# The Terminator Terminates car emmissions.....



## webbie (May 18, 2009)

"California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has finally brought the naysayers and feet-draggers in the auto industry to their knees. It's fitting The Terminator will be in Washington Tuesday, along with auto industry leaders to watch the President tell America it's cars and trucks will spew out less pollution in the years to come. After all, Schwarzenegger has become the face of the fight lower tailpipe emissions."


----------



## fossil (May 18, 2009)

I thought he had a fleet of Hummers.  Maybe he converted them all to hybrids.  Rick


----------



## smokinj (May 18, 2009)

fossil said:
			
		

> I thought he had a fleet of Hummers.  Maybe he converted them all to hybrids.  Rick


he scronges for used veggie oil to put in them


----------



## mainemac (May 18, 2009)

Plug in Hybrids should be the next great thing

I am afraid it may be too late for Chrylser or GM
but Ford could leapfrog the Japanese if they put out a 
plug in hybrid. 

Use it like a regular gasoline hybrid  to get 50 mpg
Plug it in and use no gas for 30-40 miles ( average American commute) and get >200 mog
Add a solar panel and you have  a true solar car for around town and regular commutes.

Even better would be to get the Electric Car Back 

http://video.google.com/videosearch...sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Tom


----------



## velvetfoot (May 18, 2009)

Bring on the new nuke plants!


----------



## stockdoct (May 19, 2009)

THe Ford Escape has already been converted into a plug-in, with Valence's Saphion battery.    It works, now.


----------



## flyingcow (May 19, 2009)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> Bring on the new nuke plants!



Got to have the electricity for the electric cars.


----------



## Sting (May 19, 2009)

Be careful what you wish for!!

Electric cars will have a (do have) a whole new drama in repair and up keep - 
some are simply crated  and shipped back to the hazardous waste sites of the third world as the batteries cannot be disposed of here. Mechanics suit up like line men wearing leather and plastic full body protection to shield themselves from DEATH caused by electrical discharge of the systems.


----------



## d.n.f. (May 19, 2009)

We had a half day workshop on vehicle extrication for hybrids.  As a fire fighter they are a pain in the ass and can be extremely dangerous to emergency personal.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2009)

d.n.f. said:
			
		

> We had a half day workshop on vehicle extrication for hybrids.  As a fire fighter they are a pain in the ass and can be extremely dangerous to emergency personal.



Very true, but they had the same stuff when airbags first started appearing in cars.

Everything is gonna take time to work out folks.  Its not a simple light switch.  And we sure as heck don't want to sit back and wait for everything to be perfected before we take the first step.  Nothing would ever get done.


----------



## begreen (May 19, 2009)

Sting said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for!!
> 
> Electric cars will have a (do have) a whole new drama in repair and up keep -
> some are simply crated  and shipped back to the hazardous waste sites of the third world as the batteries cannot be disposed of here. Mechanics suit up like line men wearing leather and plastic full body protection to shield themselves from DEATH caused by electrical discharge of the systems.



Curious about what cars and battery types does this apply to? Right now, standard lead acid batteries in standard gasoline cars are shipped off to the third world to be stripped down, often by little kids that have no idea about the implications of working with lead and sulphuric acid. Or sometimes they just live next door to these recycling plants overseas. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28484477/
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1566703


----------



## karl (May 20, 2009)

Do you guys not own anything that is battery powered.  Batteries especially the new lithium ions do not last nearly as long as people say.

Now lets look at efficiency.  Around here we burn coal for electricity.  It's dirty, and I don't know what their conversion efficiency is but there has to be alot of losses since they use turbines to generated it.  Then they send it to my house.  There are transmission losses.  Then I put it in a battery.  It takes power to shove energy into the battery.  Then if I don't drive the battery slowly discharges.  And now I'm driving a car that weighs alot more because I'm hauling around batteries.

I love the new VW TDI commercial.  It shows the TDI(Diesel)VW talking to the owner of a hybrid.  The guy says I get 40 miles to the gallon.  The TDI asks what it sounds like.  He says it's kind of a humming sound.  The TDI says I go VROOM VROOM and I get 50 miles to the gallons.   Obama wants 43 miles to the gallon in 6 years.  VW has 50 now.  

Obama's a dumbass.  Oh, and did you hear where he wants to spend 50 billion of our tax money to buy batteries for plug in hybrids.

First we turn GM into the next Amtrack and now we are going to be buying the batteries to put in these.

Every industrialized country in the world has already come to grips with fuel economy and emissions and they have done a better job that what he is proposing.

Here's an idea.  Let's knock a thousand pounds off the weight of a car.  Believe it or not, most cars these days weigh about thousand pounds more than their 1960's version( the 65 mustang 2800 pounds, the new one 3600; the VW beatle 1500 pounds now 3100 pounds; etc)  Then let's put realistic engines in them.  Who needs 250-300 horespower in a family car.  You could hit 40 on the highway easily without batteries or hybrids.


----------



## mainemac (May 20, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> Do you guys not own anything that is battery powered.  Batteries especially the new lithium ions do not last nearly as long as people say.
> 
> I love the new VW TDI commercial.  It shows the TDI(Diesel)VW talking to the owner of a hybrid.  The guy says I get 40 miles to the gallon.  The TDI asks what it sounds like.  He says it's kind of a humming sound.  The TDI says I go VROOM VROOM and I get 50 miles to the gallons.   Obama wants 43 miles to the gallon in 6 years.  VW has 50 now.
> 
> ...



No question an Escalade, Suburban, Land Rover are all monster trucks, and putting them on a diet would greatly increase efficiency



If everyone drove  a VW TDI or Prius we would not have this problem BTW I get 45 mpg in  Maine winter and 55 mpg in summer in Prius.
Now that the clean deisel is out the particulate matter is much less dangerous than it was before


Dumber than say......GM?



Every industrialized country has come to grips with this by doing what Americans forbid their elected leaders do: raise gas taxes.


----------



## Jags (May 20, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, most cars these days weigh about thousand pounds more than their 1960's version( the 65 mustang 2800 pounds, the new one 3600; the VW beatle 1500 pounds now 3100 pounds; etc)



That mostly has to do with the increase in safety standards.  Hit a tree in a 65 stang at 50 mph and then compare that with the new version.  Its a whole bunch different, I will gar-own-tee.  Safety standards is one of the reasons we can't bring over many of the small cars from overseas.  Ya know, the ones that get 50+ mpg.  Our hummers would squash them on the road.

There are lots of things we "could" be doing but aren't.  Clean diesel??  Overseas there is a model of town and country minivans that get 40+ on the roads.  We can't have them.  They put out too much emissions.  We rate emissions by the gallon, and not mile.  That alone is silly.


----------



## Delta-T (May 20, 2009)

last I heard the overall efficiency of the internall combustion engine was below 50% (about on par with our electric grid). Nevermind the amount of energy we use for cooling/heating. Agree with Jags, lots of the car's mass is related to safety and emissions (oddly enough, with a reduced mass we would have less momentum and shorter braking distances adn possibly safer vehicles, nevermind less HP requirements). I have had (3) late 60's VW's and they wouldn't go faster than 61mph downhill drafting a truck, I would be frightened to death if they coudl go any faster. Even at 55 there was little chance you woudl survive a crash. I'm curious why we don't have a diesel hybrid for 18 wheelers. Diesel hybrid is ultra common in Trains. 

I personally am insulted when car companies advertise cars that get 33 mpg....thats a pitiful advancement in efficiency over the last decade. The one big plus to plug in electric is that you can charge the cars in "off Peak" hours. After a good few years of research the Dutch decided that the most efficient system of surplus energy storage is plug in cars. They currently generate way too much electricity at night and sell off a lot to neighboring countries. They are investing huge in an electric car infrastructure, along with france. Looks like once again, we will be playing catch up with other countries using technology that will probably be invented here.


----------



## WoodMann (May 20, 2009)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> I personally am insulted when car companies advertise cars that get 33 mpg....thats a pitiful advancement in efficiency over the last decade.



10-4 here- I hadda 1989 LeSabre- gosh I miss that car, with a 3.8 V6 that got a square 33mph on the highway.
On another note, I wanted to pose the question of environmental impact, this is what's cookin',
with the thought of getting a small vehicle as a decoy so it looks as if the house is occupied I thought on an S10, with a 2.2 liter engine for it’s lower acquisition cost and the fact that I won’t be dricing it much, but also a great thing to have if gas prices go into the stratosphere; I know I’m sounding like your run of the mill flower child of 30 years ago. But further than just gas mileage and cost is the issue of the impact on the environment- there I go again sounding flower- childish. Currently my 2001 Sierra 5.3 get’s me an honest 21mpg on the highway. The S10 I’m looking at rates at 30mpg, highway, with added labor. certianly there hasto be fewer combustion by products(pollutants) from the tiny engine, or is the fact that it’s working that much harder than the well tuned 5.3 the difference is minnimal? 
Back in the day I had a 225cc 3- wheeler and my first bike a ‘76 Z50, and while the 50 couldn’t hold a candle to the 3- wheeler powerwise, you could run seemingly forever on a tank of gas with the 50. I’m not up on emissions and so fourth enough so I’d like to ask you guys in here is this line of thinking is correct of should I just forget all this and find the biggest V8 I can and live for today...............


----------



## Jags (May 20, 2009)

Woodman - your question is exactly why I think emissions per gallon is a silly way to measure emissions.  Think about it this way:

(the following numbers are for demonstration only, they are purely fictitious)

If I have a big 'ol tank of a SUV that gets 12 mpg at 100 ppm emissions per gallon burned (which is within the rules) and drive 50 miles - I produce 416 ppm of emissions.
If I have a small diesel car that gets 40 mpg and puts out DOUBLE the emissions (200 ppm, which does NOT meet the standards) and drive 50 miles I produce 250 ppm emissions.  Which one has the advantage if looking at emission output?  Doesn't make sense that the little diesel is not allowed in the good 'ol USA.


----------



## MishMouse (May 20, 2009)

Jags said:
			
		

> Woodman - your question is exactly why I think emissions per gallon is a silly way to measure emissions. Think about it this way:
> 
> (the following numbers are for demonstration only, they are purely fictitious)
> 
> ...



