energy you get out of them.
> >
> > But if you succeed in making better batteries might this not make a
> > "hydrogen economy" even less attractive than it already is?
>
> Well, there is that little fundamental physics problem again.
No, there you go again assuming that if one particular technology cannot
solve 100% of everyone's energy needs then it's not worth doing.
>
> > > Gasoline is not clean.
> >
> > I agree with you there, but how is it that you've concluded this about
> > gas and not nuclear. After all, gasoline engines have things like
> > catalytic converters. Some systems have double catalytic converters that
> > lower emissions even more.
>
> cough cough, but not even close to entirely. Isn't it warm in here? I feel dizzy.
It for a car and it has fairly low carbon monoxide emissions. Now as far
a home use, I trust you have heard of venting.
>
> > > Renewable energy
> > > is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
> > > inefficient.
> >
> > Actually, storage is not so hard, when it needs to be stored and it is
> > not inefficient. Conversion factors for hydroelectic are about the
> > highest that you will find anywhere. The bottom line is that the power
> > is there, waiting to be used, in many cases with minimal environmental
> > impact. Wasting 100% of this energy is surely less efficient than
> > building costly nuclear behemoths that can belch dozens of tons of
> > nuclear waste per plant per year.
>
> Hey, don't nuclear power plants create a lot of heat?
So much heat that they need massive cooling stacks, cooling ponds and
sometimes even change the local climate for miles around.
> Where are those darn vector
> bosons when you need them.
I think they're chillin in their atomic cribs right now.
>
> > > A good energy storage mechanism could serve to take down that ugly,
> > > dangerous grid. In addition to simple, clean, efficient and cheap, if
> > > we can possibly add light, then it will also serve as the final
> > > divorce papers between the West and the Middle East.
>
> Hooray for the good guys!
>
> > That's why were pour all of like 2 billion dollars into research while we
> > give 1.5 trillion in rebates to wealthy tax traitors who try to keep us
> > dependent on oil, I suppose?
>
> Boo for the bad guys!
>
Get some pom-poms and a short dress. You can be a cheerleader.
Karl Johanson
> March 15, 2003
>
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
> > > > Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > http://physics.sci.geneseo.edu/padalino/first_nuclear_pile.htm
> >
> > The Fermi nuclear pile wasn't a power plant.
>
> Sure it was, semantically speaking, nuclear energy converted radioactive
> uranium into radionuclides, including radioactive plutonium, thus, it was
a
> nuclear reactor generating nuclear power. They simply weren't converted
that
> nuclear energy into electrical energy for public consumption,
A 'nuclear power plant' is a device which uses nuclear energy to produce
useable power (heat and/or electricity). Fermi wasn't a power plant. It was
a research reactor.
When sunlight hits asphalt roofing shingles, some of that energy is absorbed
by the shingles. That doesn't make the roofing shingles a 'solar power
plant'.
> Karl may be referred to as a nuclear propagandist.
My points on nuclear energy can be boiled down neatly. All energy sources
have dangers. All energy sources have environmental consequences. All energy
sources can be used to enrich natural uranium, so all energy sources are a
nuclear weapons proliferation risk. The 'per watt hour' dangers of possible
replacement power should be well understood, before one argues that nuclear
plants should be prevented from being built, or before existing ones are
shut down. Those points are fairly obvious, yet are denied vehemently by
some who prefer mantras such as "nuclear bad, 'renewable' good".
By way of analogy, it's possible that one or more colours of cars aren't
seen as well by most people and are thus involved in a disproportionate
number of accidents. That would be an argument that it may be a good idea to
ban that colour car. Suggesting that nuclear energy be banned because it has
some dangers, while not even considering the dangers and environmental
consequences of alternate power, is like observing that blue cars sometimes
kill people, and suggesting that blue cars be banned, while ignoring the
fact that all colours of cars kill people.
In terms of opinion; my opinion is that nuclear energy, while having dangers
and environmental consequences, compares well to it's competitors, in terms
of human and environmental safety. Much of what I post is information which
I suggest supports that opinion. I am occasionally quite shocked by some
people's, "those deaths don't count cuz...' reactions to data about deaths
related to non-nuclear energy. Some people have trouble applying their own
standards across the board.
Karl Johanson
G. R. L. Cowan
quibbler included:
>
> In article <3E7321B6...@eagle.ca>, gco...@eagle.ca says...
> >
> >
> > quibbler included:
> > >
> > > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> > > that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> > > is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
> >
> > Sounds as though we in this forum who are
> > members of that very industry, or who
> > promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
>
> I will take that to be a "Yes" that you do believe the hype. Let's ignore
> the billions of dollars in cost overruns. Let's ignore the massive
> corruption and kickbacks ...
Oh, so now you're bragging,
but I should ignore it.
I can't. How much do you get?
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:Aj3ca.1253$Gf7.13...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "H. E. Taylor" <h...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca> wrote in message
> > --
> > "It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday
> > is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
> >
> > Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy.html
> > H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
>
> You need to go to school and learn a little about chemistry, physics and
> economics. When you parrot a statement like "unlock the potential of
> hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power." you are demonstrating
your
> ignorance of the subject.
Um, no, that was part of the article, Dr Bob, not his own comment.
> It talks about wind energy but wind can't even
> exist without government subsidies.
Don't be so insular, wind is a large, non-subsidised part of Danish electric
power.
> Lets get all of the facts straight before we make wild
> proclamations. Like it or not fossil fuels are going to be with us for a
> long time and are not likely to be replaced by hydrogen.
How old are you, Dr. Bob?
Roland
--
Roland Paterson-Jones
Manager, Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8044
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
quibbler
>
>
> quibbler included:
> >
> > In article <3E7321B6...@eagle.ca>, gco...@eagle.ca says...
> > >
> > >
> > > quibbler included:
> > > >
> > > > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> > > > that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> > > > is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
> > >
> > > Sounds as though we in this forum who are
> > > members of that very industry, or who
> > > promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
> >
> > I will take that to be a "Yes" that you do believe the hype. Let's ignore
> > the billions of dollars in cost overruns. Let's ignore the massive
> > corruption and kickbacks ...
>
> Oh, so now you're bragging,
> but I should ignore it.
> I can't. How much do you get?
So now you've moved to blaming the woes of the industry on me personally?
The whole industry is paying me kickbacks or something. What do I look
like, Powell's son or something?
Roland Paterson-Jones
> IMO, if we had to focus on a
> single technology, it should be wind turbines. These can be sited and
> installed faster than most fossil fuel plants and the electricity they
> produce would free up resources like domestic natural gas, which can be
> used to power vehicles.
I don't like to quibble with a quibbler, but wind energy is unpredictable.
Grid electricity requires predictability (you want to turn your lights on in
the evening, not just when the wind blows). You can't replace fossil-fuel
electric plants with wind generators unless you have a load balancer (i.e.
energy storage when the wind doesn't blow).
On the other hand, wind (or solar) generation of hydrogen fuel makes sense
for the same reason that grid electric generation from wind (or solar)
doesn't. Hydrogen is an energy store for unpredictable energy sources.
Roland
--
Roland Paterson-Jones
Manager, Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8044
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
>
>
Thomas Lee Elifritz
quibbler wrote:
> Trucking in itself would not be a practical way to deliver a bulk
> commodity like hydrogen.
Like everyone says, if we aren't using it for transportation, there is no need to deliver
it. Just bypass the hydrogen energy conversion step entirely, or create it and use it 'in
situ' (is that greek or latin) :-)
> > Basic physics seems to escape you.
>
> Since you claim this about everyone but yourself I'll just ignore that.
No, actually, I freely admit I'm a moron and a bigot.
> > > > At 10,000 psi or 20K?
> > >
> > > How about a couple hundred thousand RPMs instead?
> >
> > Can you calculate angular momentum and moment of inertia?
>
> Yep. I can calculate a lot more than that. What's your point.
>
> > What happens when you change
> > your inertial reference frame?
>
> You mean what happens when you try to use it to propel a vehicle, for
> example. There's a lot of research on that very subject. The problem is
> by no means intractable.
That is my point, there are reasons that hydrogen energy conversion excel in
transportation applications, and there are reasons that flywheels and superbatteries
don't.
> > Others of us find a need for propulsion.
>
> I suppose that if what you need to propel is a rocket then I might be
> sympathetic.
No, all transportation that is currently being accomplished by hydrocarbon combustion and
internal combustion. We are killing the planet in more ways than just environmentally.
> > No, we have the ability to store in in large dewars and use it in propulsion
> > applications until it is exhausted.
>
> If it can be carried on a vehicle being used for transportation then it
> is not large by the "major city" standard I specified.
Divide the problems into parts, and you are left with households and businesses.
> > Introducing ... a star called the Sun!
>
> hel-lo.
I'm glad we agree on that. Fusion power is great, as long as it's 93 million miles away.
> > Not to mention nuclear weapons proliferation.
>
> Of course that can largely be mitigated by threats of assured
> destruction, should some tiny country decide to get frisky or give
> weapons to terrorists. That's why we have things like nuclear subs and
> neutron munitions. But we can't stop all the crazies that might be out
> there, so it is worth our effort to look at alternatives.
I see, so you think we should kill everybody just to kill the enemy.
> Amazingly, the gungo ho pro-nuclear folks, who like to label everyone
> else ignorant, seem extremely ignorant of the thousands of mishaps in the
> US nuclear programs alone which have exposed workers to high doses of
> radiation, not to mention shutting down power production for days at a
> time. They also seem to be willfully, or perhaps just blissfully
> ignorant, of the appalling techniques used to mine uranium in the third
> world. They've got guys walking through contaminated mud up to their
> knees and then going home to their families. But I guess it doesn't
> matter how many people die as long as they aren't americans. That at
> least seems to be the attitude. I think some of these nuclear advocates
> should take a job as a uranium miner if they think it's so benign.
Wow, we agree again.
> We will definitely use some fucking hydrogen, OK. Are you happy now :) A
> lot of power can be provided on demand without need for long term storage
> at all.
I'm also keen on high temperature superconductivity. It's already being used for load
balancing, and has the potential to solve the energy storage problem, by simply moving the
electrical energy to where it's needed.
> > Well, there is that little fundamental physics problem again.
>
> No, there you go again assuming that if one particular technology cannot
> solve 100% of everyone's energy needs then it's not worth doing.
If it doesn't solve the emissions problem, then it's not. I just get very nervous around
large moments. Especially large angular moments. That is why I'm so interested in pairing
those spins up and down.
>
>
> >
> > > > Gasoline is not clean.
> > >
> > > I agree with you there, but how is it that you've concluded this about
> > > gas and not nuclear. After all, gasoline engines have things like
> > > catalytic converters. Some systems have double catalytic converters that
> > > lower emissions even more.
> >
> > cough cough, but not even close to entirely. Isn't it warm in here? I feel dizzy.
>
> It for a car and it has fairly low carbon monoxide emissions. Now as far
> a home use, I trust you have heard of venting.
That's right poison everyone else just to save myself, just like nuclear waste. It's the
nastiness and the excess carbon dioxide that I have a problem with.
>
>
> >
> > > > Renewable energy
> > > > is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
> > > > inefficient.
> > >
> > > Actually, storage is not so hard, when it needs to be stored and it is
> > > not inefficient. Conversion factors for hydroelectic are about the
> > > highest that you will find anywhere. The bottom line is that the power
> > > is there, waiting to be used, in many cases with minimal environmental
> > > impact. Wasting 100% of this energy is surely less efficient than
> > > building costly nuclear behemoths that can belch dozens of tons of
> > > nuclear waste per plant per year.
> >
> > Hey, don't nuclear power plants create a lot of heat?
>
> So much heat that they need massive cooling stacks, cooling ponds and
> sometimes even change the local climate for miles around.
All that nuclear power, just to boil water. So elegant.
> > Where are those darn vector
> > bosons when you need them.
>
> I think they're chillin in their atomic cribs right now.
Photons are bosons too.
> Get some pom-poms and a short dress. You can be a cheerleader.
I'm sorry you all think I have a bad attitude, but these are serious problems. When I look
at the mess we are making of the world with oil and uranium, I get pissed off, at
everybody, including myself. Hydrogen has lots of problems, but as you say, they are not
intractable, and the potential benefits are enormous. I think we need a Manhattan/Apollo
project to elucidate the foundations of condensed matter physics. I don't see it
happening, but I will continue advocating it, with attitude.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Brad Tittle wrote:
> Karl is one of cornerstones of this board. He recognizes a very simple
> concept that eludes a majority of the population. Risk is everywhere.
And he utter fails to adequately predict it or prevent it.
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:oyd8yvi2l...@bert.cs.rice.edu...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:43 -0700, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
writes:
Thank-you, Scott, for some hugely valuable reality. Consider, on the other
hand, a distributed energy storage (as opposed to centralised power plants
guarenteing you evening power). Let's say that individual house-holds took
the responsibility for purchasing power if and when it was available, and
paid a large premium otherwise.
> > There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic
> > into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion
> > dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure
> > that the power is uniform and more or less continuous.
Yes, predictability of power is the problem with wind, solar (and even
hydro-electric which is possibly seasonal).
> Lets look at a few ideas:
>
> * Store in the form of pumped storage.
Nope.
> * Flywheel storage:
>
> At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> sound. Thats at least one-ton flywheel for every fifteen residents in
> the state. Any ballpark figures for how much that will cost?
>
> If we go by [3], 100kJ/kg, which is ten million tons of steel
> flywheels. If the average car weights 2 tons, this is enough steel to
> produce one automobile for every sixth person in the state.
That's approximately a 200kg flywheel per household. Still not that
attractive.
> * Battery storage?
Nope.
> * Hydrogen?
>
> There are three considerations, production, storage, and consumption.
>
> I don't know how what the production rates for hydrogen are with
> differing technology.
91% commercial generation efficiency.
