USAToday - Breaking free from energy dependence
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
- Status
Won't happen yet.
Quickest way to energy independence is to cut out government boondoggles, and put a high tax on oil. Let the people that find a solution, get rich. Foreign oil is a big drain on our economy.
While I believe the fuel should be more expensive in US in the long run, any significant rapid increases will kill the economy in the short term.
So you're saying we should stop our dependance on a country that doesn't allow women to vote and gave us 15 of the 9/11 hijackers?
I won't stumble into religion/sex/politics here though I know I'm staddling the line.
I would prefer we go ahead and invest the money into hydrogen, biogas, and biodiesel so our energy dollars will go to American energy sources.
I won't stumble into religion/sex/politics here though I know I'm staddling the line.
I would prefer we go ahead and invest the money into hydrogen, biogas, and biodiesel so our energy dollars will go to American energy sources.
JHZR2
Staff member
What we need is for the American Petroleum companies to embrace euro-spec sulfur levels (or even lower) in their diesel fuels NOW. The price will be higher, but that is unfortunately inevitable, regardless of what route we take. Its the intelligence of choice and the dependencies we form from the ultimate choices made that make the difference.
The short term result is that with that fuel and a little bit of intelligence on the part of the EPA regarding the fact that particle traps, filters, etc and a wide variety of catalysts can be used in ultra low sulfur diesel running autos (so we will have more of them here), you have just got yourself extremely efficient diesel automobiles, capable of getting 50+ MPG for small sedans, and even 25-30 for SUVs without the particulate emissions that the EPA hates so much, and thinks are so much worse than the quadruple amount of CO2 gross tonnage that the average SUV spews out.
The short/moderate term result is that with ultra low sulfur diesel, you allow yourself to have an inroad to a huge variety of much more efficient processes. You can begin to reform these fuels into hydrogen, without having to carry a refinery with you, and run PEM fuel cells. You can reform it less, send it into a high temperature solid oxide fuel cell, and achieve over 60% efficiency (upto ~80%), compared to ~30-35% in a diesel.
Long term, with the reality that fuel cell applications are viable, then push can go to the efficient production of synthetic fuels, methane hydrates from the sea, clean coal with CO2 sequestration, etc. Most are projects that the DOE and other agencies have pursued to an extent. However funding is much higher in the fuel cell stack and fuel cell reformer areas. Why? Because we need to deal with sulfur in most raw fuels. There are a lot of problems with sulfur in reforming for PEM fuel cells, as any trace of sulfur will kill the catalyst on the membranes. There is also a lot of trouble with solid oxide fuel cell materials, because the high temperature and sulfur contentcause performance degradation. Some technologies could allow for direct oxidation of fuels to make power, but still sulfur will be a problem.
Use the economies of scale at refineries to clean up the fuels, and create a stepping stone on the way to no need for foreign fuels, running fuel cells on whatever comes to be in the future, with minimal need for foreign energy (although for the forseeable future some foreign oil will be necessary, and probably we will get more and more russian methane).
Thats how I see it... Unfortunately, most people think they need their big V8 powered SUV to feel rich, powerful, safe, and think that that is the only way to have 'pick-up' for merging onto highways, etc. Forget driver skill, gradually accelerating, less aggressive driving patterns, etc. Its all about being the king of the road. Too bad these kings are too dumb to see the big picture
And too bad that the people who often claim to be the most patriotic are also the ones that put the most money into the pockets of those who hate us the most, thanks to their patriotic gas guzzlers.
But diesel fuel with low low sulfur content is the easiest answer and the most logical stepping stone to allow power-dense, energy dense, highly efficient power systems to be used all over the place with a safe widely available fuel. Methane and methanol are other good options, but there is much more to consider with them, plus the russians have the grip on most of the worlds methane...
JMH
[ October 21, 2004, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]
The short term result is that with that fuel and a little bit of intelligence on the part of the EPA regarding the fact that particle traps, filters, etc and a wide variety of catalysts can be used in ultra low sulfur diesel running autos (so we will have more of them here), you have just got yourself extremely efficient diesel automobiles, capable of getting 50+ MPG for small sedans, and even 25-30 for SUVs without the particulate emissions that the EPA hates so much, and thinks are so much worse than the quadruple amount of CO2 gross tonnage that the average SUV spews out.