I agree 100%.
I was looking at some of the vehicles Ford makes overseas and I came across the Kuga which is an SUV (2.0 TDCi Duratorq diesel AWD ) that gets over 44 mpg. link to info: http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Kuga/Overview
If we keep our current emissions standards instead of driving something that can actually get the job done we will be driving beer cans with lawn mower engines and wondering why our fuel economy and our Co2 emissions is not matching other countries.  
On a side note: Another car that Ford sells is the Ka, it gets 67+ mpg and is not a plugin.


----------



## WoodMann (May 20, 2009)

That's certianly quite an illustration, I never thought about it quite that in depth. I was thinking gasser to gasser and a fresh, monolithic catalytic converter and this thing would be squeaky clean. That and smaller tires and all; but that's all been thought of in the past and didn't amount to much, slong the lines of steeply diminishing returns...........


----------



## Delta-T (May 20, 2009)

we will be driving beer cans with lawn mower engines

I'm not sure about beer cans, but a beer keg with a lawnmower engine, a straight pipe and some 19" chrome rims sounds like a pretty sweet ride to me.

And i bet the mileage will still be 33mpg, cuz you can't go breaking the rules now can we??


----------



## velvetfoot (May 21, 2009)

I think the Nox was a prob with diesels as well.
I had a vw beetle for 225k miles-great car; got 964 miles on a tank of fuel once, then I stalled out, lol.
Regularly got 54 mpg on the Beetle.
I'm getting 42 on my Mini Cooper now.
Diesel was higher cost when I sold my Beetle and VW still only markets the Jetta (and Passat?) in the US-I prefer hatchbacks.
You can buy Mercedes and BMW's now.
You might have to replace the urea in it though periodically, lol.
NOx:  Is that a bogus pollutant like CO2?


----------



## Corey (May 21, 2009)

Jags said:
			
		

> Woodman - your question is exactly why I think emissions per gallon is a silly way to measure emissions.  Think about it this way:
> 
> (the following numbers are for demonstration only, they are purely fictitious)
> 
> ...



I guess I have not heard this one.  Do they ask you what mpg you get when you go in for emissions or somehow measure fuel flow of the vehicle?  The last I knew, emissions were measured in ppm - period.  And ppm is just a fancy way to say percent - 1ppm = 0.00001 percent (or parts per hundred)  All emissions test is doing is saying "of the air your tailpipe puts out, XX percent is NOx or hydrocarbons, etc.  Unless they are doing something totally new, I don't think there is any specific connection to gallons of fuel burned.

You could argue that a bigger engine puts out more exhaust volume, hence more pollutants overall.  But the basic physics of the internal combustion engine are the same, so it's not truly fair to use all available technology to reduce a 2 liter car engine to 10ppm NOx, but then somehow expect a 6 liter truck engine to somehow put out 1/3 of that amount.  Plus, the gas hog driver pays substantially more in gasoline tax, gas guzzler tax, etc - so they are already paying for their "sin" (Not necessarily condoning it, just stating fact - I converted my car over to E85 as soon as I could after 9/11, so as far as mideast terrorists are concerned I get about 180 miles per gallon of their crappy gas)

I think some locations may be using grams per mile (g/mi) - but there again, unless different specs are applied to different vehicles or at least different sized engines, you ARE holding everyone to the same standard.


----------



## WoodMann (May 21, 2009)

I can understand that the larger engine expells more ehaust and it would be logical to conclude pollutes more and hence a larger affect on the enviroment and not just using more gas. I guess I'm kinda lookin' to downsize, or be ready if need be and of course take it easy on my surroundings, of which I am a part of, and use less resources.......................


----------



## karl (May 21, 2009)

Jags said:
			
		

> karl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Safety regulations don't add as much weight as you think.  Most of the strength is gained by better shaped metal not more of it.  Crumple zones don't add alot of weight.  6 airbags, might add 60 pounds to a car, but most of the weight is in the creature comforts we demand.  Power heated seats are heavy, all  the sound proofing is heavy.  The dvd players add alot of weight.  The 20 miles of wiring now in a car adds alot of weight.

Strip one to the shell and it doesnt weigh much.  I raced a Fox body Mustang years ago and I got it to about 2400 lbs and that was with a roll cage in it.  It was 3200 pounds from the factory and  I didn't use any fiberglass parts either.


----------



## Jags (May 21, 2009)

Corey - my example above (as rudimentary as it was) is simply an example of how silly todays emission standards and rules are, not really as a real life method of measurement.  There are alot smarter guys than me that can figure out a "real" way of doing it.  I am pretty sure that todays standards were generated by a bunch of lobbyists, not chemists and engineers. (got to keep those big SUVs chugging ya know).

Karl - yep, lots of creature comforts add up pounds too.  But, there has been quite a bit added to the old "shoe boxes" of yesteryear (ie, stangs, camaro, CHALLENGER, etc.) that not only improve safety but also to bring them up to what we perceive as todays expected comfort level when we go shell out 20-30-40+ grand for a car.  These things aren't marketed to the high school kids today like the stangs of old were......and it all adds weight.  How about a nice Hyundai.....anyone???


----------



## karri0n (May 21, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> Do you guys not own anything that is battery powered.  Batteries especially the new lithium ions do not last nearly as long as people say.
> 
> Now lets look at efficiency.  Around here we burn coal for electricity.  It's dirty, and I don't know what their conversion efficiency is but there has to be alot of losses since they use turbines to generated it.  Then they send it to my house.  There are transmission losses.  Then I put it in a battery.  It takes power to shove energy into the battery.  Then if I don't drive the battery slowly discharges.  And now I'm driving a car that weighs alot more because I'm hauling around batteries.
> 
> ...




My 92 Nissan Sentra is rated at 40 MPG.. this is before the big MPG movement took over(took over the U.S. at least, and this is a U.S. marketed vehicle). I'm sure it doesn't get that today with 240k on it, but it still gets better mileage than my 02 subaru, and that's with the Nissan's 5th gear being blown.


That being said, Diesel(or biodiesel, or peanut oil like Rudy Diesel originally built the thing to run on) is absolutely the way to go if we're talking internal combustion. VW already knew this 30 years ago.


----------



## Delta-T (May 21, 2009)

biodiesel is a tough one to do here in the US, basically becasue most of the useful land is for growing food. OUr recent obsession with ethanol has caused the price of corn to go up, along with animal feed. Converting 1000's of acres would have a pretty big impact on our export of food as well. That said, Biodiesel probably represents the best oportunity for under-developed countries to get a handle on energy. Granted, a lot of those same countries have trouble growing their own food, so I don't know how that could all work out. Back when we dominated the cotton market i bet there was plenty of cotton seed oil to go around. what we need here is for someone to figure out a way to make your car run on pine sap. we got plenty of pine sap. Does anyone know if we can use human fat to make biodiesel? Theres plenty of that around, and the plastic surgeons who remove the stuff are even kind enough to put it into a littel vat for us. What could be more "home grown" than that?


----------



## fossil (May 21, 2009)

Now there's an idea...harvesting human fat.  I can see McDonalds getting into that, and then they could make a profit twice on every meal they sell.  Hmmmm...


----------



## karri0n (May 21, 2009)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> biodiesel is a tough one to do here in the US, basically becasue most of the useful land is for growing food. OUr recent obsession with ethanol has caused the price of corn to go up, along with animal feed. Converting 1000's of acres would have a pretty big impact on our export of food as well. That said, Biodiesel probably represents the best oportunity for under-developed countries to get a handle on energy. Granted, a lot of those same countries have trouble growing their own food, so I don't know how that could all work out. Back when we dominated the cotton market i bet there was plenty of cotton seed oil to go around. what we need here is for someone to figure out a way to make your car run on pine sap. we got plenty of pine sap. Does anyone know if we can use human fat to make biodiesel? Theres plenty of that around, and the plastic surgeons who remove the stuff are even kind enough to put it into a littel vat for us. What could be more "home grown" than that?




It's been done, and by a cosmetic surgeon. He was arrested, and I believe it was for improper disposal of biohazardous material. It also may have been for producing specialty fuel without a license.


So the answer is yes, it can be done. Any lipid based substance will work afaik


----------



## WoodMann (May 21, 2009)

We don't have the infrastructure, Ethanol attract and absorbs water like a MOFO, I think/ hope folks are starting to wake up to that. Bio- Diesel has a chance, but making it in appreciable vast quantities. I can just see it; a stand off with a trucker at a restaurant for their cooking fat...............


----------



## Hakusan (May 21, 2009)

I am not sure the truck/car emission example is a good one. First, the emission standard is to ensure clean air. Unfortunately, trucks and SUVs do not fall under the same standards as cars. This should be corrected. I think emission control is still good--you assume there will be more Ford Escorts than Hummers. So the question is not whether we should let dirty cars in, but whether we should be cleaning up our trucks.

I think bio fuels is a bad idea. They will cause a greater negative impact on the environment than they will a positive one--agricultural production will be turned over to fuel production, more land will be cultivated, it takes more energy to produce bio fuels than they produce. Nice idea, but it is not a sustainable solution, especially when the current conditions indicate than energy use is going to increase.


----------



## Jags (May 21, 2009)

OK - so lets go to something like "Particulates per mile", with different levels for light, med, and heavy duty usage.  Again, the above example is/was not intended to be a real life example, just pointing out how silly our current standards are in the way they were set up.  

Some smart people *with nothing to gain from it* should be able to figure this out and have it make sense at the same time.


----------



## karri0n (May 22, 2009)

Hakusan said:
			
		

> I am not sure the truck/car emission example is a good one. First, the emission standard is to ensure clean air. Unfortunately, trucks and SUVs do not fall under the same standards as cars. This should be corrected. I think emission control is still good--you assume there will be more Ford Escorts than Hummers. So the question is not whether we should let dirty cars in, but whether we should be cleaning up our trucks.
> 
> I think bio fuels is a bad idea. They will cause a greater negative impact on the environment than they will a positive one--agricultural production will be turned over to fuel production, more land will be cultivated, it takes more energy to produce bio fuels than they produce. Nice idea, but it is not a sustainable solution, especially when the current conditions indicate than energy use is going to increase.



