Episode #7

[rpretzel]

Warp Drive! I have a 1/2 ton of dilithium crystals in my garage.

 

Sorry. I'm a geek. I'll go to bed now.

[Joe G]

Today, 85% of the electricity produced in the US comes from high-sulfur western coal which includes substantial quantities of mercury. The coal-burning power plans of the mid-west have contaminated virtually all eastern lakes and reservoirs downwind of theri stacks (80% of the Adirondacks' 20,000 lakes are dead and NYC's reservoirs all have levels of mercury high enough to mandate not eating the fish more than 1 meal per month and not at all by pregnant women and young kids).

 

There are ways to burn coal much cleaner but it's expensive. However, such technology could put the US in a leadership position to export it as product since getting off oil will take a couple of generations.

 

Agree. Though, there are many new technologies to help burn this "dirty coal" cleanly. Gasification is new but growing quickly.

 

http://www.gepower.com/corporate/ecomagina...leaner_coal.htm

 

As you said, we need to keep diversifying. More Nukes, more wind, more solar, more bio-gas etc. Let's move before the next big oil crisis forces our hands.

 

Boy, how did we get on this topic on a Shelby GT500 forum??

[68fastback]

Holy science fair Batman!!!!

 

Heck, I studied Chemical Engineering for 2 years, and I have difficulty following all of this. At least I understand the principle of conservation of energy....energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Many people miss the point you make about the emissions caused by electricity creation used as an enabler for water atom splitting (to make Hydrogen). The proponents only talk about how you burn Hydrogen, and the only byproduct is water. Uh...hello...that's a very narrow view of the process...you have to count the emissions from creating the electricity. As we use fuel, Earth-wide entropy increases....hopefully we can at least slow the entropy growth.

 

That said, I still think we should skip this hybrid battery stuff and pour tons of money into Hydrogen. We'd suffer in the short term, but prosper when Hydrogen arrives...we'd get it sooner by incentivizing it.

 

IMHO.

 

Dave

 

 

Amen, Dave! Exactly.

 

:happy feet:

[KCMO-GT500]

I guess I somewhat have a different slant on this for the automobile. I believe the future is with electric cars, and the success hinges on lighter, cheaper, and more powerful batteries. The sucker who comes up with a better battery, will go down in the history books as besting the guy who built a better mousetrap (who was he again? )

 

In all seriousness, any form of energy is readily converted to electricity. So no matter what the future holds for the energy sources in the world, the ability to plug into an electric socket will always be there. Plus, there will not be the need to build a whole new infrastructure, such as depending on hydrogen as the fuel source. My money right now is greater dependence on nuclear power as a primary energy source. I have been inside of a couple of these while doing investigations, and in the usa they are very well run, and very concerned about the envoronment, although I am sure some sources out there would try to convince you otherwise.

 

Added to this stance, the auto makers have quite a bit of experience with electric cars, and they tend to be pretty reliable overall. The battery is the weak part of getting greater public acceptance.

[jcthorne]

I'm an enviroweenie I guess, and I'm tempted to provide a term for those who are not, but I'll refrain from doing so. When you say 1/2 of our known reserves are in off limit areas, I think you've bought into some oil company propaganda BS. What ever small amount fossil fuel is there isn't worth sacrificing the wilderness to get it. I agree with Jetsolver--hydrogen is the answer.

 

 

 

And just where do you think Hydrogen comes from? There are no hydrogen wells. Hydrogen comes from disolution of water molecules. This takes energy. Burning hydrogen is very clean and produces heat and water. Great it burns clean enough but it is an energy STORAGE means, not the source of the energy itself. The actual energy to create the hydrogen must come from another source. Fossil, nuclear etc.

 

My belief of the available oil that is off limits is from proven reserves that we cannot tap due to environmental concerns. Coastal California, Florida and large areas of Alaska. Why are we only producing offshore Gulf of Mexico? and only part of that. Not assumptions, proven reserves that are already located and well documented.