The short/moderate term result is that with ultra low sulfur diesel, you allow yourself to have an inroad to a huge variety of much more efficient processes. You can begin to reform these fuels into hydrogen, without having to carry a refinery with you, and run PEM fuel cells. You can reform it less, send it into a high temperature solid oxide fuel cell, and achieve over 60% efficiency (upto ~80%), compared to ~30-35% in a diesel.
Long term, with the reality that fuel cell applications are viable, then push can go to the efficient production of synthetic fuels, methane hydrates from the sea, clean coal with CO2 sequestration, etc. Most are projects that the DOE and other agencies have pursued to an extent. However funding is much higher in the fuel cell stack and fuel cell reformer areas. Why? Because we need to deal with sulfur in most raw fuels. There are a lot of problems with sulfur in reforming for PEM fuel cells, as any trace of sulfur will kill the catalyst on the membranes. There is also a lot of trouble with solid oxide fuel cell materials, because the high temperature and sulfur contentcause performance degradation. Some technologies could allow for direct oxidation of fuels to make power, but still sulfur will be a problem.
Use the economies of scale at refineries to clean up the fuels, and create a stepping stone on the way to no need for foreign fuels, running fuel cells on whatever comes to be in the future, with minimal need for foreign energy (although for the forseeable future some foreign oil will be necessary, and probably we will get more and more russian methane).
Thats how I see it... Unfortunately, most people think they need their big V8 powered SUV to feel rich, powerful, safe, and think that that is the only way to have 'pick-up' for merging onto highways, etc. Forget driver skill, gradually accelerating, less aggressive driving patterns, etc. Its all about being the king of the road. Too bad these kings are too dumb to see the big picture
But diesel fuel with low low sulfur content is the easiest answer and the most logical stepping stone to allow power-dense, energy dense, highly efficient power systems to be used all over the place with a safe widely available fuel. Methane and methanol are other good options, but there is much more to consider with them, plus the russians have the grip on most of the worlds methane...
JMH
[ October 21, 2004, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]
I don't see any real alternatives to oil. Hydrogen is not an energy source...just a medium for transport (like wires for electricity). Solar is an option, but requires we live minimalist lifestyles with dark rooms. Ditto wind.
And even if you drilled every oil well in America, you'd only have enough energy for one week. We used up 99.9% of our oil resources back in the early 1900s.
All we can really do is conserve what we currently have with >50 MPG cars.
And even if you drilled every oil well in America, you'd only have enough energy for one week. We used up 99.9% of our oil resources back in the early 1900s.
All we can really do is conserve what we currently have with >50 MPG cars.
JHZR2
Staff member
hydrogen is an energy source, and amuch higher energy source than any fuel oil.
Its the fact that its a gas that causes the issue.
The lower heating value of a typical fuel oil (Nato F-76 for example) is ~18400 BTU/lb. The heating value of Hydrogen is ~51655 BTU/lb. So burning a pound of Hydrogen evolves MUCH more energy than a fuel oil.
The problem is storing a pound of hydrogen
JMH
Its the fact that its a gas that causes the issue.
The lower heating value of a typical fuel oil (Nato F-76 for example) is ~18400 BTU/lb. The heating value of Hydrogen is ~51655 BTU/lb. So burning a pound of Hydrogen evolves MUCH more energy than a fuel oil.
The problem is storing a pound of hydrogen
JMH
Why don't we burn it to make electricity? We could pipe it to the generating plants just as easy as natural gas. We don't do it because we must use more energy from a source of energy to produce it than burning it would produce.
For a real alternative today, why don't we burn soybean oil in diesels? How much processing is needed to produce Biodiesel? We have technology and infrastructure to produce both soybean oil and diesel engines. Corn and other vegetable oils should work too. Maybe I should trade my Cavalier in on a VW diesel. They are legal here.
Do you have any idea what soybean oil costs to produce in large quantities? We might be getting close to it making sense.
IIRC, I've seen veggie oil for around $5/gallon in 5 gallon containers at Costco. It should be lot cheaper if handled in bulk and sold like a fuel.
Here is one bio-diesel source
Bio diesel prices
Given a larger market in think there would be a potential for lower cost prodcution.
The real problem is what it costs to produce a pound of hydrogen.quote:
Originally posted by JHZR2:
The problem is storing a pound of hydrogen
JMH
XS650,
they are having issues in the U.K. at present with the cost of diesel way higher than the cost of cooking oil.