So increase the efficiency of production; It's quite obvious that bio is the only way of creating "something from nothing". Biofuels are still far more efficient at turning solar energy into usable energy than any tech we have, and solar is one of the only energy sources we can count on always being there.


----------



## WoodMann (May 22, 2009)

I'm ready to jump on the solar bandwagon than anyone else, problem is that there is such a thing as a cloudy day.................................

Edit; I think we've been living on borrowed time for quite a while now with reasonable gas prices and it's gonna be a thing of the past. An eye on conservation never hurt; there I go sounding like a flower child again- and no one really knows when the world will end so stretching some resources is only smart................


----------



## Corey (May 22, 2009)

Jags said:
			
		

> OK - so lets go to something like "Particulates per mile", with different levels for light, med, and heavy duty usage. ....



This is what is already in place with the EPA "tier" system... The various pollutants are measured in grams per mile and different categories are assigned based on vehicle weight  http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld.php  Though, notice how diesel engines - which everyone seems to rave about being green - are actually allowed to have 2-3x the NOx emissions of a gas engine and there is also an issue with particulate matter - soot / smoke.  Unlike CO2, NOx and Particulates ARE harmful pollutants responsible for smog, acid rain and various lung conditions.


----------



## Jags (May 22, 2009)

cozy heat said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I realize that they already have a tier system, but from my understanding, they hang a probe from the tail pipe to measure the PPM, with no consideration towards the efficiency of the machine while it is actually doing work (going down the road).  Heck, I have a 1939 4 cylinder tractor that I could lean out enough to pass that test.

And yes, it is true that there is some skew to the diesels that allow them to have higher ppm of some emissions than a gasser does, but if I have equivalent vehicles and the gasser consumes 2 times the fuel, whats the difference.

I don't really have a warm fuzzy spot for diesel anymore than gassers, just trying to point out that some of the regs to keep them off of USA roads are kinda silly if you take everything into consideration.

If we are looking at homegrown fuels, how does bio diesel compare to ethanol?  I don't know the answer to that, but something to think about.


----------



## Delta-T (May 22, 2009)

ethanol is not a good choice for us simply because the "best" crops to grow to generate ethanol (sugar cane) won't grow in the mid-west without an aweful lot of help. Switch grass has potential here, but there has to be a leap in bio-chemical technology to make the conversion process faster and cheaper (enzymes to help convert a greater part of the plannt mass into sugar). Corn is pretty useless as an ethanol fuel crop, simply because of the lack of sugar (by weight) and the amount of energy it takes to grow corn. Last I heard it took 12-13 gallons of ethanol to drive a distillery to make 14-15 gallons of ethanol from corn, so not so much gain there. Sugar cane was far better at 4 gallons to make 15 gallons. It works for brazil, but they have sugar cane coming out there ears. Ethanol also has a higher Octane content than most gas here in the states, so to make it useful on a broad scale we need more engines with really high compression, or variable turbo or supercharger to account for different octane contents. I think.


----------



## Dune (May 22, 2009)

Sting said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for!!
> 
> Electric cars will have a (do have) a whole new drama in repair and up keep -
> some are simply crated  and shipped back to the hazardous waste sites of the third world as the batteries cannot be disposed of here. Mechanics suit up like line men wearing leather and plastic full body protection to shield themselves from DEATH caused by electrical discharge of the systems.



Electric cars do not require repairs to the exaust sytem, radiator and hoses, igniton system, fuel delivery system, piston and bore maintainence, oil and filter changes, tune ups etc. Electric motor bearing are cheap. Batteries used in Edisons cars, which once acounted for a third of all vehicles have been known to last for ever. They are not lead acid batteries as reported in this months issue of Discover magazine, but rather Nickel-Iron batteries, and remained in production in this country until 1973, at which time, their production was shipped to China (Russia also manufactures Ni-IR batts), where they are still manufactured to this day. There are presently electric cars which can travel in excess of 300 miles per charge. 
          As an aside please note that the exodus of the Edison Battery Company coincided with Nixons opening of trade to China, one of the first of many acts by Neo-cons to dismantle the manufacturing base (and general well-being) of our country.


----------



## Dune (May 22, 2009)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> Bring on the new nuke plants!


 Same argument, different day.


----------



## Dune (May 22, 2009)

d.n.f. said:
			
		

> We had a half day workshop on vehicle extrication for hybrids.  As a fire fighter they are a pain in the ass and can be extremely dangerous to emergency personal.



 Don't gas tanks in cars explode?


----------



## Dune (May 22, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> Do you guys not own anything that is battery powered.  Batteries especially the new lithium ions do not last nearly as long as people say.
> 
> Now lets look at efficiency.  Around here we burn coal for electricity.  It's dirty, and I don't know what their conversion efficiency is but there has to be alot of losses since they use turbines to generated it.  Then they send it to my house.  There are transmission losses.  Then I put it in a battery.  It takes power to shove energy into the battery.  Then if I don't drive the battery slowly discharges.  And now I'm driving a car that weighs alot more because I'm hauling around batteries.
> .



 Nice postulation. Next time check your facts however. Because of the economy of scale, an electric car, even charged by coal generated electricity, produces just a fraction of the emisions on an internal combustion engine driven car.


----------



## Dune (May 22, 2009)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> last I heard the overall efficiency of the internall combustion engine was below 50% (about on par with our electric grid).


 Actualy the best gasoline fired internal combustion engine's efficieny is only 20%. Deisels run at 30%. Kamen's now canceled stirling powered Think car, which was to be manufactured in Norway, and marketed to the burgeoning Chineese and Indian middle class could have acheived an only theoretical 50% efficiency, if it were not for friction. It is the massive inefficiency of internal combustion engines which makes their use in Co-Gen systems viable.


----------



## Dune (May 22, 2009)

mainemac said:
			
		

> karl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rowerwet (May 29, 2009)

so now obama  has added $1,300 to the cost of each new car (if you believe their math, more like 3k I think) and will be causing more deaths in car accidents (400 deaths per year for every 100 pounds of car you get rid of per the DOT) on top of the 3,000+ already caused each year by small cars, and we are supposed to celebrate? 
Also this will hurt our domestic car companies the worst as they have to acount for full size vans and pickups, as well as minivans in their CAFE fleet milage (what has to equal 35 MPG) the reason they are already on the ropes. 
I drive a small car by choice, my family rides in a large minivan, I wonder how much longer I will be able to keep them safe.


----------



## Delta-T (May 29, 2009)

i'm not sure any deaths are "caused by small cars". Maybe poor driving in a small car, or worse, being the victim of someone elses bad driving while driving in a small car. If safety in cars is going to ride solely on the objective stats of crash tests, number of air bags, and ABS, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble regardless of the size of the cars. That said, I DO feel much safer in a 1978 Caprice Classic (19 feet long, probably about 3500lbs) than i do in a Miata. We cannot continue down the path of oversized, overpowered, over indulgent vehicles just so we can maintain the status quo of "if you're gonna be hit by a drunk driver in an escalde you better be driving another escalde, or you'll be toast". Drivers kill people, not cars (although Herbie on a bad day, or Kit could be the exception). 

From the physics standpoint lighter cars need less HP, carry less momentum, have shorter breaking distances, and use less energy to operate. This "should" translate into greater safety...in the long run. Certainly helps if you have attentive drivers, who aren't drinking, applying lipstick, texting,reading, rifling through CD case, turning around to smack their kid, dressing or undressing, snorting coke, or thumb wrestling. There are plenty of small cars on the Autobahn cruising at 100+MPH that are statistically safer than same car going 55MPH in the US. Why? Those people have 2 hands on the wheel (white knuckled for many) and are focused on the fact that they are going 100+mph and ifyou mess things up someone will get hurt. 

I have a 15 minute drive to work and EVERY DAY I see some jacka$$ jocking for position between red lights like its race day. EVERY DAY I see someone staddling the lanes, unable to decide which lane is going where they are going. I see someone tailgating someone at 50MPH and someone reading the paper (no lie). I don't ever take notice of what type of vehicle they are driving to figure out if my car would be ok if they plow into me, I just create distance and pay MORE attention to whats going on. Thats how I make my car safer (and I still want a lighter car that gets better gas mileage....and a missle that shoots out from the license plate, thats so cool).


----------



## Gooserider (May 29, 2009)

Actually it's a mixed bag on braking distances...  Remember that kinetic energy (which you must get rid of to stop) is = Mass x Velocity *squared* - thus the major item is velocity, not speed...  In addition the stopping power limit is tire friction with the road surface, and lighter cars have less pressure on the road, thus less friction...  Yes, a car can stop faster than a truck, but not by huge amounts, especially as the speed goes up.  In the extreme, a motorcycle with a TRAINED rider can stop faster than a car, but again not by a huge distance.

Actual accident data and post crash reconstruction also says that despite all the "speed kills" propaganda, excess speed is fairly far down on the list of accident CAUSE factors (driver alcohol consumption, driver experience, licensing/training, are better predictors, and "driver error" is of course the largest single factor)  However, given that an accident has occurred, impact speed is far and above the biggest predictor of accident severity / injury levels - IOW, slowing down helps...

Also worth noting is that most of the legendary European autoways DO have speed limits these days, reports I've seen suggest most speeds are around 85 or so - still impressive.  Also there is probably less of a spread in vehicle sizes - most trucks and busses tend to be smaller than the US equivalents.  However Euro drivers tend to be MUCH more thoroughly trained and tested - they have more licensing levels based on vehicle size / type and testing / training requirements that are MUCH tougher than the standard US HS "Driver Ed" farce of watching gory movies, and learning how to parallel park...  This is a mixed bag from a freedom and economic standpoint, but it does seem to increase safety.