> At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of
> hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
>
> If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of
> 1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about
> 30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting
> catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
I believe you are now confusing distributed power generation from central
power plants. For grid electric generation, solid oxide plants don't require
'interesting catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction' to
generate efficient electricity from hydrogen.
> * Biodiesal turbines?
Not relevent - it's not a power storage facility.
If you've read all the way down to here, the gist is that, if solar/wind
etc. generate the power, then there will be a new value cycle for power
generation.
At the moment, night power generation is subsidised by daytime power
generation. Intra-day consumption peaks (particularly early-morning and
early evening) are subsidised by off-peak periods. This is because efficient
power generation from fossil fuels requires a constant power output. You
don't necessarily see the different costs since power companies constitute a
monopoly. It has to be so, since efficient power generation from fossil
fuels has to be large-scale.
Now, consider a free-market world where you paid the real cost at any time.
A sensible person would opt for some local storage mechanism.
And then transient sources might be more attractive.
Roland
--
Roland Paterson-Jones
Manager, Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8044
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
> [2] http://www.processassociates.com/cgi-bin/hc_gas.exe
> [3] http://www.spinglass.net/scooters/thumb.html
> [4]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=diesel+%22heat+of
+combustion%22&btnG=Google+Search
> [5] http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/prod_quality.pdf
> [6] http://www.unitedsoybean.org/soystats2001/page_11.htm
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both
> rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> process. It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
Yep, fossil fuels require the periodic liberation of middle east countries
from their cruel dictators.
Karl Johanson
> I'm also keen on high temperature superconductivity. It's already being
used for load
> balancing, and has the potential to solve the energy storage problem, by
simply moving the
> electrical energy to where it's needed.
You don't just need superconductors capable of remaining super conductive at
high temperatures, you need ones capable of remaining super conductive at
high current densities. A room temperature or above superconductor would be
a quite remarkable, but it's utility for power grid applications would be
severly limited unless you could transfer significant amounts of power
through it.
As for possible consequences of a super conductive grid; we might expect
increased use of remote hydro-power, at locations further from the demand
areas. Some would rather nuclear plants be farther from inhabited areas & a
super conductive grid make that more economical as well.
Karl Johanson
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:3E712877...@nowhere.com...
> Is there anthing NEW in this area?
No, not really.
> A new metal-hydride formulation?
No, but you can now buy NiMH recharchable batteries (better storage and
environmental impact than NiCd).
> A new miraculous storage tank for gasous H2?
Not miraculous, but 10000psi tanks are now de-riguer.
> An IC engine running on H2 from liquid, or compressed gas,
> or from hydride-storage, is old news.
Yes, but 'HyOx' engines which burn stochiometric H2 and O2 are interesting
theoretically and practically.
> Many people seem to make the mistake of assuming that
> something that is new TO THEM is a new development
> to the world of science.
We're not all as well educated as you. Sorry.
> Again, imho, I am not expectiong any developements here, because fuelcells
and
> H2 storage has been extensively and expensively studied by universities,
> corparations, and gov't labs for years and years.
> Reducing platinum use in FCs has been studied for yesrs and years.
> When a new area of scientific investigation opens up,
> I expect progress, in an old area of study...don't look for anything new
> anytime soon.
OK, I'm not really looking for anything new, so I'm alright then.
By the by, whence the persuit of reduction of platinum use in FC's? Is it a
cost problem?
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:Sibca.48352$_7.4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> > Again, imho, I am not expectiong any developements here, because
fuelcells
> and
> > H2 storage has been extensively and expensively studied by universities,
> > corparations, and gov't labs for years and years.
>
money
> dried out, and still no products available. I do believe that they mostly
> drooling over the wrong market, now with govenment money possible.
> A fuel cell that can use natural gas to provide electric and hot water and
> or some heat to a home seems simpler.
> Maybe we use less fuel oil that way too.
> Hydrogen cars may have to wait for the nanotech era.
Jesse, natural gas can provide hot water and heating to a home far more
efficiently than a 'fuel cell that can use natural gas to provide ... hot
water and or some heat'.
There's no sense in using a fuel cell to burn natural gas for heating
purposes, just as there's no sense in using grid electric for heating
purposes.
Roland
--
Roland Paterson-Jones
Manager, Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8044
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003
>
>
saict
> > Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
> > medium, you can use a truck to distribute it.
>
> That's a nice and expensive way to distribute tiny quantities.
Trucking it from a nuclear power plant even from four states away
would be far superior to our current method of shipping it from the
Middle East, and then trucking it from sea to shining sea through
every state every day.
> It doesn't even have to be chemical. We can store energy in a massive
> fly wheel, or compressed air, or in the case of heat in a well insulated
> container if need be.
RPMs and PSI are really not reasonable storage mechanisms for daily
energy use. Neither is a thermos. Take a class.
> > Use the
> > sun, use the wind, use the tides or the horse. Hook up an
> > electrolyzer to your treadmill. If you need several trillion joules
> > for a major project, fire up that nuclear power plant. If you can
> > truly store it, it doesn't matter when, where or how you generate it.
>
> Even to build the infrastructure to store it in major cities it is going
> to take large infrastructure investments. We don't really have the
> ability to store it, except in tiny quantities.
You're not getting it. My definition of a reasonable storage
mechanism is one that obviates the need for the infrastructure you're
talking about. I already know we don't have the ability to store it
well. That's my point.
> > > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content.
> >
> > Yes. By several orders of magnitude.
>
> The sun produces even more than that. What's your point?
The sun does not produce nearly that amount within the same plot of
land. I don't live on the Sun, and I'm not advocating putting a
nuclear power plant everywhere the sun shines. What's *your* point?
> > As far as mining and collection go, Uranium wins again by an order of
> > magnitude.
>
> Are you aware of the mining procedures used?
I know something about it, but try to stay on topic. If you want to
protest dangerous mining techniques, another forum is more
appropriate. The mining can, and in many cases is, being done in a
safe and efficient manner.
> > Many are completely ignoring the opportunity to use
> > nuclear power which is clean, safe,
>
> When people use words like "clean" right off the bat to describe nuclear
> power one wonders if these people know what the words mean.
I feel that I know very well what the words mean.
> An industry
> that produces thousands of tons of radioactive waste annually doesn't
> sound particularly clean.
All the nuclear waste that has ever been produced could fit within the
area of a football field. We produce millions of tons of air
pollution on a weekly or daily basis with fossil fuels, and the volume
that this waste occupies is millions of times greater. When I say
clean, I mean clean.
> Even if there were good containment
> facilities, which have yet to fully come on line, that would not make
> them clean.
The containment facilities are at least partly the result of public
paranoia, which you have apparently bought hook, line and sinker.
Yucca mountain is a perfectly reasonable place to store the nuclear
waste, and it could contain all of it, for many years to come.
Congressmen are finding out that they can get political mileage out of
opposing even the truck going through their state in order the get the
waste to Yucca mountain.
> They are only clean in the same sense that my yard is clean
> if I dump my shit over my neighbors fence.
Apart from the expletive, it's a good analogy. You don't give your
sewer to your neighbor. You make a septic tank instead. The nuclear
material comes from mother earth, and it can return in safety. We
have been engineered to live on this earth with the amount of natural
radiation it contains, along with the enormous variability of that
natural radiation. The true fact of the matter of it is, we don't
even need Yucca Mountain. Each nuclear power plant could have its own
nuclear septic tank.
> As far as safety, it's true that nuclear plants don't have a lot of
> major accidents. Modern plants should never melt down for example. But
> secondary accidents where radioactive contaminants are released are much
> more common and safety inspectors often find numerous minor violations at
> any given plant. We can't afford to take a cavalier attitude about
> nuclear power and there's not a lot of evidence that the industry has
> reformed enough to want to expand it substantially. Lots of little
> mishaps could add up into major hazards.
Well, nobody's taking safety lightly. But some are making a lot of
political hay over a bit of depleted uranium, which should be reused
instead of being treated like the bubonic plague.
> > and would be cheap but for the
> > loud ignorance of a few who make it expensive by political and
> > litigious means.
>
> You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry that the
> only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter" is a few
> dirty, smelly hippies.
Apparently, you would rather believe the hippies than the scientists.
The best I can hope for is that you've never actually heard from the
scientists.
> The nuclear industry in the US was spectacularly mismanaged.
Which hippie explained that to you?
> They overran on construction costs by billions of dollars
> and then only operated at partial capacity.
Do you know why they only operated at partial capacity? Do you know
why those "construction" costs overran? Have you ever seen those
protesters on TV? Maybe a better question is, have you ever _been_
one of those protesters I see on TV?
> They took a see no evil, hear no evil approach to waste disposal.
As opposed to those protestors, who see and hear evil in everyone but
themselves.
> Don't believe the rush limbaugh hype.
While you were in emotional combat with Rush Limbaugh, I was in class.
> As it turns out, countries with the most successful nuclear
> programs often had far more government control and vertical integration
> of support industries.
So you want more government control.
> Our glorious private enterprise system failed us
> pretty badly in the process of trying to take us nuclear and blaming a
> couple sign waving protesters just ain't gonna cut it.
So it's not the hippies. It's that darn capitalism.
> I didn't claim that hydrogen was the only storage medium we should use.
>
> > my plan is to encourage and support research of
> > all forms with the goal of simple, clean, efficient and cheap storage
> > of energy. Batteries are ridiculously expensive for the amount of
> > energy you get out of them.
>
> But if you succeed in making better batteries might this not make a
> "hydrogen economy" even less attractive than it already is?
Sure. I'm not a hydrogen economy advocate. May the best technology
win. I do think that a fuel cell is technologically superior to a
battery, but it's just my opinion, and I recognize that it requires a
hydrogen storage mechanism which is nonexistent at present.
Electrovaya is making a sort of lithium ion battery that achieves 470
watt hours per liter. They might have a chance. Right now such a
battery is selling for about $15,000 per liter.
> > Gasoline is not clean.
>
> I agree with you there, but how is it that you've concluded this about
> gas and not nuclear.
I took some real science classes, and I paid attention.
> After all, gasoline engines have things like
> catalytic converters. Some systems have double catalytic converters that
> lower emissions even more.
>
> > Renewable energy
> > is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
> > inefficient.
>
> Actually, storage is not so hard, when it needs to be stored and it is
> not inefficient.
So tell me how you're going to store it.
> Conversion factors for hydroelectic are about the
> highest that you will find anywhere.
But my twelve acres are not topologically suited for hydroelectric
storage.
> The bottom line is that the power
> is there, waiting to be used, in many cases with minimal environmental
> impact.
I consider the electric grid to be a real environmental impact, and
not so minimal.
> Wasting 100% of this energy is surely less efficient than
> building costly nuclear behemoths that can belch dozens of tons of
> nuclear waste per plant per year.
For argument purposes, let's say you have a nuclear power plant which
produces 24 tons of depleted fuel per year, so that some careless
person could say it belches "dozons of tons of nuclear waste" per
year. Using nuclear technology from the '70s such a plant would
produce approximately 2400 Megawatts averaged over the course of a
year. That's enough for 2,400,000 households. The plant would take
up about 30 acres. There would be no dead birds as there would be if
you strung up windmills over 7000 acres to supply the same power.
There would be no uninhabitable beaches as there would be if you used
about 90 miles of coastline for a wave unit which would supply the
same power. There would be no unnavigable airspace the size of the
state of Delaware as there would be if we paved the earth with enough
Photovoltaic panels to supply the same power. And there would not be
240 *million* tons of pollution which would be generated if we used a
fossil fuel to supply the same power. There would be 24 tons of
depleted nuclear fuel, which can and should be fed in again, to
further reduce its radioactivity and produce massive amounts of
additional power. 24 tons. That's less than the weight of a semi,
and given the density of the stuff we're talking about, far less than
the volume of a semi.
>
> >
> > A good energy storage mechanism could serve to take down that ugly,
> > dangerous grid. In addition to simple, clean, efficient and cheap, if
> > we can possibly add light, then it will also serve as the final
> > divorce papers between the West and the Middle East.
>
> That's why were pour all of like 2 billion dollars into research while we
> give 1.5 trillion in rebates to wealthy tax traitors who try to keep us
> dependent on oil, I suppose?
That's a very broad brush. Take a class.
Jesse Spencer
> efficiently than a 'fuel cell that can use natural gas to provide ... hot
> water and or some heat'.
>
> There's no sense in using a fuel cell to burn natural gas for heating
I'm speaking econemically not fuel efficiency wise.
Energy costs represent about 25% of the electric bill here on Long Island.
Gas heat is reasonable, electric heat impossibly expensive. Reason: a $7B
nuclear power plant (Shoreham) that never produced a watt. Give us a 5k fuel
cell that can produce electric at 50% efficiency and use 50% of the excess
heat, and they seell like hotcakes.
quibbler
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18da61643...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> > IMO, if we had to focus on a
> > single technology, it should be wind turbines. These can be sited and
> > installed faster than most fossil fuel plants and the electricity they
> > produce would free up resources like domestic natural gas, which can be
> > used to power vehicles.
>
> I don't like to quibble with a quibbler, but wind energy is unpredictable.
Only if you just stick up a fan any old place without planning. Most
serious people measure wind velocity over the course of a year at a site
and can reasonably say what the yearly average is. They can also say
what the deviation range and distribution pattern is and can quite
reasonably predict how much wind will be available. As I mentioned in
another post, as a rule of thumb, one can expect the average power to be
1.5 higher than the power of the yearly average velocity. I know that
probably sounds weird, but that's usually how it's stated. I can clarify
if necessary.
> Grid electricity requires predictability (you want to turn your lights on in
> the evening, not just when the wind blows).
Pretty much all wind farms are planned with line conditioning in mind.
But sometimes it can be as good to simply build higher towers, since in
general the wind tends to be faster and more plentiful as one gets
further off the ground . Winds are also quite predictable in coastal
areas, and of course, on the open sea. Valleys and mountains produce
channellizing and thrusting effects on local wind patterns which are
usually well known. Daily and seasonal patterns of convection are also
well known, as in mountainous regions like the rockies.