Apparently it is relatively common for people to fill up at the supermarket. (Government then gets upset for missing out on the taxes).
Down here, there's a seed oil for fuel plant in the Cootamundra region that is very close to becoming viable at present.
they are having issues in the U.K. at present with the cost of diesel way higher than the cost of cooking oil.
Apparently it is relatively common for people to fill up at the supermarket. (Government then gets upset for missing out on the taxes).
Down here, there's a seed oil for fuel plant in the Cootamundra region that is very close to becoming viable at present.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
You see (envision a savvy cowpoke tipping his hat back just a tad as he rearranges the piece of grass in his mouth) ...it's all in "the plan". We consume and deplete the world's oil supply until there aint enough to fight about ...and at the same time ..industrialize the entire world as much as we can ....and subsedize all our export crops to help those agrarian cultures convert to industrialization and abandon their agrarian ways......
..when the oil drys up ...
who's going to have the market cornered on "bio-fuels"???
We're just "developing" new markets for the stuff ..right now!!
(sorry, I'm having an Orwellian moment)
..when the oil drys up ...
who's going to have the market cornered on "bio-fuels"???
We're just "developing" new markets for the stuff ..right now!!
JHZR2
Staff member
Reforming diesel fuels over Ni catalysts isnt terribly expensive, once the process gets enough sulfur tolerance (or the refineries get more S out). Even though a lot of FC poisoning Carbon monoxide is formed, that can be shifted by steam addition.quote:
Originally posted by XS650:
The real problem is what it costs to produce a pound of hydrogen.quote:
Originally posted by JHZR2:
The problem is storing a pound of hydrogen
JMH
Using PdCu or other separation devices to get all the S/CO out to make it usable for fuel cells, etc is expensive...
Youre right, it does take a lot of energy (and thus cost) to make, say a pound of hydrogen, even via a reforming process (reforming just allows an easily transferrable, safe medium for fuel transport and transfer, that is relatively hydrogen dense. The advantage is when you use it in a system like a PEM, MC or SO fuel cell, and get a resultant system efficiency that is higher than a diesel...
Its not worth it to burn it to make electricity, because the efficiencies of a brighton cycle (gas turbine) or diesel arent high enough to make it worth it, especially after the efficiencies of the genset are considered.
60% efficiency in a solid oxide fuel cell is another matter, even after loosing 5% or so of the power to DC-AC conversion, etc.
JMH
P.S. Probably the only real solution is the steam reforming of coal to make hydrogen to produce electricity in solid oxide fuel cells, with sequestration of the CO2. We still have plenty of coal. Otherwise, nuclear power for electricity and electrolysis of water reacted by fischer-tropf reactions with CO/CO2 to make portable hydrocarbon fuels for use as necessary is the best answer. Battery technology isnt going to get anyone far enough, so one way or another, you need a medium for storage of hydrogen.
P.P.S. borohydrides would be a good combination with nuclear power for a hydrogen storage medium that could be easily decomposed tomake hydrogen. It could pump like gasoline at a station, and then the spent fuel could be regenerated. Problem is it takes a lot of energy to regenerate the fuel. So you need the nuclear to regen most liekly.
[ October 22, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]
We could all live like Amish people.
Sink a well in every square foot of Alaska and anywhere else the stuff is. I would happily pay $5 a gallon if I knew it was all coming from the U.S., making Halliburton and XOM rich, and the Arabs starve.
Sink a well in every square foot of Alaska and anywhere else the stuff is. I would happily pay $5 a gallon if I knew it was all coming from the U.S., making Halliburton and XOM rich, and the Arabs starve.
Wouldn't we need to plant soybeans on 5000% of the worlds land to fuel all our cars and homes and factories? Does anyone really believe that biodiesel will fuel the world? It's a good supplement to oil, but not a solution to the root problem. We need land to grow food to eat, not to burn.
Nuclear power is the solution to our electricity needs. For transport, we need to find a better energy storage system than batteries. Until we get there, diesel powered hybrids can help us to stick it to Saudi Arabia and our other so called "friends". Mass transport (bus, train, ...) can work in areas of great population density but isn't an option for most of the US.