Gooserider
(a formerly certified Motorcycle Safety Instructor)


----------



## karl (May 31, 2009)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> d.n.f. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO!  Gasoline tanks don't normally explode.   Diesel tanks will explode.  To have an explosion  you need fuel vapors and oxygen.  Fuel vapors alone won't burn or explode.  Gasoline has a very low vapor pressure and when you put it in a tank, the fumes that come off of it quicky displace all of the oxygen.  This is in a vented tank, which car tanks are vented through the carbon canister.  Think of it this way.  The gasoline evaporates a little bit and the fumes push all of the oxygen out of the tank, so nothing in there can explode.  Diesel on the other hand has a higher vapor pressure and won't do this as readily.  I'm guessing a gasoline tank at 40 below or something might explode, just as a diesel tank at 100 plus degrees might not, but you get my point.

The big thing no one has mentioned is the CO2 created to make these biofuels.  We can't too much CO2 coming out of our car exhausts now, but we can create tons of it fermenting stuff to make the fuel.  That's just stupid


----------



## karl (May 31, 2009)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> karl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude I live in coal country.  I have alot of friends who rely on it to make a living.  I certainly hope it doesn't go away for their sake, but it is the most nasty fuel you will ever encounter period.  If you don't believe me, come to West Virginia and I'll take you on a tour of coal country.  I'll take you to the four big coal powerplants around here.  It's not as bad as when I was a kid and they have since put scrubbers on the plants, but it is still bad.  I remember barren fields for a few miles east of all of the plants (We have westerly winds here).  The exhaust from those plants spewed pollutants to the point nothing would grow on the east side of a plant.  Even now it's nasty.  Come on down.  We'll have a picnic a few miles east of one of those things on a nice windless day and I'll watch your eyes start watering in a hour or two.  I'll show you creeks that have such a sulphur smell you won't go near them.  Actually, they have done alot to clean up the burning of coal, but the mining of it and the disposal of the toxic ash from burning the stuff is still really bad.

Take a look at the pics and tell me if you would swim in that.


----------



## drizler (May 31, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Actually it's a mixed bag on braking distances...  Remember that kinetic energy (which you must get rid of to stop) is = Mass x Velocity *squared* - thus the major item is velocity, not speed...  In addition the stopping power limit is tire friction with the road surface, and lighter cars have less pressure on the road, thus less friction...  Yes, a car can stop faster than a truck, but not by huge amounts, especially as the speed goes up.  In the extreme, a motorcycle with a TRAINED rider can stop faster than a car, but again not by a huge distance.
> 
> Actual accident data and post crash reconstruction also says that despite all the "speed kills" propaganda, excess speed is fairly far down on the list of accident CAUSE factors (driver alcohol consumption, driver experience, licensing/training, are better predictors, and "driver error" is of course the largest single factor)  However, given that an accident has occurred, impact speed is far and above the biggest predictor of accident severity / injury levels - IOW, slowing down helps...
> 
> ...



I haven't seen any speed restrictions on the autobahns in Bavaria at least.   You can go as fast as you like though most seem to like 80 - 85 as a good compromise  between gas mileage  and time.   The vehicle sizes run the spectrum just like here.  Get plowed in your Fiat 500 by a Mercedes or Volvo and you will pay dearly just like over here and they have plenty of sport Utes everywhere.   The big thing I always noticed on the Autobahn is the speed differentials.  Tractor trailers and all large truck in Germany are limited to 50 MPH.  Put that out on the road with some looneytoon driving a Porsche Carrera at 150 no problem.  It's when another guy has to pass the truck that it gets interesting with a rear closure speed of 100+ MPH.   That moving speck in the rear view mirror right below the "objects are closer than they look" or whatever that stamp is are moving like a bullet.  There aren't that many of those guys out there so  encounters like that are rare enough to take you by surprise.   I once had a Porsche go by me so fast in an empty van that it actually lifted me slightly and it sounded and felt like I got hit on the rear end with a sledge hammer, not fun at all.  Personally I don't like driving over 100 as you are working all the time and watching so far ahead that it is just not worth the continual effort.  Throw some traffic in and why even bother with it all, just slow down they drive fast enough anyways
  It still galls me that everyone over there has 6 speeds while here they are just catching on here.  Mercedes had 4 speed auto's back in the 70's and they were playing with airbags and ABS then too.  I doubt you will see any super inventiveness coming out of the US in regards to automobiles anymore.  There might be plenty of inventiveness but when you throw in the drag of top down micromanagement and governmet meddling it all bogs down.................


----------



## Dune (May 31, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> Dunebilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Karl, thanks for responding. I couldn't agree with you more about biofuel. My first post outside the boiler room was on just that topic. Wish I had the ability to post a link to it, it was a firestorm that went on for many pages. In just a few short months, some of those posters have changed their tunes, which is good. Others just don't seem to come around too often, which is bad. If my opionated, passionate writing style drove them away, I am deeply sorry. It just seems to me that we are facing a crisis of epic proportion, of which many citizens of even our relatively educated country are in deep denial or complete ignorance thereof.

The bottom line is this though. The powers that be, so far, have done little to actualy end our dependence upon foriegn oil or decrease Greenhouse Gas emmisions, except in miniscule self defeating ways which only enrich themselves or their best contributers.  Half measures such as hybrid cars, most of which actuly get LESS  m.p.g. than a V.W. diesel, only delay the inevitable nesassary swicth to electric cars(and trucks-at least local delivery), charged by solar panels or other means which utilize NO fossil fuels, such as Hydro, Wind, Tidal current, Waste Vegatable Oil, Geothermal, and Solar Thermal. The undisputible truth is that anyone who lives in a house could charge their electric car from solar panels on the roof of their house. Worst case scenario, one who lives in a condo, or apartment and is one of the fifty percent of the country to still receive electricty from Coal fired plants, still is responsible for less CO2 output, than one driving a Hybrid


----------



## Hakusan (May 31, 2009)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> karl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As usual, it will be individuals to show our leaders the way. Unfortunately, most renewable technology require high capital costs--I simply cannot afford most of the technology I would gladly use. This prevents me from charging my imaginary electric from solar panels I cannot afford. However, I am not resigned to defeat, I do what I can. But until this technology becomes affordable for the average citizen, then the transformation of our society will not be possible.

I believe renewable energy can do for power distribution what the internet did for computing. Imagine every household tied into the grid producing enough power where the need for centralized power generation as we know it is unnecessary. I would like local power cooperatives to spring up in the US and around the world in the way they work in Denmark.


----------



## rowerwet (May 31, 2009)

of course having PV (solar) cells on everyones roof would be great, except for the fact that as as far as I know the energy required to produce the cells is equal to or a little less than the energy extracted during their lifetime. and the manufacturing process is not so eco-friendly, just like the horrible damage created by the manufacturing and disposal of batteries for hybrid cars. It just moves the mess to canada, china, and india, (same as the argument against nukes, it puts the impact in your back yard instead of WV, TN, PA, and other redneck areas)


----------



## Hakusan (May 31, 2009)

rowerwet said:
			
		

> of course having PV (solar) cells on everyones roof would be great, except for the fact that as as far as I know the energy required to produce the cells is equal to or a little less than the energy extracted during their lifetime. and the manufacturing process is not so eco-friendly, just like the horrible damage created by the manufacturing and disposal of batteries for hybrid cars. It just moves the mess to canada, china, and india, (same as the argument against nukes, it puts the impact in your back yard instead of WV, TN, PA, and other redneck areas)



I would like to see the source of this information. Can you cite the source?


----------



## rowerwet (May 31, 2009)

the source is old, I read it back in the early 90's in one of my dads engeneering magazines, according to wikipedia the current energy production is equal to the consumed energy after 1-4 years or so depending on effeciency, a PV cell should last 25 years up to 35. Of course the effeciency is effected by how much sun you get, up here in ME during the winter the angle of the sun won't give very good power, 33% efficiency is normal today, some experimental cells get up to 40.8% but that is under lab conditions with 326 times the sun input of light. the cheap plastic cells can have efficiency of only5% (like the garden lights from wallyworld) 
   Solar still will require the grid to make up for heavy loads like AC, and night, when all those plug in cars will be plugged in. You still run into the energy storage density to weight problem, there still isn't a storage density better than diesel or gas for transportation, why don't we focus on the remaining 80% of fuel usage on heat and power instead of the very costly and mostly unhelpful transportation "improvements".
I still think we should follow the french and go with 60+% nuke electricity, a win for those of us who want energy independence, and for those who believe in carbon slavery.


----------



## Dune (May 31, 2009)

rowerwet said:
			
		

> the source is old, I read it back in the early 90's in one of my dads engeneering magazines, according to wikipedia the current energy production is equal to the consumed energy after 1-4 years or so depending on effeciency, a PV cell should last 25 years up to 35. Of course the effeciency is effected by how much sun you get, up here in ME during the winter the angle of the sun won't give very good power, 33% efficiency is normal today, some experimental cells get up to 40.8% but that is under lab conditions with 326 times the sun input of light. the cheap plastic cells can have efficiency of only5% (like the garden lights from wallyworld)
> 
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.
> ...




When and if this is ever possible again, it would probaby be a good idea. That day is far away and extremely unlikely however.


----------



## karl (Jun 1, 2009)

The problem is Obama and the liberals are hell bent on going with biofuel and electric cars, even if it's not the best way to do it.  In 2003 George Bush started the hydrogen fuel initiative.  Six years later most every major manufacturer has a hydrogen car.  Honda is delivering about 200 of them a year to people in southern California where there are refueling stations.  Obama just cut funding to it.  Why waste more time and money developing a product when we have one now that will reduce pollution.

Another thing they don't tell is that we can't pump alcohol based fuels in our gasoline pipelines.  It's too corrosive.  Even the 10% ethanol that is in gasoline now is added at the distribution centers and not the refineries.  So you can't use the argument that we don't have the means to distribute hydrogen, when we don't have the means to distribute alcohol either.


I read an interesting article online.  The guy posted his math too.  I half way followed his math, enough to tell he wasn't making something up.  Did you know that our paved roads are only 3% reflective to ultraviolet light?  If we could add a coating of some sort to get the UV reflectivity up to 85%, we would bounce more heat from the Sun back out of our atomosphere than all of the heat generated by all of the electricity we use in the United States.  If it's about global warming then why not to this and not change our life styles.