> You can't replace fossil-fuel
> electric plants with wind generators unless you have a load balancer (i.e.
> energy storage when the wind doesn't blow).
Of course, but there are lots of good, well-understood ways to deal with
this. If all else fails, back up fossil fuel (or hydrogen fuel)
generators can kick on. Hydroelectric, tidal and geothermal can also be
used to provide back up, reliable power. It would be foolish to go with
only one technology and it probably also wouldn't be too wise to only use
one storage technique, like hydrogen.
>
> On the other hand, wind (or solar) generation of hydrogen fuel makes sense
> for the same reason that grid electric generation from wind (or solar)
> doesn't.
Well that's partly true. But if you get your hydrogen from an
electrolyzer then you are not using a very efficient process. Then you
have to convert back from hydrogen to electricity by some means which is
not perfectly efficient either. The net result is that you will get
(appreciably) less power from wind than before. OTOH, if you use the
electricity that was kinetically generated in the first place, you can
afford to do some conditioning and cogeneration to even out power
fluctuations.
> Hydrogen is an energy store for unpredictable energy sources.
There are certainly cases that hydrogen storage might be the most viable
means, as when a massive wind turbine is floating out in the grand banks
and there are not other particularly good, economical ways of getting the
power back to land.
quibbler
says...> > Somebody sure is grumpy ... ;) Anyhoo, of course batteries fill the same
> > basic role as hydrogen and fuel cells, at least abstractly. But you
> > don't see anyone talking about a lithium or NiCad or capacitor "economy".
> > Part of the reason for that may just be that in the real world, the
> > details matter, even if thermodynamically it's all just about energy
> > storage.
> >
>
> IMHO, its about total capacity.
>
> > There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic
> > into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion
> > dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure
> > that the power is uniform and more or less continuous.
>
> > need to be tacked on for reliability.
>
> Next time be more feasible. Try to come up with a storage system that
> can store, say, 300,000,000 kw*h.
First off I didn't claim that I wanted to power 100% of california during
the night. All or nothing approaches do not work well with alternative
energy in general.
> Thats not too much energy, 10^15
> joules, or 30GW*10H. It also happens to be California's nightly
> electrical energy use. [1] We'd need 10 such plants for the rest of
> the US. We also need the ability to release this energy at a rate of
> about 20-40GW.
This is of course a perfectly accurate figure for how much electricity
people use in california. Then again, one way to deal with a problem
like this would be to apply cheap and relatively easy conservation
techniques which might chop this figure in half. Instead of using
electric water heaters without an insulation bat, california is well
situated for people to use roof top solar water heaters, which are cheap
and can save lots of energy. (Yes they can even stay hot enough for use
at night). High pressure sodium and fluorescent bulbs can also save
electricity when the sun is down. My point here is just that we may not
have to apply "brute force" to handle our energy needs.
>
> Lets look at a few ideas:
>
> * Store in the form of pumped storage.
>
> Well, 10^15 J is enough to lift 10^12 kg by 100 meters. Roughly, raise
> a 100 km^2 lake---100m above a second resivror---by 10 meters every
> night.
>
> * Flywheel storage:
>
> At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> sound.
There are some pretty big flywheels, but fortunately they don't need to
be anywhere near that big. Hydro, tidal, wind and geothermal all work at
night, so we won't have to rely on 100% storage. Heck we can even turn
on some nuclear for all I care. Why use nuclear to store chemical
energy, transport it to people's houses and have them convert it in their
fuel cells when you can just send the energy directly.
> Thats at least one-ton flywheel for every fifteen residents in
> the state.
While that would not be inconceivable, since we can rely on other forms
of energy at night, we would only need a tiny fraction of this amount.
> Any ballpark figures for how much that will cost?
At the rates you're talking about it would cost somewhere around $100
billion, but fortunately at the rates that it would actually be needed it
might only cost a couple billion. Since we need an energy storage
infrastructure anyway, this wouldn't be so bad. Besides, if we can
afford a couple hundred billion for a war every decade or so and 1.5
trillion in tax cuts then we can afford a couple billion for flywheels
and a few tens of billions more for the actual turbines and towers.
>
> If we go by [3], 100kJ/kg, which is ten million tons of steel
> flywheels. If the average car weights 2 tons, this is enough steel to
> produce one automobile for every sixth person in the state.
I would expect they would use carbon fibers and composites in some cases.
But at least it would be a durable, relatively compact power storage
resource. It would certainly beat batteries and it probably still beats
fuel cells in terms of economy, life span, maintenance, etc.
>
> * Battery storage?
>
> The advanced battery goal [3] is about 6 times better than a steel
> flywheel, or 1.6 million tons. If we stick with lead-acid, thats only
> 5 million tons of lead acid. About 300 pounds of lead-acid battery for
> every person in california.
Again, fortunately we don't have to opt for this, though battery systems
are not too onerous to engineer into new homes. The real problem is
that batteries of this kind need to be replaced as often as every 3-4
years, whereas many flywheels can last 20-30 years with minimal expense.
Batteries are also finicky about overcharging, heating and other
technical things which most home owners would not want to fuss about.
>
> * Hydrogen?
>
> There are three considerations, production, storage, and consumption.
>
> I don't know how what the production rates for hydrogen are with
> differing technology.
Well, for something like wind power the only real option is going to be
electrolysis, which is OK, but can be complicated by a lot of factors
like electrode corrosion, availability of water supplies, energy needed
to store gas under pressure, etc. For this reason it often makes sense
to use other techniques to store power, which is why I suggest things
like flywheels. Those are pretty practical when compared to older
alternatives like lead-acid batteries, as I think we would both agree.
>
> At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of
> hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
>
> If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of
> 1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about
> 30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting
> catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
>
> * Biodiesal turbines?
>
> Well, with 45 MJ/kg,[4] and, say, 30% conversion efficiency,
A high temperature ceramic turbine might give better performance, as
might MHD. But I never suggested that we use one monolithic technology.
Von Braun and other also showed that we would need a prohibitively large
rocket to go to the moon in a single stage. Fortunately, nobody was
seriously considering doing that, just like most people aren't seriously
considering using one alternative energy source or one storage
technology. Well, maybe some hydrogen fans want it to be the sole
storage medium of the future, but that's not very practical either.
> we'd need
> 100 million kg of diesel nightly, or 36 billion kg/year. From the data
> at [6], US yearly production is 8 billion kg/year on 300,000 km^2 of
> land.
Don't get me wrong. I think you are contributing some valuable
information here and I appreciate it. I would certainly not suggest that
we apply technologies like biodiesel or flywheel storage willy nilly.
The primary use of biodiesel probably still should be in trying to clean
up the emissions or our present diesel infrastructure, such as trains,
trucking and farm equipment.
> Just to satisfy california's nightly energy use would require
> quadrupling that. To satisfy the other 90% of the country would
> require another factor of 10.
>
> **
>
> Hydrogen storage and production, I don't know.. But the choices would
> seem to be either that or pumped storage. (Though for pumped storage,
> one must have suitable topography.
That may well be possible in the US. On the bright side, it would create
some lake front property :)
Thanks again for the info, Scott.
quibbler
> "Scott A Crosby" <scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message
> news:oyd8yvi2l...@bert.cs.rice.edu...
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:43 -0700, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> Thank-you, Scott, for some hugely valuable reality.
<blink, blink> What are you trying to say? :). I'm a fan of "reality"
too, honestly. I just think that certain problems may not be as
daunting as they first appear. It is undoubtedly the case that various
alternative energy generation and storage systems need to be researched
and improved. We certainly could spend more on researching these than we
do. But some technologies like wind and solar are becoming increasingly
mature. Corresponding energy storage techniques have progressed along
with them.
> Consider, on the other
> hand, a distributed energy storage (as opposed to centralised power plants
> guarenteing you evening power). Let's say that individual house-holds took
> the responsibility for purchasing power if and when it was available, and
> paid a large premium otherwise.
I'm sure utility companies wouldn't mind charging a premium when you got
yourself in a jam and needed extra power. In fact one of their
techniques is to buy power under PURPA at minimum (avoided cost) prices
and to sell it back to customers at peak prices.
>
> > > There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic
> > > into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion
> > > dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure
> > > that the power is uniform and more or less continuous.
>
> Yes, predictability of power is the problem with wind, solar (and even
> hydro-electric which is possibly seasonal).
They're not as unpredictable as one might imagine. The sun is not only
predictable in the amount of insolation it produces, but solar plants
like power towers produce high enough heat to continue operating at
night. Wind is not constant, but there are a lot of things that can be
done to mitigate this. Since wind and water can generate electricity
directly they are not subject to thermal bottlenecks that even nuclear
nuclear plants must deal with. Also, hydro isn't really unpredictable
during drought seasons. It simply results in reduced generation
capabilities in most cases. Only on a tiny home hydroplant might a tiny
stream unexpectedly dry up.
> > Lets look at a few ideas:
> >
> > * Store in the form of pumped storage.
> Nope.
>
> > * Flywheel storage:
> >
> > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > sound. Thats at least one-ton flywheel for every fifteen residents in
> > the state. Any ballpark figures for how much that will cost?
> >
> > If we go by [3], 100kJ/kg, which is ten million tons of steel
> > flywheels. If the average car weights 2 tons, this is enough steel to
> > produce one automobile for every sixth person in the state.
>
> That's approximately a 200kg flywheel per household. Still not that
> attractive.
Yes, for 100% of electric storage needs. Actually, to be perfectly fair,
it is often worse than this. Flywheels can usually only provide high
capacity power for limited amounts of time. The rest of the time they
produce gradually lower power, which may not be acceptable. I don't want
to be accused of concealing details to make flywheels sound better than
they are.
>
> > * Battery storage?
> Nope.
>
> > * Hydrogen?
> >
> > There are three considerations, production, storage, and consumption.
> >
> > I don't know how what the production rates for hydrogen are with
> > differing technology.
>
> 91% commercial generation efficiency.
Do you mean by electrolysis or hydrolysis? My understanding was that it
was in the 80-85% range, but I guess that's still in the ballpark.
>
> > At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of
> > hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
> >
> > If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of
> > 1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about
> > 30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting
> > catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
>
> I believe you are now confusing distributed power generation from central
> power plants. For grid electric generation, solid oxide plants don't require
> 'interesting catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction' to
> generate efficient electricity from hydrogen.
>
> > * Biodiesal turbines?
> Not relevent - it's not a power storage facility.
>
> If you've read all the way down to here, the gist is that, if solar/wind
> etc. generate the power, then there will be a new value cycle for power
> generation.
I'm sure. There might also be a consciousness to not waste power. I'm
not saying that people should have to make substantial changes to their
lifestyles, but using less incandescent lights or at least having
automatic dimmers that reduce power when people are not in the room are
hardly big sacrifices but they do make a noticeable difference to energy
consumption.
<snip>
quibbler
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18daa04f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both
> > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> > process. It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> > the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
>
> Yep, fossil fuels require the periodic liberation of middle east countries
> from their cruel dictators.
Except that Saudi and Kuwait are run by cruel dictators who probably will
stay in power for a long time, since they play ball and sell us cheap
oil. I'm sure if Ireland had all the world's oil supply then we would
invent all kinds of reasons that we had to go kick around those "lousy
drunken mics". Heck, if canada had all the world's oil supply we'd
probably decry the evil canuck hordes massing on our border, ready to
impose socialized medicine on us at any moment ;).
BTW, the primary reason that there are dictators in the middle east is
because the US wants to be able to cut deals with one guy and not have to
haggle with constantly changing democratically elected governments who
might actually want to charge above bargain basement prices.
But I don't want to digress overly much into politics. All politics
aside, we don't get the majority of our oil from the middle east anyway.
It's just that oil is a commodity that is sensitive to disruptions of
supply. People don't like it when they can't drive to work or have to
take a cold shower. FWIW, hydrogen could also become a sensitive market
commodity, especially if it was the primary storage mechanism. That's
why we might not want to put all our eggs in one basket.
Scott A Crosby
> In article <3E7321B6...@eagle.ca>, gco...@eagle.ca says...
> >
> >
> > quibbler included:
> > >
> > > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> > > that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> > > is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
> >
> > Sounds as though we in this forum who are
> > members of that very industry, or who
> > promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
>
> I will take that to be a "Yes" that you do believe the hype. Let's ignore
> the billions of dollars in cost overruns. Let's ignore the massive
Keep in mind that 'cost overrun' is a weapon that is used. Diablo
Canyon was a 'success', because even though it did finally get built,
the environmental movement managed to force a 12x cost overrun.
> corruption and kickbacks, cover up of safety violations and hundreds of
> mishaps yearly which often result in plant workers getting exposed to
> serious doses of radioactive contamination. Let's ignore the substantial
Please don't forget the number of people who get exposed to coal dust
and develope black-lung, coal ash contamination, acidic pools from
coal mining, etc. Coal has its problems just as much.
> contamination produced by processing facilities like Rocky Flats.
>
> > On any recent day the nuclear industry, worldwide,
> > used less than US$3.5 million worth of uranium
> > to produce energy that with oil takes about 100 times more.
>
> Actually, fission can release 100 million times more energy than chemical
> reactions. But what do you know about the procedures used to mine and
> process this fuel? Are you telling me that you think it has a spotless
Shall we also ignore the *billion* tons of coal that is mined yearly
to satisfy US power plants? Running a quick calculation given coal use
and total US electrical generation, and percentage of that generation
coming from coal, I get about 2200 kw*h/ton of coal. Doing a similar
calculation for uranium and the world, I get: 48,000 kw*h/kg of
uranium. Now, uranium comes in ores that aren't pure. Low-grade ores
are still 1000 ppm uranium, so for every ton of ore mined, you get 1kg
of uranium, good for about 20 times as much electricity as from one
ton of coal.