I don't favor massive tax increases on petroleum. This merely gives the Washington DC yahoos more power, more socialist BS spending, and less freedom for us. Besides, it doesn't achieve what the proponents want. High petroleum prices in Europe and Japan have not facilitated the development of alternatives. You could make an argument that it has accelerated the development of more efficient diesels, and we will see more of those in the US when the low sulphur fuels come online. But as far as developing real alternatives, there are none.
Nuclear power is the solution to our electricity needs. For transport, we need to find a better energy storage system than batteries. Until we get there, diesel powered hybrids can help us to stick it to Saudi Arabia and our other so called "friends". Mass transport (bus, train, ...) can work in areas of great population density but isn't an option for most of the US.
I don't favor massive tax increases on petroleum. This merely gives the Washington DC yahoos more power, more socialist BS spending, and less freedom for us. Besides, it doesn't achieve what the proponents want. High petroleum prices in Europe and Japan have not facilitated the development of alternatives. You could make an argument that it has accelerated the development of more efficient diesels, and we will see more of those in the US when the low sulphur fuels come online. But as far as developing real alternatives, there are none.
My business associate in the UK tells me that it's become popular to "fill" up with used cooking oil from fish and chip shops and Chinese restaurants. Of course they sometimes get caught and fined for evading taxes by the "sniffer" police
Whimsey
The "self interest" that drives this issue is the consumer. Aaahnold can spend all he wants on hydrogen infrastructure but there won't be any users until it costs about $2 or less to travel 20 miles.
The root problem is that Saudi Arabia has a cost of a few cents to pump a gallon of oil. They have the cheapest production costs in the world. If Aaahnold can produce and deliver hydrogen in California at the same cost, he will have something. Keep me posted.
Railroads are so cost effective at transporting goods - that nobody is investing in them here? Something obviously wrong with that scenario. Some nations heavily subsidize their railways and roads, we subsidize mostly the roads. I don't see any conspiracy here, it simply makes the most sense for a large nation with relatively low population density to invest in roads.
The war on terror could intervene and change everything. They want our money, we want their oil, so there will be a solution but the human cost could be high. I am very disappointed at the recent lack of outrage and response. Children are getting shot in the back and women are getting beheaded, and our media are worried about flu shots. We are living in ficticious times, to quote that fat slob Michael Moore-on. It's going to need another disaster on US soil to generate the resolve to fix this. 9/11 wasn't enough
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I'm pretty sure that the taxes in Japan and Europe are more of a form of a deterant to the auto use over mass transit. We oppose subsidizing mass transit ....ignoring that metro areas transport MASSIVE amounts of goods on roadways ..and effectively subsidize them.
Those countries don't have the vast geographical area that we have to deal with. Our federal highway net destroyed our most economical mode of transportation, the railways.
We don't know what evolusions that increased global demand will inpire. Perhaps coal conversion coupled with biodiesel. The next Nobel Prize may be for the genetic alteration of soybean crops that allow 1000% yeild per acre. Large fermentation facilities producing ethanol for small turbine powered hybreds...
I just hope that we don't reach some technilogical road block that can't be bridged before the tap runs dry. A hefty tax on all fossil fuels would effectively make solar and wind technologies viable even for their limited gains.
We have to rethink our whole resource utilization philosophy on a global basis. This isn't likely in the near future. Far too many "sectors" of self interest.
Those countries don't have the vast geographical area that we have to deal with. Our federal highway net destroyed our most economical mode of transportation, the railways.
We don't know what evolusions that increased global demand will inpire. Perhaps coal conversion coupled with biodiesel. The next Nobel Prize may be for the genetic alteration of soybean crops that allow 1000% yeild per acre. Large fermentation facilities producing ethanol for small turbine powered hybreds...
I just hope that we don't reach some technilogical road block that can't be bridged before the tap runs dry. A hefty tax on all fossil fuels would effectively make solar and wind technologies viable even for their limited gains.
We have to rethink our whole resource utilization philosophy on a global basis. This isn't likely in the near future. Far too many "sectors" of self interest.
I'm guessing it would be too hard just to use less?
Something like moving withing walking distance of where you work, go to the store(on the way home from work) and such. Use you car only on the weekends to get out away from where you live/work.
Something like moving withing walking distance of where you work, go to the store(on the way home from work) and such. Use you car only on the weekends to get out away from where you live/work.
- Status
Similar threads