Did you know that PETG the plastic that Soda bottles are made out of can be easily broken down into gasoline?  China has mini plants all over their country that turn waste plastic into gasoline.   They also have a few megaplants that turn the waste plastic they buy from us into gasoline.  They get about a gallon of gasoline out of 9 pounds of plastic.

Something is going on with our leaders, but I don't think they are doing what they're doing for the sake of the Earth.  They have to have some other motive.  Too much stuff they're doing doesn't make sense.


----------



## Dune (Jun 1, 2009)

I have serious problems with this entire premise. To start with, do you realise that almost all of our energy comes from the Sun? The Sun is the source of most of our energy, including heat. Oil, coal, natural gas, firewood, and wind power are all directly derived from sunlight, which hits the earth with an average intensity of 1000 watts per square meter. It is for this reason the photvoltaic and solar thermal energy makes sense. The Earth is constantly bombarded with solar energy, more than enough to provide abundant mountsf energy for every human being. We can either utilize this energy or we can allow those same electrons to warm the Earth. Reflecting them back into space so you don't have to "change your lifestyle" is not nessasary. If you don't like dirty coal plants(let me assure you, I am not in favor of burning coal, either, for a variety of reasons)then how can you be against solar energy?
As far as hydrogen goes, please look into this more. I think you will find that the Bush plan for hydrogen involved deriving hydrogen from petroleum, for a net gain of... nothing. If you are going to split hydrogen from oil, you may as well burn gasoline, whether it is made from plastic bottles (oil), or oil. Clean hydrogen can ONLY be made from water (H2O). The reason this is not yet viable is that the energy needed to bust hydrogen from water is more expensive than the value of the hydrogen produced. This is due to a law of physics known as Conservation of Matter.  The Bush hydrogen economy , unfortunately, was a scam, a feel good measure intended only to muddy the waters and continue our irational dependence on oil. 
If you actualy want to burn hydrogen in cars, and still have your exxon-mobil shares continue to pay dividends forever, then convince them to become ENERGY companies instead of oil companies. If the big oil companies were to build massive thermal-solar plants. with some of their abundant profits, they could eventualy use electricity with no fuel cost(the key to a hydrogen economy) to spit water into hydrogen, and sell the hydrogen at their already extensive distribution networks.


----------



## Gooserider (Jun 1, 2009)

You know, sometimes I find it very frustrating being a Libertarian...  Philosophically I am very much opposed to compulsory schooling, yet every time I hear someone spouting about the "wonders of Hydrogen as a fuel," or how "Solar power will solve the energy crisis" I find myself really wishing there was some entity that could force them back into school for some serious remedial education, since they obviously didn't get it the first time around...

Start with elementary math...  A BIG solar project is a few megawatt capacity, ditto a wind farm...  However when building a smallish power plant, they are usually talking on the order of HUNDREDS of megawatts, if not more...  Even a really big power plant will fit on a site that is only a few acres - but figure the land requirements for even a ONE megawatt solar facility - using the hypothetically perfect panel (which doesn't exist, standard commercial panels are actually around 17-18% - or 170 watts of electric output per 1,000 watts of solar input) The previous poster claimed 1,000W per square meter - so you would need ONE THOUSAND square meters per megawatt, just for collector area, not counting space for service access, space between panels, etc... If you go back to reality, and use todays figures, five or six times that amount.  There are 4,047 square meters per acre, so about 1.5 acres per Megawatt, just for the collectors.  

In our town, we are currently having a battle over an effort to build a small "peaking" power plant - "Only" 348 megawatts capacity...  To do that with solar, about 500 acres minimum - the proposed site for this fossil fuel plant - less than 10...  But that 500 acre solar plant would only make the 348mw PEAK production i.e. you get far less if it's raining, and NOTHING when the sun goes down - the fossil plant can make its full advertised output anytime it needs to...

How many square miles do you want to dedicate to solar panels? - And how are you going to get those acres away from all the other people that want to "preserve the open spaces" and so on...

Slightly more advanced math...  Orders of Magnitude...  Current solar capacity? a tiny fraction of a percent...  But installed capacity is growing rapidly...  Under the most ambitious of gov't subsidized (because it doesn't make economic sense without the subsidies, and even with them isn't that great) programs, in ten years we might get to ONE percent of current grid capacity...  Of course those same gov't projections say that we will need to increase our total capacity by 20-30% over the same period of time...  Sounds like installed solar is going to stay at the fraction of one percent range for the forseeable future...

Wind has similar numbers, both in terms of production scale, and in terms of it's growth rate.

Now Hydrogen needs a bit of Physics 101, and perhaps a touch of chemistry, but mostly the laws of thermodynamics....

First, the chemistry...  In simple terms the Hydrogen concept is contained in the equation:  Water + Energy in = Hydrogen (and oxygen which is usually thrown away), followed by moving the hydrogen to someplace else, and then reversing the equation to get: Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water plus Energy out....  Doesn't really matter what the trimmings are, how you perform the reactions, etc., the bottom line is always that equation.

But, no matter how good the extraction process is, you can NEVER get more potential energy out of the system as Hydrogen than you put into the process, even in the best theoretically perfect system.  In actual practice, our conversions are FAR from perfect, so it takes a LOT more energy input than what you will get for hydrogen out....

Then you have to move the hydrogen someplace else...  that takes yet more energy - and the nature of hydrogen makes the process of moving it worse from an energy perspective than just about any other fuel...  NONE of our existing pipe infrastructure can handle hydrogen - the ONLY way we can move it is to put it in a container, then carry the container around...  But hydrogen is bulky stuff - even liquefied (a process that takes MORE energy BTW) it still takes a lot of volume per unit of energy - so you need a lot more containers than you do liquid fuels, or even fossil gasses.  Ignoring the weight of the containers (and a hydrogen container needs more strength than most others, thus more money to make it, and more energy to move it) just the larger number of containers boosts the energy cost of transport...

Finally you get to burn or otherwise try to get your energy back out of the hydrogen...  Once again, those nasty laws of thermodynamics pop up - you can't get more useable energy out of the hydrogen than it had to start with, and in actual practice will get a lot less...

So hydrogen loses energy at EVERY step along the way, and this is supposed to be good?  Where did the extra energy come from?  The fraction of a percent of installed capacity solar systems?  The fraction of a percent of installed capacity wind systems?  Or perhaps some of those inefficient fossil fuel systems?

Net energy output of delivered hydrogen makes alcohol look like a GOOD fuel...  

Remember that for all their negatives, fossil fuels deliver MORE energy at the point of use than it took to get them TO the point of use....

If you don't get that result, then you have less energy in the end than what you started with.

In essence, to get an energy benefit from hydrogen, you need to get a physical break through of the same sort that would produce a perpetual motion machine...

And at least some of us learned about those in school the FIRST time around...

Gooserider


----------



## Hakusan (Jun 1, 2009)

FYI: a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine:

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/index.htm

Can you please show the math showing that it takes less energy than a gallon of gas will produce to get a gallon of gas to me from an oil field.


----------



## Dune (Jun 1, 2009)

Hey Gooserider, good to here from you. From what I understand, true libertarians don't get out much. 

Did you read what I said? I was trying to convince the other poster that the hydrogen economy is not practical, which is why President Obama stopped funding it.

As to your dismisal of solar thermal (not photovoltaic as you infered), kindly google solar thermal plants under construction in U.S. 
There, if you are so inclined, you will read about solar thermal plants either under constrution or lisenced on the order of 8.5 GIGA-watts, with a total of 14.5 GIGA-watts scheduled to come online by 2014. Remember that number (giga) from school? Thats a lot of zeros.

Yes real estate is pretty pricey here in Mass, but it is still a big world, and much of it is populated much less densely than here.
 By the way, the roof of my house is 2000 sq ft. How many watts is that? More than I use every day? thats what I thought. It is past my bed time, or I would start telling you about my latest perpetu...oops I mean design.


----------



## Dune (Jun 1, 2009)

Hakusan said:
			
		

> FYI: a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine:
> 
> http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/index.htm
> 
> Can you please show the math showing that it takes less energy than a gallon of gas will produce to get a gallon of gas to me from an oil field.



Not likely.


----------



## webbie (Jun 1, 2009)

Goose, no doubt many conventional power plants are small. But how much coal does it take to keep 'em fueled? That coal and the railroad that brings it, and the ash left over and the air pollution (causing sickness and death) has to all be taken into account. I know Libertarians believe in paying the TRUE cost of things, and would be amazed if they felt fine when the mess (coal) was created somewhere else.

As to wind farms, we just put up a 1.5 MW here in Portsmouth RI. The plans are for dozens if not eventually hundreds out in the sound. That is a lot of power. 

No one with any math skills thinks we can instantly change our fuel base. But we can move to bridge fuel (nat gas) while cleaning up older coal and oil plants AND make sure that going forward we use wind, solar, biomass and other locally available fuels when possible.

BTW, solar THERMAL plants in the Southwest and Israel are just now passing the 100 MEGAWATT size. They generate electricity for rates competitive with other fuels.
Mirrors are made of SAND. The plants sit in deserts. What's not to like?

As a talking point, it would take 90 miles square of desert plants in the southwest to provide electric for the ENTIRE USA.

I would venture to say that all the coal mining, uranium mining, waste, oil pumping and other things we do today to generate that electric end up screwing up a LOT more land than that, AND land which has a much higher value (take a good tour of KY coal mines some time).


----------



## WoodMann (Jun 1, 2009)

This is all great news. However, I think the push, novelty, scare- whatever ya call it has worn off. I remember back in Jr High and early High school everyone thought we were running outta natural gas, thus the run for solar heating was on and every flower child was driving a Subaru wagon. But here some 28 years later I see those same flower children that claimed the sky was falling driving around in Nissan Muran's, porsche cheyenne and Lexus RX10's. Sure there's a few die hard individuals upholding the cause buzzing around in their Smat Car once in awhile to be seen in. My how things have changed..................