I believe that most of the worlds nuclear plants are run-once. Thus,
assuming reprocessing, perhaps 10x more energy is extractable per
kilogram of uranium than assumed above?
> safety record? At the moment we have cheap supplies of uranium coming
> from Russia. Do you know what kinds of techniques the russians used to
> obtain their uranium?
Nope. Incidently, uranium *is* cheap. Given that 1kg can generate
48,000 kW*h of electricity, or at least $1000 worth, at $.02/kw*h,
uranium at even $50-$80/kg is a small 5% or smaller fraction of the
cost of generation. A price spike for uranium of 10x would increase my
$.08/kw*h electrical bills by 25%.
Incidently, for the claims that there's only 50 years of uranium,
those are true if one assumes that one only purchases uranium at
$80/kg or lower. However, as each kg is *now* generating >$1000 of
electricity, (more if we used reprocessing) ore costing even $200 or
more/kg is economical to extract.
Hell, under an assumption of 500,000 kw*h/kg, the mean 2ppm crustal
uranium has about half the power density as that of coal.
Nobody will say that nuclear energy is good. It isn't. The problem is
when you have to satisy a *continous* demand 300GW of electricty, for
the US alone, there are no good choices. Coal? Thats a two billion
tons/year. Nuclear, we know its problems. Wind? At 1000 W/m^2, 30%
capacity factor, thats a billion square meters of surface area, if we
assume wind turbines that move through a 32 meter arc (about 8 stories
tall!) thats a line long enough to go around the world. PV? 1kW/m^2 *
20% capacity factor * 20% efficiency=40 W/m^3, or 10 billion square
meters, or about half the size of New Jersey,
This is only counting electricity production. Multiply by another
factor of ten for total energy use. Thats a number of watts that has
*12 zeros*. The problem with energy policy is the scale. Its not
enough to build 10MW of generation, or one GW, but hundreds of GW of
energy. A trillion has only twice as many zero's as a million, but its
as much larger than a million than a million is over one.
For nuclear weapons, its about a trillion calories/kiloton. Thats
equivalent to 4.1 trillion joules, or *one second* of US total energy
use. We use more energy in a minute than both of the bombs in WW2 were
combined. Imagine detonating 100 megatons of nuclear weapons a day.
Imagine enough energy to heat the top four feet of SF Bay by 70 degres
a day.
The human mind cannot easily comprehend these numbers. You *have* to
do the arithmatic. For instance, I did a calculation on geothermal
energy: what is the thermal energy in 1 km^3 of white-hot lava? If
that energy was extracted, how many days of US electrical energy would
it satisfy?
If you run the numbers, you find so many interesting surprises, and
you also gain an appreciation of just what a miracle our power grid in
the US is. For instance, a couple of years ago, one of the two nuclear
reactors in Diablo Canyon created about twice as much electricity as
all 14,000 wind turbines in California, combined.
If you want to be appreciated, run some numbers. Tell us how large a
compressed-air cavern would need to be to store the nightly California
energy use (about 200 GW*h). Tell us how big your flywheel storage
device would be. Most of the stuff requires little more than basic
physics and rough approximations.
Scott
D & L Thompson
> to be accused of concealing details to make flywheels sound better than
> they are.
Oh how "fair" of you. Why don't you apply the same ethics filter to your
analysis of nuclear?
Dewey
D & L Thompson
> need too much security. In both cases, the amount of waste produced is
> considerable and must be factored into the operational cost. On top of
> that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
Where do you get "this pearl of wisdom". Incorrect. On three counts.
Light water reactors have 1-2 year fueling cycles. Breeders require no
different security than LWRs. The "waste heat" you are referring to is a
function of one of those little rules of thermodynamics that some of us
learned in high school. A heat engine cannot be 100% efficient. The waste
heat is a matter of economics. If it is cheaper to conserve it for other
purposes, it can be done. Fossil plants using turbines and generators have
roughly the same efficiency, except for some superheat issues, very minor.
Dewey
>
> >
> > > It's like saying that we're going to
> > > use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a
bit
> > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and
> > > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
> >
> > If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
> > its own volition.
>
> I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power
> plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;)
> You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
>
> > If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
>
> We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually. Hydrogen is just
> one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy. While storage is
> important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
> first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
> friendly manner.
> >
> > > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil
fuel
> > > to make your hydrogen with,
> >
> > Nuclear power.
>
> Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both
> rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> process. It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
>
> >
> > > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the
best
> > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
>
> >
>
D & L Thompson
> When people use words like "clean" right off the bat to describe nuclear
> that produces thousands of tons of radioactive waste annually doesn't
> facilities, which have yet to fully come on line, that would not make
> if I dump my shit over my neighbors fence.
Oh for crying out loud. Clean is a relative term, used to compare the
"dirty" methods of producing power, generally applied to comparing
"greenouse gasses", or the other emissions from fossil burning (for example
acid rain).
The radioactive waste "problem" is wholly political. The engineering issues
are simple and straightforward. You can put the waste back in the ground in
a safer condition to humanity than the original ore that was mined. That is
plenty safe for my way of thinking.
> As far as safety, it's true that nuclear plants don't have a lot of
> major accidents. Modern plants should never melt down for example. But
> secondary accidents where radioactive contaminants are released are much
> more common and safety inspectors often find numerous minor violations at
> any given plant. We can't afford to take a cavalier attitude about
> nuclear power and there's not a lot of evidence that the industry has
> reformed enough to want to expand it substantially. Lots of little
> mishaps could add up into major hazards.
The truth that you state is that "we cannot afford a cavalier attitude
toward nuclear power". Fussing about the radioactive releases from normal
operations is silly. A coal plant emits more radioactivity than a nuc. On
the point about "minor violations", you have it backwards. FINDING problems
is good. It is an indicator that the industry is being closely
scruitinized. I would feel far more uncomfortable with "Everything is fine,
keep on" attitude from the regulators.
> You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry that the
> only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter" is a few
> dirty, smelly hippies. The nuclear industry in the US was spectacularly
> mismanaged. They overran on construction costs by billions of dollars
> and then only operated at partial capacity. They took a see no evil,
> hear no evil approach to waste disposal. Don't believe the rush limbaugh
> hype. As it turns out, countries with the most successful nuclear
> programs often had far more government control and vertical integration
> of support industries. Our glorious private enterprise system failed us
> pretty badly in the process of trying to take us nuclear and blaming a
> couple sign waving protesters just ain't gonna cut it.
Cripes. On your "too cheap to meter" comment. Another idiot yammering
about a statement made by an unscientific PR man in 1954. Why don't you do
some serious research instead of just parroting old repackaged tales. No
Virgina, fission electrical energy will probably NOT be "too cheap to
meter". The capital costs of the plants is simply to high to afford the
economics.
>
> I agree with you there, but how is it that you've concluded this about
> gas and not nuclear. After all, gasoline engines have things like
> catalytic converters. Some systems have double catalytic converters that
> lower emissions even more.
It's a matter of cost. Double catalytic converters increase cost. How many
"consumers" are going to pony up extra money if they have a cheaper
alternative. Realisim son, realisim..........
>
> Actually, storage is not so hard, when it needs to be stored and it is
> not inefficient. Conversion factors for hydroelectic are about the
> highest that you will find anywhere. The bottom line is that the power
> is there, waiting to be used, in many cases with minimal environmental
> impact. Wasting 100% of this energy is surely less efficient than
> building costly nuclear behemoths that can belch dozens of tons of
> nuclear waste per plant per year.
Is there any logic at all in the above paragraph? Or for that matter
realisim?
Just where do you propose to erect more hydro?
Dewey
Don Lancaster
>
> > * Flywheel storage:
> >
> > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > sound.
>
Flywheels are great for very limited storage apps of a fraction of a
second or so.
They flat out ain't gonna happen in larger sizes because (1) Lithium
energy density has already completely blown them away, (b) Only a
fractional portion of the stored energy is realistically recoverable,
(c) gyro effects on a large moving flywheel are intractable, and (d)
outrageously large motors are needed if the windup time is to be
significantly shorter than the delivery time.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for realistic alternatives.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Scott A Crosby
> I'm also keen on high temperature superconductivity. It's already
> being used for load balancing, and has the potential to solve the
> energy storage problem, by simply moving the electrical energy to
> where it's needed.
Interesting... Is there practical high-temperature conductivity at
liquid nitrogen temperatures. Last I knew, the 'high temperature'
can't function at high power densities because the created magnetic
fields cause it to no-longer superconduct.
IMHO, its OK to assume some progress, but its hard to build plans
assuming a particular revolution occurs. Sure, we'd have no problems
of Pons&Fliechman's cold fusion worked, that doesn't mean that one
should safetly rest all ones hopes on what is currently a wild dream.
> > It for a car and it has fairly low carbon monoxide emissions. Now as far
> > a home use, I trust you have heard of venting.
>
> That's right poison everyone else just to save myself, just like
> nuclear waste. It's the nastiness and the excess carbon dioxide that
> I have a problem with.
You do realize that oxygene is a poison to plants?
> > So much heat that they need massive cooling stacks, cooling ponds and
> > sometimes even change the local climate for miles around.
>
> All that nuclear power, just to boil water. So elegant.
Do you know of a better way to turn heat into electricity? :)
> > > Where are those darn vector
> > > bosons when you need them.
> >
> > I think they're chillin in their atomic cribs right now.
>
> Photons are bosons too.
>
> > Get some pom-poms and a short dress. You can be a cheerleader.
>
> I'm sorry you all think I have a bad attitude, but these are serious
> problems. When I look at the mess we are making of the world with
> oil and uranium, I get pissed off, at everybody, including
The problems aren't all that severe in comparison to the
benefits. Yes, nuclear waste is bad, but yeah, it lets us have
electricity and civilization, and if we want modern civilization,
uranium is better than coal. (At 20k-1200k the energy density of
coal. One kg has more energy than 20-1200 tons of coal.) Oil sucks,
but I'd rather burn it in an IC engine than have horse manure filling
my streets, or have to do without transportation. Every choice has a
cost and a benefit.
> myself. Hydrogen has lots of problems, but as you say, they are not
> intractable, and the potential benefits are enormous. I think we
> need a Manhattan/Apollo project to elucidate the foundations of
> condensed matter physics. I don't see it happening, but I will
> continue advocating it, with attitude.
The US had been spending about 100 billion a year (in constant 1987
dollars) on non-military research&development from 1980-1994. 20
billion in university R&D[1]. 4 billion (1998 dollars) a year in
federal funds alone for general science and 2 billion/year (1998
dollars) on natural resources and environment.[2] Total US research
spending was over 200 billion dollars.
Its not exactly a manhattan project, but its not a trifling sum
either. Now, can you tell me exactly why we should expend such a
signifigant fraction of our civilizations's resources on your
condensed matter project? There are many other research projects, like
genetic engineering, computer science, medical care, aerospace, etc
that also need resources.
Scott
[1] http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96316/rdexp.htm
See also http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99335/sector.htm for how it is
broken down by sector.
sno
Don Lancaster wrote:
> quibbler wrote:
> >
>
> > > * Flywheel storage:
> > >
> > > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > > sound.
> >
>
> Flywheels are great for very limited storage apps of a fraction of a
> second or so.
>
> They flat out ain't gonna happen in larger sizes because (1) Lithium
> energy density has already completely blown them away, (b) Only a
> fractional portion of the stored energy is realistically recoverable,
> (c) gyro effects on a large moving flywheel are intractable, and (d)
> outrageously large motors are needed if the windup time is to be
> significantly shorter than the delivery time.
>
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for realistic alternatives.
>
>
Very nice paper...good explanations....have you done any research
on the efficiencies overall of hot air solar panels...??....seems they
would not be energy sinks.....
Also....never heard of "MEMS" before....following links could not
find a good simple explanation.....thanks.....steve
Don Lancaster
>
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> > quibbler wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > * Flywheel storage:
> > > >
> > > > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > > > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > > > sound.
> > >
> >
> > Flywheels are great for very limited storage apps of a fraction of a
> > second or so.
> >
> > They flat out ain't gonna happen in larger sizes because (1) Lithium
> > energy density has already completely blown them away, (b) Only a
> > fractional portion of the stored energy is realistically recoverable,
> > (c) gyro effects on a large moving flywheel are intractable, and (d)
> > outrageously large motors are needed if the windup time is to be
> > significantly shorter than the delivery time.
> >
> > See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for realistic alternatives.
> >
> >
>
> Very nice paper...good explanations....
>
> find a good simple explanation.....thanks.....steve
Acroynym applied to any old nanotechnology, specifically means micro
electronic mechanical systems.
Um, maybe start with the MEMS clearinghouse?
http://www.memsnet.org
Karl Johanson
> Cripes. On your "too cheap to meter" comment. Another idiot yammering
> about a statement made by an unscientific PR man in 1954. Why don't you
do
> some serious research instead of just parroting old repackaged tales. No
> Virgina, fission electrical energy will probably NOT be "too cheap to
> meter". The capital costs of the plants is simply to high to afford the
> economics.
And Admiral Strauss' comment was a conjecture about fusion energy, not
fission. The 'too cheep to meter' comment means "flat rate", of course,
(like local phone service) while many mistakenly think it means, "free".
Many apartments and hotels have flat rate on the electricity usage, with an
average coast talked onto the daily or monthly fee. Two of the places I've
worked at got their electricity flat rate as well.
Karl Johanson
Scott A Crosby
> "Scott A Crosby" <scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message
> news:oyd8yvi2l...@bert.cs.rice.edu...
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:43 -0700, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> Thank-you, Scott, for some hugely valuable reality. Consider, on the other
> hand, a distributed energy storage (as opposed to centralised power plants
> guarenteing you evening power). Let's say that individual house-holds took
> the responsibility for purchasing power if and when it was available, and
> paid a large premium otherwise.