----------



## webbie (Jun 1, 2009)

Somewhat true, WM, which is why we cannot rely on consumer behavior alone to create our energy decisions for us.
An anti-libertarian stance, but I think some things are too big and important to be left completely to the vulgarities of the marketplace. There must be some planning and forethought since these things (movements toward conservation, etc.) take a LOT of time and companies are unlikely to invest in them if we are gonna see $1.00 oil next month


----------



## karl (Jun 1, 2009)

You guys should really read up on hydrogen production.  You all are refering to electrolysis and stating that is takes more energy to crack the water than  you get in return from the hydrogen.  This isn't true anymore.  With the use of catylsts they are able to crack it with much less energy.  Still electrolysis is not the best way.  There are nuclear power plants that can generate hydrogen instead of electricty.  You generate the electricity in the day time when you need peak power and generate the hydrogen when the plant would normallly idle down some.  There are many more ways of producing hydrogen now than there were just a few years ago. One allows you to generate it on the spot from water.  Here's the link.

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html


----------



## Jags (Jun 1, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> .....when the plant would normallly idle down some.



Hmmm....it was always my understanding that the nuke reactors were kept at 100% unless shutdown completely.  Thats why peaker plants were designed to go online/offline at the snap of a finger, to take up the peak loads and shut down when they are not needed.

I am not disputing the fact that nuke power is a good fuel to create hydrogen, just that my understanding of reactors tell my that they don't grab a knob on the wall an dim the output.  The same zoomies are present at all times, its how much the control rods allow to live or absorb that adjusts the reaction output.  Dunno.


----------



## karl (Jun 2, 2009)

Jags said:
			
		

> karl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


''

A reactor can be controlled but it's not done easily or quickly.  The point is the reactor generates heat and we can use that heat to turn steam turbines or we can use the heat to do thermocracking of water to get hydrogen and oxygen.  Right now during low peak hours, the reactors generate the heat but it's not used.  It spins the turbines and all but they don't extract electricity out of it because they dont need it.


----------



## rowerwet (Jun 3, 2009)

GE is working on a "filter" that at the high temps present in nuclear plants will seperate the hydrogen and oxygen. The "filter" has a catalyst that causes the reaction. (from a company magazine from GE back when my dad worked for them) There is also the possibility of using square wave pulse electrolosis, instead of constant current like most of us saw in chemistry class, (it is the root of stanley meyers water fueled car idea) you pulse electric current at the harmonic frequency of a water molecule, from what I have read about his work (oh yeah, he was killed? and his patents bought up by big oil for all of you conspiracy types)
of course if you believe what his followers say we don't need any more oil at all, all you get is water vapor from the exhaust. (wait! water vapor is one of the biggest "green house gasses")


----------



## Dune (Jun 5, 2009)

WoodMann said:
			
		

> This is all great news. However, I think the push, novelty, scare- whatever ya call it has worn off. I remember back in Jr High and early High school everyone thought we were running outta natural gas, thus the run for solar heating was on and every flower child was driving a Subaru wagon. But here some 28 years later I see those same flower children that claimed the sky was falling driving around in Nissan Muran's, porsche cheyenne and Lexus RX10's. Sure there's a few die hard individuals upholding the cause buzzing around in their Smat Car once in awhile to be seen in. My how things have changed..................



Oil is on it'ts way up again.


----------



## Der Fuirmeister (Jun 6, 2009)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> As a talking point, it would take 90 miles square of desert plants in the southwest to provide electric for the ENTIRE USA.



That's a very simplistic statement.  Could you present the supporting documentation?  How would you propose to solve the problem presented every evening?  And the distribution of that solar power from the desert 2500 miles to the East Coast?  

I've spent the past few minutes reading this topic.  Now that the power production / distribution problems have been solved, let me ask if anyone posting here is an electrical engineer?  Anyone ever worked in a power plant of any kind?  I've worked in the electrical construction industry for 34 years.  Our company has installed generators at base load plants.  We've worked on peak shaving projects etc.  Anyone here ever been inside a windmill?  I have.  Two weeks ago I went in an old noisy 1.5 MW design built about 10 years ago.  Much quieter than a Coal or Gas plant.  The new generation 3 MW type windmills that went up 2 miles from our shop cannot be heard until you are less than 200 yards from them.  And when we are around windmills they don't require us to sign liability waivers for health hazards such as mercury like they do at coal plants.  If you are the gambling type, put your money on windmills, geothermal and nuclear.  China signed an agreement in 2007 to purchase 4 AP1000 nuclear power plants from Westinghouse and has plans to have 100 in operation by 2020.

The hurtles are numerous and the solutions are just as varied.  And, if you want electric cars, build more power plants.  It will make you feel warm and fuzzy, and we appreciate the work.  At least we're burning North American derived fuels at the plants vs. sending our money to the middle east or the Venezuelan dictator for crude oil.  

Solar energy is much more suitable on an individual basis for hot water at a home than for electrical energy on a large scale.


----------



## Delta-T (Jun 6, 2009)

90 square miles of perfectly good roof tops probably already exist, and then you dont necessarily have to worry so much about a long distance transmission. Solar voltaic today isn't the best thing since sliced bread but, it does have some of the greatest potential for improvement over the next decade. Materials engineering is advancing rapidly and solar stands to gain the most (currently its not so efficient, so by default, it has a lot of improvemnt potential). The argument that solar is useless at night can be rebutted with the observation that in the southwest a good number of windmills don't turn until the afternoon when the cooler air starts to roll down the mountains (at sea things are different, i know). Once we can get PV to be cost effective and widespead its hard for the NIMBY's to fight it. I personally like windmills. They look cool. I think 400 acres of multi-colored windmills would be a sight to behold, alas, I think i will never see such a sight (seems white is awfully popular).


----------



## Dune (Jun 6, 2009)

Der Fiur Meister said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://tinyurl.com/cykf7v


----------



## John_M (Jun 6, 2009)

"...Obama's a dumbass..." C'mon Karl, I would judge from your writing that you are much smarter than your statement indicates. Obama received his Bachelor of Laws and Doctor of Laws degrees from Harvard University. He was editor of the "Harvard Law Review". He taught Constitutional law at the very prestegious University of Chicago. His ability to dissect and understand problems while searching for best solutions and his ability to speak have been described as "brilliant" by many who study presidents.  

You might disagree with some decisions he has made, as I do. You might dislike him. You might disagree with his policies on energy, the military, the economy, healthcare, and the whole host of other issues he is currently tackling. You might even believe he is the worst President in the history of our often times great Republic; but a "dumbass" he is not. You do yourself a disservice by saying he is. 

Best wishes, 

John_M


----------



## rowerwet (Jun 7, 2009)

New info on solar (to me anyway) we can't build enough PV cells in this country to help, the EPA (another strand in americas choke leash) won't let enough silicon be made to support the building of new plants for PV production, instead India, and China are building plants to produce PV thanks to our idiotic regulations. So we are going to save our selves from foriegn oil by buying foriegn PV cells, and wind, (even though both have their dead times) while we help the U.A.E set up nukes, and the current brain trust in DC thinks Iran needs nukes also. (even though both are sitting on huge amounts of NG and crude, but we can't build our own nukes)


----------



## Dune (Jun 7, 2009)

rowerwet said:
			
		

> New info on solar (to me anyway) we can't build enough PV cells in this country to help, the EPA (another strand in americas choke leash) won't let enough silicon be made to support the building of new plants for PV production, instead India, and China are building plants to produce PV thanks to our idiotic regulations. So we are going to save our selves from foriegn oil by buying foriegn PV cells, and wind, (even though both have their dead times) while we help the U.A.E set up nukes, and the current brain trust in DC thinks Iran needs nukes also. (even though both are sitting on huge amounts of NG and crude, but we can't build our own nukes)



First of all any amount helps.
Second, regardless of where it is made, it still helps.
Third, are you talking about silicon carbide? Different animal.
Fourth, Where did you get this info? I couldn't find it. 
Fith, Photo-voltiac is just one of many methods of reducing dependence upon foriegn oil.
Sixth, The present administration has little or no controll over siting new Nukes in this country, and in fact, Obama's new head of the EPA is highly in favor of them. The reasons new Nukes are not being built are entirely practical, not political.


----------



## DBoon (Jun 7, 2009)

I've read this thread for the first time just now...

It has struck me how many people are advocating a limited range of options.  In fact, if the "problem" is defined either as too much CO2 or too much dependence on foreign fuel sources, or more electricity for transportation, then we need nearly every option - no one option will work or work fast enough.   Anything done today will be based on what is known and proven today, not what was just published in some technical publication last week.  It takes a lot of time to bring technologies to market on a mass-produced, reliable basis.  

For the record, the overall US efficiency of turning a fossil fuel into a delivered kWh is ~40%.  Others have reported on combustion efficiency of automobile engines.  Overall, I agree with their assessment (gas ~20%, diesel ~30%). 

Also, at any given moment in time, a kWh generated must be consumed.  Demand must be balanced exactly.  Utilities can play around a little with voltage variations to balance generation with demand, but at some point, they have to increase or decrease generation.  It's a tricky balance.  Therefore, they have "base load" sources (run all the time) and "peak load" sources (run just when needed).  With solar/wind, they now have "intermittent" sources.  

Nuclear - currently ~20% of US electricity production.  A good "base load" (not peaking) source.  Need to double it, but that would require 100 new nuclear plants.  Currently there are "talks" about 2-5 in the next 10 years.  What happens when the current ones are shut down?  It makes me laugh when the northern NY City metro area citizens want to "shut down" the nuclear plant there - who else is going to produce the 2000 MWh that that produces?  We need to keep the current plants open and open a lot more than 2-5 more in the next 10 years.  The reality is that there has not been a lot of new nuclear construction in the last 30 years, so there is not a lot of capacity available to manufacture the specialized parts needed to ramp construction up today.  It will take 10+ years to do this. 

Coal - hard to see it going away completely, but we shouldn't build new plants with current dirty and inefficient technology.  If someone wants a new coal plant, it should only be the most efficient and clean (SO2, NOx, Mercury emissions) plant we can get - no more obscenely dirty coal, and then only to replace an existing dirtier coal plant that will be shut down as it is "replaced".  We need to find a way to "scrub" the emissions of not just mercury and sulfur, but also CO2.  Maybe we can use the CO2 from these plants to grow algae to turn into biodiesel (not out of the question, and being discussed, but it won't happen in the next 25 years either).   

Natural Gas - Fairly clean, and at the right price, there is plenty here in the US.  Can be somewhat dirty to extract, depending on the location.  A good fuel for peaking power plants since a natural gas generation plant can be brought on-line quickly in response to demand changes.   Not cheap.   Note that the "right price" isn't what the price is today, but about 3x today's price.  Something to think about. 

Hydro - The only "green" renewable that can be controlled, somewhat.  Unlikely to grow in MW generating size in the future. 

Solar/Wind - Intermittent, so need to be supplemented with non-intermittent sources (see Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas).  The Smart Grid needs to be developed to support the channeling of intermittent power sources to loads that can take advantage of it, and to shut off loads that can allow interruption as a way to "smooth" out variations in demand.   We should keep adding as we can, and the ~30% yearly growth in these areas will compound quickly.  The key to making these a bigger part of the mix is not to allow more coal-based production to be added, and as demand is reduced, close the most polluting power plants.  

Conservation - Yes, you can reduce demand, and we should work aggressively to do this.   I hate the use of anecdotes to prove a point, but since everyone else seems to be using one, I'll use one also.  My wife and I use electricity for lighting and appliances, have an electric hot water heater, a clothesline for clothes drying, and an electric range/stove.  We use <400 kWh/month for everything.  My father-in-law lives alone in a similar sized house and he uses electricity for lighting and appliances, heats his hot water with oil, uses a clothesline, and has a propane range/stove.  He uses 400 kWh/month also, but he doesn't have the hot water load we have (200 kWh/month) or the range/stove load either!  We have similar quality of life (i.e. my wife and I don't bump into walls in a dark house eating spoiled food from a 55 degree fridge), but he uses 4x as much electricity as us (1 person versus two people, and twice the usage for similar things).  I think we represent two ends of the extreme, but it shows you what is out there and available for demand reduction.  

So I'll probably piss off all the greens who are rah rah solar and wind only (won't work, ever), and the "there is no choice but the path we have been on for 50 years" believers won't like what they read above either.  The fact is, the era of 5 cent/kWh electricity is over because the era of cheap fossil fuels is over, and nobody in their right mind would ever want to live near a coal plant or coal ash dump (yes, I've seen both, and they are not pretty or healthy).   All the options above will increase kWh electricity costs.  Your costs can be mitigated through more efficient use of electricty (see example above), but anyone expecting a return to the cheap costs of the past is not facing current realities.   This is not something that we can control.  

So, for the record, my personal "goal" is no fossil fuel use for heating, and on-site generation of all electricity that is needed by my household (incl. transportation).  Am I there today?  No.  Am I making progress?  Yes, slowly - first through new appliances and insulation and conservation, next through a wood stove, with plans for solar panels in the future.  And in the meantime, I'm supporting wind power through purchase of wind/hydro energy through my local utillity.  I'd like to depend on fossil fuels and nuclear for none of my energy needs, but I don't think I represent the "typical" US citizen, and the solution should be crafted with them in mind, and not me.


----------



## Hakusan (Jun 7, 2009)

DBoon said:
			
		

> So, for the record, my personal "goal" is no fossil fuel use for heating, and on-site generation of all electricity that is needed by my household (incl. transportation).  Am I there today?  No.  Am I making progress?  Yes, slowly - first through new appliances and insulation and conservation, next through a wood stove, with plans for solar panels in the future.  And in the meantime, I'm supporting wind power through purchase of wind/hydro energy through my local utillity.  I'd like to depend on fossil fuels and nuclear for none of my energy needs, but I don't think I represent the "typical" US citizen, and the solution should be crafted with them in mind, and not me.



Good for you. I am right behind you. What would happen to our power equation if the majority of households and businesses around the country produced their own energy, even in part of their needed consumption. 

You are right, the solution is not an all or nothing problem. We need to use multiple sources of power. This is the brilliance of the Prius. Toyota could not make a 100% electric car, but instead of simply giving up, they made a 50% electric. (GM took that and made a Hybrid Yukon, which was a stupid idea and application of technology.) And changing our energy habits is a big piece of the puzzle--no point in heating with wood and then not insulating the building.

Naturally, if the lead singer of one of the best hardcore bands of the 80s can be resurrected, our energy problem should be easily solved. (The naysayers are just a Flock of Seagulls.)


----------



## Dune (Jun 7, 2009)

DBoon said:
			
		

> Also, at any given moment in time, a kWh generated must be consumed.  Demand must be balanced exactly.  Utilities can play around a little with voltage variations to balance generation with demand, but at some point, they have to increase or decrease generation.  It's a tricky balance.
> 
> Major thremal-solar plants incorperate storage into their design. An example of this is heat stored in molten salt at 1050F. Not theory, fact. This heat is then used to make steam as needed. Please also note that solar produces when demand is greatest anyway.
> 
> ...




Glad to hear it. Mine is a similar goal. Heat from wood only. This year I should generate more electricity than I use, from a 25,000 watt diesel gen-set, burning vegatable oil (free so far) and heating the home and workshop on the days I run it. For the eventuality that I will no longer be able to get vegatable oil, I am building a wood chip gassifier. Hopefully, by the time I can no longer aquire wood chips, I will have sufficient Solar-Thermal capacity. Will we eliminate the grid in this fashion? No. Can we reduce CO2 emisions and reliance upon foriegn oil, Yes.


----------



## Hakusan (Jun 7, 2009)

Anyone use a wood-burning steam engine as a backup generator?


----------



## rowerwet (Jun 7, 2009)

In most states to use steam you would need a steam engener license, the tecnology is there but a practical application would be very expensive and ineffecient. I have friend at church who is making his own steam engine for his backyard train set, due to the small size of the "live" steam (based on cubic feet) he doesn't need all the licenses and inspections. If you want to make a steam engine the size of the a 2 footer (Maine narrow guage railway has trains that run on 2' spread of rail) you need an operators license, and repetitive inspections of the pressurized area of live steam with an ultrasonic inspection. 
There are some ways of getting around all this hassle by using other "steam" substitutes, if you look into those rare guys who still run small steam launches you will find those who use another system (don't recal how it operates, but they get around most of the regs this way) 
Beside all that bother I am not sure how much wood you would need to burn to produce enough steam to make enough electricity, very few trains were run on wood for just that reason, unless you were running for a wood camp, the density of coal, and the heat generated meant you burned many more times the amount of wood.


----------



## Dune (Jun 7, 2009)

Hakusan said:
			
		

> Anyone use a wood-burning steam engine as a backup generator?



If you are interested in this, check out the Phoenix Turbine Builders Club.  Plenty of info there.
http://tinyurl.com/q2nwnz 

I love being able to post links finaly. Thanks Craig!


----------



## karl (Jun 7, 2009)

John_M said:
			
		

> "...Obama's a dumbass..." C'mon Karl, I would judge from your writing that you are much smarter than your statement indicates. Obama received his Bachelor of Laws and Doctor of Laws degrees from Harvard University. He was editor of the "Harvard Law Review". He taught Constitutional law at the very prestegious University of Chicago. His ability to dissect and understand problems while searching for best solutions and his ability to speak have been described as "brilliant" by many who study presidents.
> 
> You might disagree with some decisions he has made, as I do. You might dislike him. You might disagree with his policies on energy, the military, the economy, healthcare, and the whole host of other issues he is currently tackling. You might even believe he is the worst President in the history of our often times great Republic; but a "dumbass" he is not. You do yourself a disservice by saying he is.
> 
> ...



My sister scored a 36 on the ACT, and she worked at a wholesale bank doing risk anylisis on deratives.  She also speaks 5 languages.  And not easy ones either.  Lanugages like cantonese.  Anyway, I say the same thing about her.

The energy problem has been largely solved in other parts of the world.  They have proven and effective means of generating energy in an environmentally way, and in using it wisely.  In the U.S. we don't generated it cleanly, in most cases, and we don't us it wisely.  Now Obama wants to DEVELOP clean forms of energy and spur conservation.  Why should we waste time and money developing new technologies when there are existing technologies that can be used now?  If he is as smart as you say, he's sure not showing it in his decision making.


----------



## Dune (Jun 7, 2009)

Come on Karl. In the U.S., we are energy pigs. Big Auto and Big Oil have gone to bat with massive lobby
 operations for decades to keep it that way. You can't blame Obama for that. Bush II was like an ostrich in response to most of the problems we are facing today.
What Obama wants to develop is a manufacturing base for clean energy sources. Are you against manufacturing also?


----------



## Hakusan (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't think a large steam engine is needed to generate power--torque is not the main problem. Especially if you have intermediate battery storage:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70/12stmng.htm

There are other folks playing with the same idea. During the war, the British built a portable steam engine to run a radio. (WWII)


----------



## Hakusan (Jun 8, 2009)

karl said:
			
		

> The energy problem has been largely solved in other parts of the world.  They have proven and effective means of generating energy in an environmentally way, and in using it wisely.  In the U.S. we don't generated it cleanly, in most cases, and we don't us it wisely.  Now Obama wants to DEVELOP clean forms of energy and spur conservation.  Why should we waste time and money developing new technologies when there are existing technologies that can be used now?  If he is as smart as you say, he's sure not showing it in his decision making.



There is not a single country that has solved its energy problem. As far as I know, Obama is using existing sources of energy. Since clean energy and conservation is important to solving our energy demands, it is good to develop. "Dirty" energy is not solving anything.


----------



## karl (Jun 8, 2009)

Ok solved their problem may be too strong of a word but they are dealing with it very well.  In Europe they already have cars that excede the CAFE standards Obama is putting into effect.  Obama said we need to develop new technologies (plug in hybrids) so we can have more fuel efficient cars.  Bull chit.  These cars already exist without needing to be plugged in.  Why not just let them sell those cars here?