> > Lets look at a few ideas:
> >
> > * Store in the form of pumped storage.
> Nope.
>
Why? Other than geography reasons. AFAIK, pretty much any energy
storage plant really worth much is pumped?
> > At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of
> > hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
> >
> > If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of
> > 1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about
> > 30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting
> > catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
>
> I believe you are now confusing distributed power generation from central
> power plants. For grid electric generation, solid oxide plants don't require
> 'interesting catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction' to
> generate efficient electricity from hydrogen.
Distributed generation versus central power plants only affects where
the storage equipment is stored and who owns it, it won't materially
affect the storage capacity or amount of equipment needed, excluding
any economies of scale
Ok. Then, why fuel aren't fuel cells out there en-mass? I was guessing
that the reason why I don't trip over them continously is because they
are expensive and I conjectured that that was probably some or another
rare-earth catalyst. Guess I guessed wrong.
So why aren't I tripping over fuel cells constantly?
> Now, consider a free-market world where you paid the real cost at any time.
> A sensible person would opt for some local storage mechanism.
>
There's a problem with that though. People *like* fixed prices. I
don't want to experience the stress of making a purchasing decision
everytime I turn on my washing machine. So, for end-users like me,
anything other than fixed rates is unfeasible. (I might be able to
deal with a simple rule saying that power between midnight and 6AM was
cheap.) You also have to deal with the transactional overheads of this
sort of world.
Pretty much, this fails for the same reason that micropayments for the
web are untenable. (Google with that for more material.)
Large users already have special power contracts and interruptable
contracts, but then they purchase at such a scale that the
transactional overheads are irrelevant.
> And then transient sources might be more attractive.
Or one could declare that any transient source must be able to declare
its power production XXX hours in advance, or else face
penalties. Make them responsible for turning any unreliable power into
reliable power. :) Generally, few people want to purchase power that
doesn't have at least predictable downtimes. :)
Scott
Scott A Crosby
> In article <oyd8yvi2l...@bert.cs.rice.edu>, scr...@cs.rice.edu
> says...
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:43 -0700, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > Somebody sure is grumpy ... ;) Anyhoo, of course batteries fill the same
> > > basic role as hydrogen and fuel cells, at least abstractly. But you
> > > don't see anyone talking about a lithium or NiCad or capacitor "economy".
> > > Part of the reason for that may just be that in the real world, the
> > > details matter, even if thermodynamically it's all just about energy
> > > storage.
> > >
> >
> > IMHO, its about total capacity.
> >
> > > There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic
> > > into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion
> > > dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure
> > > that the power is uniform and more or less continuous.
> >
> > > Perhaps some flywheels for storage or some backup biodiesel turbines
> > > need to be tacked on for reliability.
> >
> > Next time be more feasible. Try to come up with a storage system that
> > can store, say, 300,000,000 kw*h.
>
> First off I didn't claim that I wanted to power 100% of california during
> the night. All or nothing approaches do not work well with alternative
> energy in general.
Fine, but what percent do you expect to power, and how do you expect
to power the rest?
> > Thats not too much energy, 10^15
> > joules, or 30GW*10H. It also happens to be California's nightly
> > electrical energy use. [1] We'd need 10 such plants for the rest of
> > the US. We also need the ability to release this energy at a rate of
> > about 20-40GW.
>
> This is of course a perfectly accurate figure for how much electricity
> people use in california. Then again, one way to deal with a problem
> like this would be to apply cheap and relatively easy conservation
> techniques which might chop this figure in half. Instead of using
Is this still true? Haven't many of these 'cheap and relatively easy
conservation techniques' already been done? Where does your 'one half'
come from? If it still exists, how much would it cost to remove it?
[[ Had you found just one reasonable citation for this, this paragraph
would be much more believable. Now, it reads like wishful thinking. ]]
> electric water heaters without an insulation bat, california is well
> situated for people to use roof top solar water heaters, which are cheap
> and can save lots of energy. (Yes they can even stay hot enough for use
> at night). High pressure sodium and fluorescent bulbs can also save
> electricity when the sun is down. My point here is just that we may not
> have to apply "brute force" to handle our energy needs.
True, but at some point, you have to pay the brute force; so how much
would this brute force be, say now, or what would it be like if all
those conservation techniques were done? Then tell me how you power
with the remaining figure.
> >
> > Lets look at a few ideas:
> >
> > * Store in the form of pumped storage.
> >
> > Well, 10^15 J is enough to lift 10^12 kg by 100 meters. Roughly, raise
> > a 100 km^2 lake---100m above a second resivror---by 10 meters every
> > night.
> >
> > * Flywheel storage:
> >
> > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > sound.
>
> There are some pretty big flywheels, but fortunately they don't need to
> be anywhere near that big. Hydro, tidal, wind and geothermal all work at
Tidal generation goes with the tides, so it can occur at any time of
the day. Hydro, hydro could be used as a backup. As for wind and
geothermal, they're miniscule.
Here's a few simple cites from my bucket-of-raw-numbers file.
**
http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html
13000 turbins.
Produce 30% of all wind energy in world
3,604 million kilowatt-hours of electricity
http://www.energy.ca.gov/geothermal/overview.html
12,786 million kilowatt/hours
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/diablo.html
Diablo canyon: 2 reactors.
1,073 net MW 9.47 billion kWh in 2001
1,087 net MW 8.61 billion kWh in 2001
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/consumption_by_sector.html
California energy consumption;
253,614 million kWh
**
Note that one reactor in diablo canyon produces 2.5x as much energy as
all 13000 wind turbines in california combined! And that geothermal is
about 60% of that one nuclear plant.
Just to make up *half* of the nightly load (say, around 200GW*h * 365
days= 70,000 million kWh), would require 3.5 nuclear reactors, and
about 2x more energy than produced in all of 2001 by every geothermal
and every wind turbine in california combined.
> night, so we won't have to rely on 100% storage. Heck we can even turn
> on some nuclear for all I care. Why use nuclear to store chemical
> energy, transport it to people's houses and have them convert it in their
> fuel cells when you can just send the energy directly.
>
> > Thats at least one-ton flywheel for every fifteen residents in
> > the state.
>
> While that would not be inconceivable, since we can rely on other forms
> of energy at night, we would only need a tiny fraction of this amount.
What other forms of energy might we rely upon?
> > Any ballpark figures for how much that will cost?
>
> At the rates you're talking about it would cost somewhere around $100
> billion, but fortunately at the rates that it would actually be needed it
> might only cost a couple billion. Since we need an energy storage
Bald assertion. When you can tell me how many MW*h you get from
various sources. (and compare those numbers to what we are doing now),
you can make that claim. :)
> infrastructure anyway, this wouldn't be so bad. Besides, if we can
> afford a couple hundred billion for a war every decade or so and 1.5
> trillion in tax cuts then we can afford a couple billion for flywheels
> and a few tens of billions more for the actual turbines and towers.
Keep in mind that a nuclear reactor is equivalent to about 30,000 wind
turbines (if we go by california) Any idea how much the real--- not
NIMBY inflated --- cost of a nuclear reactor is? Cite please, cause I
want to add this to my file. And how much turbine capacity is.
> > If we go by [3], 100kJ/kg, which is ten million tons of steel
> > flywheels. If the average car weights 2 tons, this is enough steel to
> > produce one automobile for every sixth person in the state.
>
> I would expect they would use carbon fibers and composites in some cases.
> But at least it would be a durable, relatively compact power storage
> resource. It would certainly beat batteries and it probably still beats
> fuel cells in terms of economy, life span, maintenance, etc.
Evidence?
Why don't you look up the energy density of hydrogen (and effeciencies
of hydrogen production & fuel cell production). Tell me the
approximate costs of a system built now, and for a dream system of the
future that can store, say, 20kW*h; two nights of electricity use.
Then do it for flywheels. Just do ballpark figures.. Hell, take the
energy density of carbon-fiber, and the price of steel. :)
If nothing else, this will show that you *researched* your claims;
that makes you a lot more believable. Then if you say something,
people will give it a high weight, rather than dismiss you as a
dreamer.
> Well, for something like wind power the only real option is going to be
> electrolysis, which is OK, but can be complicated by a lot of factors
> like electrode corrosion, availability of water supplies, energy needed
> to store gas under pressure, etc. For this reason it often makes sense
> to use other techniques to store power, which is why I suggest things
> like flywheels. Those are pretty practical when compared to older
> alternatives like lead-acid batteries, as I think we would both agree.
>
Flywheels beat lead acid. Sure. :)
But do flywheels beat potential energy stored in chemical bonds or in
inter-nucleon bonds within atoms?
Wind/PV system for baseload is dealt a harsh double-blow: First,
they're still somewhat/a lot more expensive per kW*h. Second, they
tend to be erratic, and balancing their load is both more capital
expense and another energy loss by adding another stage in the system.
> But I never suggested that we use one monolithic technology. Von
Applying mathematical principal known as Pigeon-hole, if you have say
5 technologies that all add up to 90%, there must be at least one
technology that generates at least 18%. What is that technology?
Sure, you can come up with lots of small things that do a half a
percent here and a half-percent there. (landfill gas, california's
installed wind capacity, waste-to-energy, PV, burning agricultural
waste, collecting methane from cow farts. :)
But something has to be a serious contributor. What is that?
Wind would have to increase 15x just to *reach* 18% of california's
power production. Last year, 100MW (peak) of solar was produced.[2]
Say, multiply that by 10 for 10 years of production and divide by 3
(for capacity factor reasons), then multiply by 24*365. You get
3,000,000 kW*h, about 1/3 what one nuclear reactor puts out, which
still puts you a factor of 14 from the magic 18% mark.
> Don't get me wrong. I think you are contributing some valuable
> information here and I appreciate it. I would certainly not suggest that
> we apply technologies like biodiesel or flywheel storage willy nilly.
_You are_ Wishful thinking and conjectures don't power air
conditioners, until or unless assertiosn are checked. Please, come up
with some numbers to show practicality or impracticality. That way I
don't waste time proving impracticality when you could have done it
yourself with about 10 minutes of work before you wrote the message.
> The primary use of biodiesel probably still should be in trying to clean
> up the emissions or our present diesel infrastructure, such as trains,
> trucking and farm equipment.
Here's something for you to look up. How much diesel fuel is used a
year? How much land (compared to current crops) would be needed to
supply feedstocks for biodiesel production?
Assertions don't power air conditioners, numbers and estimates backed
by research, and arithmatic can be used to at least judge
feasibilities.
> Thanks again for the info, Scott.
Its trivial. You would be a hell of a lot more believable if you just
googled for rough numbers yourself. Give details; that way it makes
you seem less like an impractical dreamer. The stuff above is easy to
find and a useful resource. I shouldn't have had to do this; you
should have. These links aren't hard to find, about half of them I
google for when I write the message.
Scott
[2] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/chapter2.html#photo
quibbler
says...
> > Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast. Breeder types
> > need too much security. In both cases, the amount of waste produced is
> > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost. On top of
> > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
>
> Where do you get "this pearl of wisdom".
ummm...from an oyster :)
> Incorrect. On three counts.
> Light water reactors have 1-2 year fueling cycles.
Let me put it this way. Is there or isn't there any purpose to using a
breeder reactor? Of course there is. 238 is over 100 times more
abundant than 235. Breeder reactors are certainly more practical in that
respect, though they require higher enrichments, present proliferation
risks,etc.
> Breeders require no
> different security than LWRs.
Just saying it won't make it true. It does however expose the
irresponsible mind set of the industry if they are not even willing to
beef up security to protect plutonium supplies. I know not all breeder
reactors produce plutonium, but there are many that do, like the french
super phoenix.
> The "waste heat" you are referring to is a
> function of one of those little rules of thermodynamics that some of us
> learned in high school.
I was referring to the fuel waste, as in the degraded fuel rods and
irradiated materials used in the reactor.
> A heat engine cannot be 100% efficient. The waste
> heat is a matter of economics. If it is cheaper to conserve it for other
> purposes, it can be done. Fossil plants using turbines and generators have
> roughly the same efficiency, except for some superheat issues, very minor.
No argument on that part.
Karl Johanson
> In article <v78pbj6...@corp.supernews.com>, dltho...@socket.net
> says...
> > > Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast. Breeder types
> > > need too much security. In both cases, the amount of waste produced
is
> > > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost. On top
of
> > > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
> >
> > Where do you get "this pearl of wisdom".
>
> ummm...from an oyster :)
>
> > Incorrect. On three counts.
> > Light water reactors have 1-2 year fueling cycles.
>
> Let me put it this way. Is there or isn't there any purpose to using a
> breeder reactor? Of course there is. 238 is over 100 times more
> abundant than 235.
Using breeders doesn't give you that much more usable fuel as using light
water or heavy water non-breeder reactors though. Non-breeders get a
significant portion of their energy from fissioning Plutonium 239, produced
from neutron absorption of Uranium 238. (Off the top of my head, they get
around a third of their power from fissioning plutonium.) Still, the
available amount of fuel is multipled considerably using breeders. I suggest
that the longer Yucca mountain is delayed from opening, the more likely it
is that the US's spent fuel will eventually be reused.
>Breeder reactors are certainly more practical in that
> respect, though they require higher enrichments, present proliferation
> risks,etc.
All electricity sources present nuclear weapons proliferation risks. You can
use any energy source to enrich natural Uranium to weapons grade. We just
have to work on getting along.
> > Breeders require no
> > different security than LWRs.
>
> Just saying it won't make it true. It does however expose the
> irresponsible mind set of the industry if they are not even willing to
> beef up security to protect plutonium supplies.
LWRs already have pretty significant security.
I know not all breeder
> reactors produce plutonium, but there are many that do, like the french
> super phoenix.
All Uranium breeder reactors produce plutonium. What they don't produce is
weapons grade plutonium.
Karl Johanson
Dan Bloomquist
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Flywheels are great for very limited storage apps of a fraction of a
> second or so.
>
> They flat out ain't gonna happen in larger sizes because (1) Lithium
> energy density has already completely blown them away, (b) Only a
> fractional portion of the stored energy is realistically recoverable,
> (c) gyro effects on a large moving flywheel are intractable, and (d)
> outrageously large motors are needed if the windup time is to be
> significantly shorter than the delivery time.
>
Patently false and full of missleading conjecture.
Best, Dan.
Dan Bloomquist
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> "Scott A Crosby" <scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message
Scott's post is in-depth, objective, a keeper.
>
>
>>Lets look at a few ideas:
>>
>>* Store in the form of pumped storage.
>
> Nope.
>
I would think pumped storage the best choice for solar and wind. You
don't need a lot of land. The current state of the art is 70% efficient.
It is extremely economical compared to other forms of storage.
>
>
>>* Hydrogen?
>>
>>There are three considerations, production, storage, and consumption.
>>
>>I don't know how what the production rates for hydrogen are with
>>differing technology.
>
>
> 91% commercial generation efficiency.
>
Ok, but let's say you can get 85% practical production. If this is about
electrical storage, you only get 40% practical conversion when you go
back with PEM. Now the net is 35%. You could use it in a combined plant
and get 50% back. All rather expensive.
>
>>At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of
>>hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
>>
>>If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of
>>1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about
>>30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting
>>catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
>
>
> I believe you are now confusing distributed power generation from central
> power plants. For grid electric generation, solid oxide plants don't require
> 'interesting catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction' to
> generate efficient electricity from hydrogen.
>
Now, combined SOFC could get you back 60% to 70%. But that's still less
than the simple and cheap method of hydro-storage.
Best, Dan.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Scott A Crosby <scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message :
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:38:11 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> writes:
> > I'm also keen on high temperature superconductivity. It's already
> > being used for load balancing, and has the potential to solve the
> > energy storage problem, by simply moving the electrical energy to
> > where it's needed.
>
> Interesting... Is there practical high-temperature conductivity at
> liquid nitrogen temperatures.
It's already cost effective for short power mains.
> Last I knew, the 'high temperature'
> can't function at high power densities because the created magnetic
> fields cause it to no-longer superconduct.
Well, there are problems getting into the 10^6 amp/cm2 range. The
cuprates are problematic, that's for sure. While the effectively move
well into the strong coupling regime, they do so in an
anti-ferromagnetic background, thus magnetic fields are more effective
at defeating the superconductivity. Ideally we need strongly coupled,
three dimensional, locally paired systems, with the coherence length
on the order of the interatomic distances. The cuprates are about half
way there.
> IMHO, its OK to assume some progress, but its hard to build plans
> assuming a particular revolution occurs. Sure, we'd have no problems
> of Pons&Fliechman's cold fusion worked, that doesn't mean that one
> should safetly rest all ones hopes on what is currently a wild dream.
I can guarantee that many future scientific and technological
revolutions will occur, if civilization doesn't collapse. Wild eyed
skepticism has historically almost always failed in the end.
> > > It for a car and it has fairly low carbon monoxide emissions. Now as far
> > > a home use, I trust you have heard of venting.
> >
> > That's right poison everyone else just to save myself, just like
> > nuclear waste. It's the nastiness and the excess carbon dioxide that
> > I have a problem with.
>
> You do realize that oxygene is a poison to plants?
And carbon dioxide is beneficial, and oxygen is absolutely required
for human life. The problems of excess carbon dioxide are well known.
Been in a biosphere lately? The problem is also 'nastiness' and the
fact that the power is used to destroy the biosphere, most of the
energy is wasted, and we really should be manufacturing and recycling
plastics with those resources.
> > > So much heat that they need massive cooling stacks, cooling ponds and
> > > sometimes even change the local climate for miles around.
> >
> > All that nuclear power, just to boil water. So elegant.
>
> Do you know of a better way to turn heat into electricity? :)
Sure, by not using nuclear power just to boil water. There is such a
thing as solar thermal.
> The problems aren't all that severe in comparison to the
> benefits. Yes, nuclear waste is bad, but yeah, it lets us have
> electricity and civilization, and if we want modern civilization,
> uranium is better than coal.
Wrong. Coal bombs are not a problem to anyone but coal miners.
> Every choice has a cost and a benefit.
But only solar electric hydrogen and wind are nearly emission free.
> > Hydrogen has lots of problems, but as you say, they are not
> > intractable, and the potential benefits are enormous. I think we
> > need a Manhattan/Apollo project to elucidate the foundations of
> > condensed matter physics. I don't see it happening, but I will
> > continue advocating it, with attitude.
>
> The US had been spending about 100 billion a year (in constant 1987
> dollars) on non-military research&development from 1980-1994. 20
> billion in university R&D[1]. 4 billion (1998 dollars) a year in
> federal funds alone for general science and 2 billion/year (1998
> dollars) on natural resources and environment.[2] Total US research
> spending was over 200 billion dollars.
How much has been spent on condensed matter physics, photoelectric
conversion and hydrogen energy science?
> Its not exactly a manhattan project, but its not a trifling sum
> either. Now, can you tell me exactly why we should expend such a
> signifigant fraction of our civilizations's resources on your
> condensed matter project? There are many other research projects, like
> genetic engineering, computer science, medical care, aerospace, etc
> that also need resources.
And all these domains on are utterly dependent upon condensed matter
physics.
Take a look at the job offerings at Physics Today.
Condensed matter physics rules.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
Karl Johanson
> > The problems aren't all that severe in comparison to the
> > benefits. Yes, nuclear waste is bad, but yeah, it lets us have
> > electricity and civilization, and if we want modern civilization,
> > uranium is better than coal.
>
> Wrong. Coal bombs are not a problem to anyone but coal miners.
90% of the US's weapons grade fissile material is Uranium that was enriched
using coal power.
Karl Johanson
D & L Thompson
> irresponsible mind set of the industry if they are not even willing to
> beef up security to protect plutonium supplies. I know not all breeder
> reactors produce plutonium, but there are many that do, like the french
> super phoenix.
Do you have any clue as to the radioactivity levels in any spent fuel? No,
I didn't think so. Let me put it this way. If you take a used fuel
assembly and placed it in a field. You start 1/2 mile away running toward
it, you will never get there. The point of breeders needing more security
is plain silly. The purpose of the security force at nuclear power plants
is *not* to protect the fuel from being diverted. It is to protect the
plant.
> I was referring to the fuel waste, as in the degraded fuel rods and
> irradiated materials used in the reactor.
Yep. They make irradiated waste. So what?
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Karl Johanson wrote:
> > Wrong. Coal bombs are not a problem to anyone but coal miners.
>
> 90% of the US's weapons grade fissile material is Uranium that was enriched
> using coal power.
Karl again confuses the process with the product.
Brad Tittle
> From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com>
> Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:06:22 GMT
> Subject: Re: YA Hydrogen article - positive this time
And once again, Thomas fails to understand context.
The original poster indicated that Electricity generated from Nuclear Power
Piles were the source of Nuclear Bombs. Karl gently pointed out that this is
not only unlikely (in any western reactor) but unnecessary, since any source
of electricity can be used to refine uranium ore.
A neutron source is needed to make plutonium, but all you need is a
centrifuge (to fairly rigorous specifications) to extract U-235 from Uranium
ore.
Commercial Power plants aren't very good sources of Pu-239. The refueling
cycle is too long which results in too much Pu-240, which is apparently a
terrible bomb material.
I know Thomas is much smarter and much more knowledgeable than a lowly
Mechanical Engineer who made it through NNPS and Qualified on S5G as EOOW
and NPE and then spent time overseeing the preparation of Spent Naval Fuel,
so I guess I should submit to his superior capabilities.
brad
Damn. I should have posted at the top .
Scott A Crosby
> Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> > "Scott A Crosby" <scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message
>
> Scott's post is in-depth, objective, a keeper.
What pisses me off is that its nothing more than spending an hour or
two looking up specific numbers on google. *EVERYONE* should, at least
once in a while, have a post of the same quality once in a while as
they exposit their ideas. If nothing else, save the URL's and chime in
with more accurate numbers. It shows that you actually bothered to
research your pet theory. That way, if it is flawed, you correct it
before wasting time and confusing people in the group with a bunch of
crap. (I don't mean you particularily, but many members of the group.)
You too are guilty of being sloppy.
> >
>
> >>Lets look at a few ideas:
> >>
> >>* Store in the form of pumped storage.
> > Nope.
>
> >
>
>
> I would think pumped storage the best choice for solar and wind. You
> don't need a lot of land. The current state of the art is 70%
> efficient. It is extremely economical compared to other forms of
> storage.
>
Sure, now here's something to chime in:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l10.html
World largest hydro storage facility.... 2000MW at full power, stores
15,000 MW*h. So, you'd need about 20 of these to make up for
california's nightly load, then another 180 for the fest of the
US. About two of these to deal with sunday evening peaking.
If we assume that we've still got baseload capacity based around
nuclear power, s that we only really need to shift the peak of solar
energy from mid-day to the energy consumption peak of late-evening
(http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html) for a weekend day, thats
looks to be roughly integrate the amount of peak over 20GW on that
graph from 18 (when PV effectively ceases) to 23. Eyeballing, about 30
GW*H, so two such plants would be needed to shift the PV supply curve
to that demand curve. Note that the graph changes daily and I used
today (sunday's) graph. Tomorrow it'll likely be higher.
Of course, at this level, if we assume solar satisfies everything over
baseload (20GW), it accounts for about a mean of 3GW, while the total
energy use is 23GW (mean), or about 13%.
Where shall the remaining 87% of baseload come from?
While a nuclear plant running at a baseload of 23GW would cut down the
pumped storage requirments by a factor of two. Using 23GW is not
cheating on my part, because I am expecting nuclear pumped storage
from 00-10 to refill the resivor. You could make that new baseload
assumption of solar, but then you're just marginalizing solar to 6% by
having it satisfy only power over baseload of 23GW.
Wind, wind it not easily analyzable, its easy to know when the sun
shines. You can find out the mean power production from wind, but what
you cannot find out is the time-of-day or other statistical
correlations between turbine plant turbine areas to determine what
storage is needed. (Unless someone knows a study?)
> Now, combined SOFC could get you back 60% to 70%. But that's still
> less than the simple and cheap method of hydro-storage.
From the above, I'll say that hydro storage seems to be the best of a
bad bunch. Hydrogen too, but that may be a mistake because I don't
know what the killer flaw in it is. :) In any case, unreliable, or at
least power with unpredictable outages, requires massive additional
infrastructure for energy storage.
The numbers all assume that no magic revolution occurs. Sure, such a
thing may occur, but basing current policy based on an assumption that
a fairy gives us the Molecular Distortion battery[1], before our
flawed policy bites us in the ass is unacceptable. We need to satisy
our next-10 years energy needs with the technology that we can expect
in the next 10 years. If someone assumes a fairy, at least cite
something that indicates that it is likely to occur.
Scott
PS: Please, everyone, try an occasional post with cited
numbers. Dreams don't power my air conditioning or my computer. Joules
do. Run the numbers and estimates.
[1] From Larry Niven's known space. A rechargable battery with about
1000x the energy density of current batteries.
William mook
I wish you'd wake up and pull your head from your ass. Please
understand, I recognize that risk is everywhere. I merely believe
that some risks we know, some risks we don't know but can, and some
risks we can never know. I also believe the public should be made
aware of our level of knowledge or lack - before being asked to make a
decision - and not be lied to by well meaning technocrats.
Cheers.
Brad Tittle <bti...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<BA98AE7A.107DA%bti...@charter.net>...
> > From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com>
> > Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> > Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen
> > Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:51:30 GMT
> > Subject: Re: YA Hydrogen article - positive this time
> >
> > March 15, 2003
> >
> > Karl Johanson wrote:
> >
> >>>> Also, nuclear weapons predate nuclear power plants.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong.
> >>>
> >>> http://physics.sci.geneseo.edu/padalino/first_nuclear_pile.htm
> >>
> >> The Fermi nuclear pile wasn't a power plant.
> >
> > Sure it was, semantically speaking, nuclear energy converted radioactive
> > uranium into radionuclides, including radioactive plutonium, thus, it was a
> > nuclear reactor generating nuclear power. They simply weren't converted that
> > nuclear energy into electrical energy for public consumption, although it
> > left plenty of radionuclides around, which were subsequently available for
> > public exposure.
> >
>
> Pot... Kettle .... huh?
>
>
> > Karl is a semanticists and lives to sew, I mean sow, misinformation.
> >
> > Karl may be referred to as a nuclear propagandist.
> >
> > Thomas Lee Elifritz
> > http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
> >
>
> Karl is one of cornerstones of this board. He recognizes a very simple
> concept that eludes a majority of the population. Risk is everywhere. That
> he has the patience to keep debating the likes of TLE and Mook is admirable.
> That you refuse to understand his message of relative risk only makes you
> look irrational and not nearly as smart as you want everyone to think you
> are.
>
> You seem to have something to offer this group, but the bandwidth can be
> shared with little difficulty. If you don't like listening to others turn
> off your modem and hide out on your island.
>
> brad
quibbler
says...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:59:50 -0700, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > In article <3E7321B6...@eagle.ca>, gco...@eagle.ca says...
> > >
> > >
> > > quibbler included:
> > > >
> > > > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> > > > that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> > > > is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
> > >
> > > Sounds as though we in this forum who are
> > > members of that very industry, or who
> > > promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
> >
> > I will take that to be a "Yes" that you do believe the hype. Let's ignore
> > the billions of dollars in cost overruns. Let's ignore the massive
>
> Keep in mind that 'cost overrun' is a weapon that is used. Diablo
> Canyon was a 'success', because even though it did finally get built,
> the environmental movement managed to force a 12x cost overrun.