He was against nuclear power in the first part of his campaign, then he was for it when McCain started hurting him on it. Yet, now he doesn't want to build any.  Also in this country we have alot of nuclear waste from power plants because we aren't aloud to rework out fuel rods.  In France they have been reworking them for decades.  This creates much less nuclear waste and much less need to mine for uranium.  Why not change this?

I'm all for manufacturing.  Unfortunately, people in this country don't even know what it is anymore.  They think that when GM or Ford or the Toyota here in West Virginia, puts a bunch of parts together to make a car, that's manufacutering.  It's not.  It's assembly.  They bring the parts here because they pack tighter in shipping containers and thus saves them money.  We don't do any casting or machining in this country anymore.  At best we bolt a bunch of foreign parts together.

I will bet you money that the batteries for these plug in hybrids aren't made in the U.S.  The hybrid car batteries aren't.  The EPA is too strict on them.  Obama has sold out the unions worse than Clinton ever did.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 9, 2009)

> Coal - hard to see it going away completely, but we shouldn’t build new plants with current dirty and inefficient technology.  If someone wants a new coal plant, it should only be the most efficient and clean (SO2, NOx, Mercury emissions) plant we can get - no more obscenely dirty coal, and then only to replace an existing dirtier coal plant that will be shut down as it is “replaced”.  We need to find a way to “scrub” the emissions of not just mercury and sulfur, but also CO2.  Maybe we can use the CO2 from these plants to grow algae to turn into biodiesel (not out of the question, and being discussed, but it won’t happen in the next 25 years either).



You should tour a modern coal plant, they are not as dirty as you think. Most modern coal plants also sell their ash to cement operations.


----------



## Jags (Jun 9, 2009)

TMonter said:
			
		

> You should tour a modern coal plant, they are not as dirty as you think. Most modern coal plants also sell their ash to cement operations.



Or drywall mfgs.  Almost 50% of all drywall made today is considered synthetic.  It uses the coke from coal powered plants.  Strangely, this product can now claim to be "green" because it is using a recycled material.  Who woulda thunk!!


----------



## Dune (Jun 9, 2009)

TMonter said:
			
		

> > Coal - hard to see it going away completely, but we shouldn’t build new plants with current dirty and inefficient technology.  If someone wants a new coal plant, it should only be the most efficient and clean (SO2, NOx, Mercury emissions) plant we can get - no more obscenely dirty coal, and then only to replace an existing dirtier coal plant that will be shut down as it is “replaced”.  We need to find a way to “scrub” the emissions of not just mercury and sulfur, but also CO2.  Maybe we can use the CO2 from these plants to grow algae to turn into biodiesel (not out of the question, and being discussed, but it won’t happen in the next 25 years either).
> 
> 
> 
> You should tour a modern coal plant, they are not as dirty as you think. Most modern coal plants also sell their ash to cement operations.



Whats clean, the windows in the bathroom? The carpet on the lobby floor? Selling flyash is nothing new. Neither is dumping mercury into the atmosphere.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 10, 2009)

> Whats clean, the windows in the bathroom? The carpet on the lobby floor? Selling flyash is nothing new. Neither is dumping mercury into the atmosphere.



The amount of mercury that makes it in the atmosphere and water from coal plants in the US is lower than other sources of contamination such as older landfills, CFL's and such.

Modern coal plants emit very little in comparison to previous years and their stack when operation will have little or no opacity, almost no SO2, NOx or CO.

No other source of power currently is capable of replacing coal in any timely fashion.

Wind and Solar are not viable options unless some storage method can be devised to store the power.


----------



## Delta-T (Jun 10, 2009)

have to agree with TMonter, coal not going anywhere soon. Energy is a funny animal, it moves in "baby steps". We may have 100+ years of coal available to us, but that doesn't mean we need to burn it like it'll last forever. Coal does keep getting cleaner. Carbon Dioxide sequestration is certainly extending its viability here in the US. I think China and India have a much larger problem with coal. Right now I think about 50% of our electric is from coal, China 85%+ and India 75%+. At the rate they are growing that # will likely increase before it decreases.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 10, 2009)

TMonter said:
			
		

> Wind and Solar are not viable options unless some storage method can be devised to store the power.



Solar Two, a "power tower" electricity generating plant in California, is a 10-megawatt prototype for large-scale commercial power plants. It stores the sun's energy in molten salt at 1050 degrees F, which allows the plant to generate power day and night, rain or shine. Construction was completed in March 1996, and it is now in its three year operating and testing phase. (source: Southern California Edison)


----------



## Dune (Jun 11, 2009)

TMonter said:
			
		

> > Whats clean, the windows in the bathroom? The carpet on the lobby floor? Selling flyash is nothing new. Neither is dumping mercury into the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You could not possibly be more incorrect in your statement regarding mercury emmisions.

        Sources of Atmospheric Mercury Emisions by percent:

         Manufacturing                                                              1
         Municipal waste combustion                                          8
        Medical waste incineration                                             11
         Industrial Boilers                                                         18
         Electrical generation                                                    62

As to your well worn talking point about storage, again, every solar thermal plant under construction (and there are many) incorperate storage. Additonaly, solar electric is provided when the demand is highest anyway.


----------



## karl (Jun 11, 2009)

TMonter said:
			
		

> > Whats clean, the windows in the bathroom? The carpet on the lobby floor? Selling flyash is nothing new. Neither is dumping mercury into the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Come down to West Virginia.  I live about 30 miles from the John Amos power plant.  It' about 3000 megawatts.  I few years ago they intalled desulphurization scrubbers on them.  This did help. When you drove buy it you had to roll the car windows up because of the smell.  Now the smell is gone.  However, the opacity is still there.  Big huge plumes of it.  It's still more opaque than the steam coming off of the cooling towers, and that stuff creates a cloud.  We have had the local weatherman report thunderstorms near the plant do to the cooling towers.


----------



## WoodMann (Jun 16, 2009)

If it can work, great. When ya think about it, the sun is all we need if we could absorb from it 24hrs a day.............


----------



## TMonter (Jun 16, 2009)

> Come down to West Virginia.  I live about 30 miles from the John Amos power plant.  It’ about 3000 megawatts.  I few years ago they intalled desulphurization scrubbers on them.  This did help. When you drove buy it you had to roll the car windows up because of the smell.  Now the smell is gone.  However, the opacity is still there.  Big huge plumes of it.  It’s still more opaque than the steam coming off of the cooling towers, and that stuff creates a cloud.  We have had the local weatherman report thunderstorms near the plant do to the cooling towers.



If a plant emitted that much opacity they would be shut down not to mention it indicates poor combustion which would be wasting money which no plant would allow. If they installed FGD scrubbers you're seeing water vapor from a saturated gas stream, not actual opacity.



> Solar Two, a “power tower” electricity generating plant in California, is a 10-megawatt prototype for large-scale commercial power plants. It stores the sun’s energy in molten salt at 1050 degrees F, which allows the plant to generate power day and night, rain or shine. Construction was completed in March 1996, and it is now in its three year operating and testing phase. (source: Southern California Edison)



And can only generate power for 4-6 hours at half load after the sun goes down. The salt is actually used during daytime operations as a thermal flywheel and for keeping the turbine loop hot at night. Like I said, not viable. I've toured Solar two actually, very cool technology, but at least 20-25 years from being commercially viable. (IE Competitive cost wise with other technologies).


----------



## TMonter (Jun 16, 2009)

> You could not possibly be more incorrect in your statement regarding mercury emmisions.
> 
> Sources of Atmospheric Mercury Emisions by percent:
> 
> ...



I said US, not world. Almost all US plants have FGD scrubbers many of which also removes more than 85% of mercury.

You also forgot forest fires:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017131817.htm


----------



## DBoon (Jun 17, 2009)

Something is not right about your math on US coal-fired power plant mercury emissions.   If US power plants already scrub out 85% of mercury, why do emissions still have to be reduced from 48 tons a year to 15 tons a year by 2018.  Your numbers don't add up.  See my sources below. 

This source took me about 20 seconds find on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm

Text pasted below, for convenience.  My emphasis in *bold text:

"On March 15, 2005, EPA issued a rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

The Clean Air Mercury Rule was built on EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants -- the largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the country. The goal of these rules regarding mercury was to reduce utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of nearly 70 percent.

The Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes “standards of performance” limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program to reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first phase cap is 38 tons. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation. 

New coal-fired power plants (“new” means construction starting on or after Jan. 30, 2004) will have to meet stringent new source performance standards in addition to being subject to the caps. 
Mercury is a toxic, persistent pollutant that accumulates in the food chain. Mercury in the air is a global problem. While fossil fuel-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States.

The Clean Air Mercury Rule is expected to make reductions in emissions that are transported regionally and deposited domestically, and it will reduce emissions that contribute to atmospheric mercury worldwide."

In this document  www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt031104mercury.pdf/, it is stated:

"A 91% reduction in the mercury contained in the combusted coal would result in annual mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants of approximately 7 tons (as compared to the current emissions of 48 tons from the industry)"

So, the first phase of the mandated EPA reductions will result in coal-fired power plants reducing mercury emissions from 48 tons to 15 tons, which will mean that your ~85% capture will be achieved by 2018.  

Please explain your math.*


----------



## TMonter (Jun 17, 2009)

Because the baseline for Mercury for many plants is calculated off of what the plants currently emit, not what is in the coal, and not all plants have the same FGD systems either. Certain FGD systems are more effective in removing mercury than others.

Trust me if you think you're getting a cut and dried picture off of the EPA website check out the new CFR on mercury.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 17, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, mercury is horrible stuff but it boggles my mind when they still allow mercury laden dental fillings and vaccines while hammering on power plants. People get as much exposure to mercury in these two items compared to power plants.


----------



## renewablejohn (Jun 18, 2009)

Hakusan said:
			
		

> Anyone use a wood-burning steam engine as a backup generator?



Hardly a backup generator but we have two 700hp Bellis and Morcom steam engines driving a 600kw combined heat and power station running on woodchip and solar.  If you want a small domestic CHP plant Sunmachine are now selling their 3kw stirling engine plant which is fired by wood-pellets


----------