Let's imagine that this is true. If any other consumer product were so
unpopular that it had critics who could drive up the cost to manufacture
it by 1200% then it would simply be abandoned as a market failure. Why
do you think that the environmental movement has singled out nuclear
power in this way? Do you honestly think that they have no reason for
acting the way they are?
>
> > corruption and kickbacks, cover up of safety violations and hundreds of
> > mishaps yearly which often result in plant workers getting exposed to
> > serious doses of radioactive contamination. Let's ignore the substantial
>
> Please don't forget the number of people who get exposed to coal dust
> and develope black-lung,
But that is a ridiculous red herring. I'm not advocating using coal as
an alternative to nuclear. Now as it turns out modern techniques for
coal mining are more mechanized and use respirators, which allow them to
control things like black lung. For that matter, coal gassification and
emissions capping reduces a lot of the pollution that coal used to
produce. So even if the coal were the only alternative to nuclear, which
it's not, then it wouldn't be so bad on those counts. Transportation
costs and continuing CO2 emissions are more serious drawbacks. They
still aren't as serious as the dangers of uranium mining or the problems
of nuclear waste storage and disposal. Those issues alone make wind,
tidal and solar look far more attractive.
> coal ash contamination, acidic pools from
> coal mining, etc. Coal has its problems just as much.
Well, actually most of these problems are far easier to deal with and
less dangerous than uranium mining, processing and waste disposal.
However, The fact that neither power source is free of warts does not
make them equally bad. Nuclear still threatens to be far more
potentially dangerous, of the two.
It's cheap provided that the externalities of mining, processing,
utilization in multibillion dollar plants and waste disposal are not
factored in to the real cost.
> is a small 5% or smaller fraction of the
> cost of generation. A price spike for uranium of 10x would increase my
> $.08/kw*h electrical bills by 25%.
Well, we probably are paying an abnormally low price for uranium. But
that's not really the point. The point is that the mining, processing
and use of the fissile materials is inherently dangerous. If you don't
believe uranium mining is dangerous, then I encourage you to take a job
as a uranium miner for a while and see how you like it. Nuclear
supporters constantly claim that they have safety mechanisms for managing
radioactive risks, but many of these mechanisms and procedures still
fundamentally ignore the fact that humans are fallible and that
unintended or unanticipated things could go wrong. In the latter case,
for example, it may be possible for major accidents to be precipitated by
people crashing airliners into nuclear plants, regardless of the
assurances from the nuclear industry that they could handle such a
scenario. On a more personal level, it seems like employees in the
nuclear industry are also taking great risks. Each year, lots of mishaps
result in plant employees getting exposed to unintended dosages of
radiation.
>
> Incidently, for the claims that there's only 50 years of uranium,
> those are true if one assumes that one only purchases uranium at
> $80/kg or lower. However, as each kg is *now* generating >$1000 of
> electricity, (more if we used reprocessing) ore costing even $200 or
> more/kg is economical to extract.
Above you claimed that 10x present costs were not an issue economically.
The price of the fuel is of course only one factor. Restrictions in
supply, perhaps created artificially by certain foreign markets deciding
they didn't want to sell to us could also have an important effect. With
uranium in particular, we still end up beholden to foreign interests,
which is not a good idea strategically.
>
> Hell, under an assumption of 500,000 kw*h/kg, the mean 2ppm crustal
> uranium has about half the power density as that of coal.
>
> Nobody will say that nuclear energy is good. It isn't. The problem is
> when you have to satisy a *continous* demand 300GW of electricty, for
> the US alone, there are no good choices.
Not true. This is simply an appeal to large numbers. (Actually, I think
US energy needs are 750GW anyway, but so the figure is even larger.) But
there are hundreds of gigawatts of wind energy available in the US alone
and this is not the only power source we can tap. In addition, if we
used the energy we consume more intelligently then we would probably
conserve 25%-50% of this figure.
> Coal? Thats a two billion
> tons/year. Nuclear, we know its problems. Wind? At 1000 W/m^2, 30%
> capacity factor, thats a billion square meters of surface area,
It's not surface area of land though. It's the swept area of the blades.
Now as it turns out wind is almost never as powerful as 1 kW/m^2, except
in certain parts of the ocean. The best places on land are usually only
about half that good. Furthermore the Betz limit means we can only
capture 59.3% of that. But we can't even do that good, so assume perhaps
40% of 500 W/m^2 could be captured and turned into electricity. 30%
capacity factor is low, but I will assume its the case. In that case we
would need 1.5 billion square meters of wind power. That would mean that
we would need about 22.5 kilometers of radial blades to sweep out that
area of wind give or take a factor of 2 or 3 since most HAWTs use from 1
to 3 blades.
> if we
> assume wind turbines that move through a 32 meter arc (about 8 stories
> tall!) thats a line long enough to go around the world.
That's not the way it works. The foot print of the average turbine is
only maybe 20 to 30 feet in diameter. VAWTS take up a bit more space.
Now its true that turbines are spaced between 5 and 25 rotor radii apart
to prevent wind shadows. But many of these turbines can be placed on
land that that can still be used for agriculture, livestock grazing etc.
IOWs, siting turbines on rural land generally does not preclude it's use
for other purposes. It is of course even possible to design turbines
into the structures of buildings, though the vibrations that they produce
have to be factored into the design of the structure. Finally, it is
possible to build floating turbines or to erect them in shallow coastal,
island and reef areas. This ignores some other things techniques which
could be used to take greater advantage of wind resources, because I
think the point has been adequately demonstrated that we are in no danger
of running out of places to put wind turbines.
> PV? 1kW/m^2 *
> 20% capacity factor * 20% efficiency=40 W/m^3, or 10 billion square
> meters, or about half the size of New Jersey,
You know there are even more compact wind-energy systems, like confined
vortex generators or experimental devices that try to collect
electrostatic charges from the air. Since they are experimental, I will
not factor in their potential. But I bring them up to point out that
they are yet one more factor which could seriously throw off your
pessimistic calculations.
>
> This is only counting electricity production. Multiply by another
> factor of ten for total energy use.
Still not a problem. There are thousands of gigawatts of wind energy
available and that is only one of many sources we could tap instead of
nuclear. OTEC is another highly promising power source which hasn't even
been brought up so far, and could quite possibly give nuclear a run for
it's money all by itself. I'm not going to get into the details of ocean
thermal electric conversion right now except to say that it effectively
allows one to use large areas of the ocean surface as a giant, virtual
solar collector. This makes it one of the more scalable solar
technologies.
> Thats a number of watts that has
> *12 zeros*. The problem with energy policy is the scale. Its not
> enough to build 10MW of generation, or one GW, but hundreds of GW of
> energy. A trillion has only twice as many zero's as a million, but its
> as much larger than a million than a million is over one.
>
> For nuclear weapons, its about a trillion calories/kiloton. Thats
> equivalent to 4.1 trillion joules, or *one second* of US total energy
> use. We use more energy in a minute than both of the bombs in WW2 were
> combined. Imagine detonating 100 megatons of nuclear weapons a day.
> Imagine enough energy to heat the top four feet of SF Bay by 70 degres
> a day.
These appeals still fail to justify nuclear power as the only means to
achieve those energy requirements.
>
> The human mind cannot easily comprehend these numbers. You *have* to
> do the arithmatic. For instance, I did a calculation on geothermal
> energy: what is the thermal energy in 1 km^3 of white-hot lava? If
> that energy was extracted, how many days of US electrical energy would
> it satisfy?
If you really want, I'll do the calculation, but I don't think it's
necessary in this case, considering the enormous volume of the mantle
which might theoretically be accessible in future geothermal
applications. That is, perhaps billions of cubic kilometers of very hot
rock could one day be available. The radioactive decay which heats
some of these regions could also make this magma usable over and over
again, instead of on a one time basis.
>
> If you run the numbers, you find so many interesting surprises, and
> you also gain an appreciation of just what a miracle
I wouldn't go so far as recommending it for canonization, but I will
assume you are not being literal :)
> our power grid in
> the US is. For instance, a couple of years ago, one of the two nuclear
> reactors in Diablo Canyon created about twice as much electricity as
> all 14,000 wind turbines in California, combined.
That's completely beside the point. Many of those old turbines were 100kW
and were not optimally sited. We could replace them with huge,
multimegawatt systems on very tall towers, with high wind availability.
How about thinking of it this way. A tidal power plant in baja could
power in the gigawatt/hr range. That should be about equivalent to the
output of many nuclear reactors.
>
> If you want to be appreciated, run some numbers.
I have run the numbers and while I am not criticizing your approach, it
appears that you have run the wrong numbers, with the wrong assumptions.
It is therefore not surprising that you reached conclusions that
reinforced a nuclear view point. I would be happy to illustrate how you
can rerun those numbers with better assumptions that don't require
nuclear plants at all.
> Tell us how large a
> compressed-air cavern would need to be to store the nightly California
> energy use (about 200 GW*h).
This is a classic example of the exact wrong way to "run the numbers".
It is silly to assume that we need to provide for 100% of energy needs
through compressed air alone. It is silly to take the all or nothing
approach that if compressed air cannot power all of california that it
should not be used for anything. It is misguided to assume that
conservation could not reduce the amount of nightly energy consumption.
It ignores reality to think that other energy generation sources could
not take up the slack at night.
Actually there are some very interesting applications for compressed air
storage. Assuming that a given power system used compressed air storage
for whatever reason, the amount of energy stored could be enhanced by
solar or geothermal heat sources, which could be used to heat up the tank
and further increase the pressure. In effect you would be storing solar
or geothermal in the compressed air tank along with whatever other power
source pumped the air into it in the first place.
> Tell us how big your flywheel storage
> device would be. Most of the stuff requires little more than basic
> physics and rough approximations.
I think I already addressed this. The flywheels needed to condition
power lines would be hundreds or thousands of times smaller than the
figures you were suggesting, because it is completely unnecessary to
store 100% of nightly energy requirements in a flywheel. Furthermore,
while I appreciate your willingness to do back of the envelope
calculations about things like flywheels, actually most of the
calculations do need to be considerably more detailed than you are making
them. It is possible to build lots of tiny flywheels with extremely high
RPMs. Nano flywheels are being researched that can handle up to millions
of RPMs. When you confine yourself to traditional steel flywheels then
it's easy to make them sound impractical. But people have been using far
better composite materials for a long time. Again, if you really want
these figures I will provide them for you, but I don't see the point in
playing games where we assume that hundreds of gigawatts have to be
stored in a single system in order for the technology to be viable.
quibbler
> quibbler wrote:
> >
>
> > > * Flywheel storage:
> > >
> > > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > > sound.
> >
>
> Flywheels are great for very limited storage apps of a fraction of a
> second or so.
Agreed. I think that I pointed this out in separate posts as well. I
never implied that it should be used for storing hundreds of gigawatts
over many hours.
>
> They flat out ain't gonna happen in larger sizes because (1) Lithium
> energy density has already completely blown them away, (b) Only a
> fractional portion of the stored energy is realistically recoverable,
> (c) gyro effects on a large moving flywheel are intractable, and (d)
> outrageously large motors are needed if the windup time is to be
> significantly shorter than the delivery time.
>
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for realistic alternatives.
Thanks for the info.
sno
quibbler wrote:
> In article <3E7485A9...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com says...
> > quibbler wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > * Flywheel storage:
> > > >
> > > > At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to
> > > > accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of
> > > > sound.
> > >
> >
> > Flywheels are great for very limited storage apps of a fraction of a
> > second or so.
>
> Agreed. I think that I pointed this out in separate posts as well. I
> never implied that it should be used for storing hundreds of gigawatts
> over many hours.
>
>
I have often wondered about using extremely large diameter,
extremely heavy flywheelstorage for permanent installations....
if mounted in a horizontal
direction...with shaft vertical, they could be operated a couple
feet below ground.....thereby being relatively safe....
How much recoverable energy can be stored in a five ton
flywheel spinning at 1 rpm.....and what would a practical
diameter be for a wheel of this size.....?????....using
steel...??....depleted uranium...??.....reinforced concrete...??
Struts could be used from rim to bottom of shaft....to support
weight....
Could magnetic levitation, using permanent magnets, be used
around the outside rim to reduce friction to almost zero...
rather then supporting it using a central shaft....
They could be built using common materials....nothing super
exotic....
Could be "boxed" in and air evacuated to increase efficiency...
They could have rim mounted magnets and the energy could be tapped
using coils outside the rim inside the box....could be spun up using
electricity into the coils....or by mechanical means....hydraulics...???
Just wondering and thinking, on a Monday morning when I should be in
bed......thank you for listening to my thoughts....am always willing to
learn.....steve
Scott A Crosby
> In article <oydel57...@bert.cs.rice.edu>, scr...@cs.rice.edu
> says...
> > On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:59:50 -0700, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > In article <3E7321B6...@eagle.ca>, gco...@eagle.ca says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > quibbler included:
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't seriously believe the excuses of the nuclear industry
> > > > > that the only thing standing between us and power "too cheap to meter"
> > > > > is a few dirty, smelly hippies.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds as though we in this forum who are
> > > > members of that very industry, or who
> > > > promote it pro bono, will have an easy time debating you.
> > >
> > > I will take that to be a "Yes" that you do believe the hype. Let's ignore
> > > the billions of dollars in cost overruns. Let's ignore the massive
> >
> > Keep in mind that 'cost overrun' is a weapon that is used. Diablo
> > Canyon was a 'success', because even though it did finally get built,
> > the environmental movement managed to force a 12x cost overrun.
>
> Let's imagine that this is true. If any other consumer product were so
> unpopular that it had critics who could drive up the cost to manufacture
> it by 1200% then it would simply be abandoned as a market failure. Why
> do you think that the environmental movement has singled out nuclear
> power in this way? Do you honestly think that they have no reason for
> acting the way they are?
>
This sounds *almost* like circular logic or a feedback system.
Nuclear energy is bad. Therefore critics use irrational arguments and
NIMBY to inflate the price by 10x. This makes nuclear energy several
times more expensive and more costly than coal. Thus, it is
uneconomical, and thus nuclear energy is bad.
Now, if we had widespread nuclear power like France, we'd not be
irrational worrying about it, it would be much cheaper, then we'd all
agree what nuclear power was good.
> > Please don't forget the number of people who get exposed to coal dust
> > and develope black-lung,
>
> But that is a ridiculous red herring. I'm not advocating using coal as
It *is* relevant. How many have died of black lung throughout the
world? How many have died due to commercial nuclear power production
throughout the world. (Note that I'm giving you a bonus; you can throw
in the Cherenobel deaths into the commercial power mix.)
> an alternative to nuclear. Now as it turns out modern techniques for
> coal mining are more mechanized and use respirators, which allow them to
> control things like black lung. For that matter, coal gassification and
> emissions capping reduces a lot of the pollution that coal used to
> produce. So even if the coal were the only alternative to nuclear, which
> it's not, then it wouldn't be so bad on those counts. Transportation
> costs and continuing CO2 emissions are more serious drawbacks. They
> still aren't as serious as the dangers of uranium mining or the problems
At low-grade ores, and with once-through, uranium mining requires
1/20'th the ore for the same energy. With breeder reactors, we'd need
1/1200 the volume. In that case, a single dump truck leaving the mine
containing low-grade ore would be carrying more potential energy than
a train worth of coal.
> of nuclear waste storage and disposal. Those issues alone make wind,
> tidal and solar look far more attractive.
I'll let others discuss waste storage, but waste storage isn't *that*
untenable.
> make them equally bad. Nuclear still threatens to be far more
> potentially dangerous, of the two.
Coal has killed how many people over the last 20 years?
Nuclear energy in commercial power production has killed how many
people over the last 20 years?
How much power has been produced worldwide by coal and by commercial
power production. (Or if you wish, you can just focus on the US,
adding in cheranobel also gives you several thousand chinese
coal-miner deaths/year.[1]) Scale the numbers as deaths per GW*h.
Now, which technology has a larger number?
I'll conjecture, because I'm not aware of *any* signifigant nuclear
incidents in the world in the last 20 years except Cheronobel, and
that coal has and continues to kill miners regularily, that nuclear is
1/100-1/10 that of coal.
So, can you either falsify the conjecture, or explain to me why
nuclear is the 'dangerous' one,
> It's cheap provided that the externalities of mining, processing,
> utilization in multibillion dollar plants and waste disposal are not
> factored in to the real cost.
AFIAK, such concerns only cause small ~40% increase on the base price
of the ore, neverminding the fact that coal, by the sheer 20,000x
volume explosion must have externalities far far higher.
Hell, at a part per million in the earths crust, 20,000 tons of coal
contains 20kg of uranium. 20,000 tons of coal also contains the same
energy as 1kg or uranium, equivalent to 1 ton of low grade (.1%)
uranium ore. We'd be better off mining the 100 million tons of coal,
10% of what we do now, then extracting the uranium, and putting the
worthless coal into a giant pile! This way we mine 1/10 as much, get
twice the energy out, and *NO CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCTION*.
And, as the price of the ore is only weakly correlated with the price
per kW*h, in 50 years if technology hasn't made refining more
efficient, the prices of ore will quadruple or more. However, my
electricity bill will increase marginally.
> > is a small 5% or smaller fraction of the
> > cost of generation. A price spike for uranium of 10x would increase my
> > $.08/kw*h electrical bills by 25%.
>
> Well, we probably are paying an abnormally low price for uranium. But
> that's not really the point.
Uranium at current prices is not expected to be sustainable in 50
years ASSUMING NO FUTURE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT. However, at prices a
few times what they are now, with current technology, the oceans (a
source of a billions of tons of Uranium at about .003ppm) are
economical to harvest.
> The point is that the mining, processing and use of the fissile
> materials is inherently dangerous. If you don't believe uranium
> mining is dangerous, then I encourage you to take a job as a uranium
> miner for a while and see how you like it.
I don't dispute this. Mining is dangerous. However, even low-grade
uranium ores still contain more energy per kilogram than a traincar of
coal. I can't see how mining a mere 50,000 tons of uranium ore could
somehow be so much more dangerous than 1,000,000,000 tons of coal?
Incidently, if we used breeder reactors, it'd be 1,000 tons of uranium
ore mined instead of 1,000,000,000 tons of coal.
> Nuclear supporters constantly claim that they have safety mechanisms
> for managing radioactive risks, but many of these mechanisms and
> procedures still fundamentally ignore the fact that humans are
> fallible and that unintended or unanticipated things could go wrong.
> In the latter case, for example, it may be possible for major
> accidents to be precipitated by people crashing airliners into
> nuclear plants, regardless of the assurances from the nuclear
> industry that they could handle such a scenario. On a more personal
Or coal miners on strike pushing a burning coal car into a mine, as
happened in the late 1800's; the fire is still burning.
> level, it seems like employees in the nuclear industry are also
> taking great risks. Each year, lots of mishaps result in plant
> employees getting exposed to unintended dosages of radiation.
Yes, so? But why all the hypersensitivity. If anyone lives on deaths
door, its a doctor. My god, such an irresponsible profession. These
men and women deserve hazardous duty pay for purposely staying around
sick people and all those germs.
> Above you claimed that 10x present costs were not an issue economically.
> The price of the fuel is of course only one factor. Restrictions in
> supply, perhaps created artificially by certain foreign markets deciding
> they didn't want to sell to us could also have an important effect. With
> uranium in particular, we still end up beholden to foreign interests,
> which is not a good idea strategically.
Switch to breeder reactors. Then, each ton of granite has more energy
than about 5 tons of coal. If there's one thing the US has, it is lots
of granite. Then there's stuff in the oceans. All in all, there's
more than enough uranium available. With reprocessing, we could get
60x more energy out per ton, to under 1000 tons of uranium ore, 1 ton
of uranium. As it is now we only need about 70,000 tons of low-grade
uranium ore/year.
> > Nobody will say that nuclear energy is good. It isn't. The problem is
> > when you have to satisy a *continous* demand 300GW of electricty, for
> > the US alone, there are no good choices.
>
> Not true. This is simply an appeal to large numbers. (Actually, I think
> US energy needs are 750GW anyway, but so the figure is even larger.) But
> there are hundreds of gigawatts of wind energy available in the US alone
> and this is not the only power source we can tap. In addition, if we
Ah, speculative power sources! Just because a power source is possible
doesn't mean it makes sense to use it. The world has how many billion
rats, if we put all of them into hamster wheels, we would generate
(say) more energy than a nuclear reactor. I need research funding to
study the feasibility of this plan; do you have money?
> used the energy we consume more intelligently then we would probably
> conserve 25%-50% of this figure.
Explain where this efficiency improvement comes from. :)
> > Coal? Thats a two billion
> > tons/year. Nuclear, we know its problems. Wind? At 1000 W/m^2, 30%
> > capacity factor, thats a billion square meters of surface area,
>
> It's not surface area of land though. It's the swept area of the blades.
> Now as it turns out wind is almost never as powerful as 1 kW/m^2, except
> in certain parts of the ocean. The best places on land are usually only
> about half that good. Furthermore the Betz limit means we can only
> capture 59.3% of that. But we can't even do that good, so assume perhaps
> 40% of 500 W/m^2 could be captured and turned into electricity. 30%
> capacity factor is low, but I will assume its the case. In that case we
> would need 1.5 billion square meters of wind power. That would mean that
> we would need about 22.5 kilometers of radial blades to sweep out that
> area of wind give or take a factor of 2 or 3 since most HAWTs use from 1
> to 3 blades.
22.5 km of radial blades? Could you elaborate this paragraph a bit; I
don't have your background. I just figured that if each turbine had
say 20m blades, it would sweep out 400m^2. So, we'd need 2.5 million
of them. Spaced 50 meters apart, thats a line 100,000km long.
> This ignores some other things techniques which could be used to
> take greater advantage of wind resources, because I think the point
> has been adequately demonstrated that we are in no danger of running
> out of places to put wind turbines.
Oh, I agree. Wind is an available resource.. However, so are hamster
wheels and so is uranium. The question is whether wind is closer to
hamster wheels or uranium. From what I've heard, wind is getting
there, but not yet.
>
> These appeals still fail to justify nuclear power as the only means to
> achieve those energy requirements.
>
Nuclear power is not the only means. Is it the cheapest and most
effective means?
> Still not a problem. There are thousands of gigawatts of wind energy
> available and that is only one of many sources we could tap instead of
> nuclear. OTEC is another highly promising power source which hasn't even
> been brought up so far, and could quite possibly give nuclear a run for
> it's money all by itself.
> >
> > The human mind cannot easily comprehend these numbers. You *have* to
> > do the arithmatic. For instance, I did a calculation on geothermal
> > energy: what is the thermal energy in 1 km^3 of white-hot lava? If
> > that energy was extracted, how many days of US electrical energy would
> > it satisfy?
>
> If you really want, I'll do the calculation, but I don't think it's
I already did the calculations.
> necessary in this case, considering the enormous volume of the mantle
> which might theoretically be accessible in future geothermal
> applications.
But there's another side to this and the last, we need to solve the
next decade's energy needs with sources that we can exploit in the
next decade's technology, not with sources that require 2200's
technology.
> rock could one day be available. The radioactive decay which heats
> some of these regions could also make this magma usable over and over
> again, instead of on a one time basis.
Or such magma may be processed directly for uranium (after all, that
is where the heat came from). Ton for ton, the average earth rock has
about the energy as that of equivalent mass of coal.
> > our power grid in
> > the US is. For instance, a couple of years ago, one of the two nuclear
> > reactors in Diablo Canyon created about twice as much electricity as
> > all 14,000 wind turbines in California, combined.
>
> That's completely beside the point. Many of those old turbines were 100kW
> and were not optimally sited. We could replace them with huge,
Sure, its unfair, because wind technology has been improving, but it
is an interesting anecdote, especially given that Diablo Canyon was
made with 1970's technology. One wonders how the comparsion would be
with a modern plant.
> multimegawatt systems on very tall towers, with high wind availability.
> How about thinking of it this way. A tidal power plant in baja could
> power in the gigawatt/hr range. That should be about equivalent to the
> output of many nuclear reactors.
Diablo Canyon is good for about 1GW per reactor. If your tidal power
plant only functions for, say, 8 hours a day, you'd need 6 of them to
obsolete that plant.
> > If you want to be appreciated, run some numbers.
>
> I have run the numbers and while I am not criticizing your approach, it
Yes you have.. THANK YOU! :)
> appears that you have run the wrong numbers, with the wrong assumptions.
Different assumptions, not necessarily wrong assumptions.
In any case, I don't analyze wind, because it is too messy to quickly
analyze. I await your summary. (or link to a good summary) of the
practicalities of wind.
> > Tell us how large a
> > compressed-air cavern would need to be to store the nightly California
> > energy use (about 200 GW*h).
>
> This is a classic example of the exact wrong way to "run the numbers".
> It is silly to assume that we need to provide for 100% of energy needs
> through compressed air alone. It is silly to take the all or nothing
I'm not asking compressed air to power california, just to power
california at night.
> approach that if compressed air cannot power all of california that it
> should not be used for anything. It is misguided to assume that
> conservation could not reduce the amount of nightly energy consumption.
There's something called the pigeon hole principal. In this instance
it says that if you have 5 things that add up to producing 90 of
energy use, at least one of them must be at least 18.
If you have 5 major technologies that generate 90% of our energy,
one of them must supply 18%. What is that one technology?
If you have 5 major technologies that account for 90% of our energy
storage needs, one of them must supply 18%. What is that one technology?
> It ignores reality to think that other energy generation sources could
> not take up the slack at night.
> > Tell us how big your flywheel storage
> > device would be. Most of the stuff requires little more than basic
> > physics and rough approximations.
>
> I think I already addressed this. The flywheels needed to condition
> power lines would be hundreds or thousands of times smaller than the
> figures you were suggesting, because it is completely unnecessary to
> store 100% of nightly energy requirements in a flywheel. Furthermore,
Then how many percent do you store? How many flywheels is that?
> them. It is possible to build lots of tiny flywheels with extremely high
> RPMs. Nano flywheels are being researched that can handle up to millions
> of RPMs. When you confine yourself to traditional steel flywheels then
> it's easy to make them sound impractical. But people have been using far
Sure its impractical, because it doesn't exist yet as a system you can
go out and buy. Having a home computer was impractical in 1960 when
they weighed tons. But technology changed and it became practical.
> better composite materials for a long time. Again, if you really want
> these figures I will provide them for you, but I don't see the point in
> playing games where we assume that hundreds of gigawatts have to be
> stored in a single system in order for the technology to be viable.
It need not be stored in a single system, but whatever the energy
quanity is has to be stored someplace by someone. It doesn't matter
where a Joule gets stored, only that XXX joules get stored with
technology YYY.
For instance, lets assume that only 10% of nightly energy use has to
be stored, 20GW*h. Now list a few technologies such that their
aggregate storage adds up to 20GW*h. Describe roughly what's needed
for each technology ('with steel flywheels, ZZZZ tons' 'with
nanoflywheels, expected out in 5 years, HHHHH tons, costing BLAH')
Scott
Jesse Spencer
> Mechanical Engineer who made it through NNPS and Qualified on S5G as EOOW
> and NPE and then spent time overseeing the preparation of Spent Naval
Fuel,
There's a Navy Nuker in my family who is an advocate of nuclear power. I
would concede the point if they could loate the things further from
population centers (Kings point for example), and show a reasonably safe
disposal system.
We put nuclear power plant in Kings point, popentially affecting 7 million
people, but will NEVER drill in anwar
because it might affect a few horney caribu.