 

I do not advocate envirinmental irresponsibility. Quite the contrary. Give the oil companies strict environmental performace requirements and let them engineer ways to meet the requirements. Not a simple 'no you cannot produce there' I have seen it work in other environmentally sensitive areas and have the Presidential Environmental Achievement Award to show for it. Very clean production systems in Alabama's North Dauphin Island bird santuary and wetlands. It can be done right. Government needs to set the requirements, not the methods. Environmentalists and the general population are not the ones to decide if it can be done correctly. They just do not have the tools and knowledge to make those decisions. They should set the requirements and penalties for not meeting them and let much better minds in those fields of study handle the how or if.

 

OK, I have veered WAAAAY to far off the subject at hand. But working for the last 20 years in this industry, it is so obvious that our govenment has such a large role in our current energy problems because they continue to attempt to engineer solutions to problems they are not equipped to deal with rather than setting requirements.

 

Just so you know, I am also very much in favor of alturnative and domestic enegy solutions. Just needs to be ones that actually solve problems.

[JETSOLVER]

However, I'd rather install a Kohler or Ballard PEM fuel cell whole-house energy system if I lived in an area serviced by natural gas (rural here). Which leads to the other way to make hydrogen, but then we're still hooked on a fossil fuel, since natural gas comes off the top of oil fields.

 

So, IMO (and every scientific analysis I've seen), there's no realistic, clean, sustainable way to get to a hydrogen economy without a fairly lengthy energy-intensive (substantially more expensive) transition period without the use of nuclear. Since I consider myself to be a rational environmentalist (in contrast to what I call a 'blind' environmentalist or 'green-blind'), I'm willing to entertain most any transitional technology that's cost effective as long as it can lead to a sustainable approach in the future.

 

 

Any forward progress on the fossil fuel issue is going to be painfull and expensive. And it takes a rational and thoughtful process. Which you are obvoiusly in the middle off. And that is the best reason to take some time out in this thread and realize that at this point in history our collective options are realativly broad, but are going to start narrowing again if we continue with the past way of thinking about these issues. Thank you for some great input!

 

That said, I still think we should skip this hybrid battery stuff and pour tons of money into Hydrogen. We'd suffer in the short term, but prosper when Hydrogen arrives...we'd get it sooner by incentivizing it.

 

All this discussion hinges on the most cost effective way to STORE energy for portability. Gasoline is the reigning champ for good reasons. It packs a heck of a punch in terms of latent energy for its weight and cost. The issue is its downsides are increasingly harder to deal with. At is baseist all these forms make use of hydrgen because of its abilty to react with just about every other element in the periodic table. The question is are we capable of finding another way of extracting its latent energy cost effectivly and with minimum disruption to our standard of living. And as was mentioned all we are doing is moving the pieces of the puzzle around. We cannot create energy, we can only manipulate it. And we are just now finding out the various challanges with inefficient use of it.

 

Agree. Though, there are many new technologies to help burn this "dirty coal" cleanly. Gasification is new but growing quickly.

Boy, how did we get on this topic on a Shelby GT500 forum??

 

 

This is perhaps one fo the BEST places for discussion. We have already established that we don't mind paying more for transportation if we can justify it beyond basic needs. And I submit that there are a lot of good minds here for whatever socio-economic reasons. The GT500 is at or near the top of the automotive world and change is most easily implemented from the top of a pyramid by good leadership. Revolutions from the bottom when driven by a desparate need tend to be painful and very costly.

 

it burns clean enough but it is an energy STORAGE means, not the source of the energy itself. The actual energy to create the hydrogen must come from another source. Fossil, nuclear etc.

It can be done right. Government needs to set the requirements, not the methods. Environmentalists and the general population are not the ones to decide if it can be done correctly. They just do not have the tools and knowledge to make those decisions.

But working for the last 20 years in this industry, it is so obvious that our govenment has such a large role in our current energy problems because they continue to attempt to engineer solutions to problems they are not equipped to deal with rather than setting requirements.

 

Absolutley!! Yours is the best sort of input to these questions becuase you admit there are issues and have practical solutions to offer. Unless someone comes up next week with a real answer(I still crack up when I think of Pond's And Fleishman ) this is going to take time and effort. And I still have to balance my pure enjoyment of going for a drive with no particular destination in mind and the fact that a good number of children I know have asthma. I remember going to California/Mexico as a child on a summer vacation for 2 months in the 1974. We did it the middle class way back then pulling a travel trailer and camping where we wanted. I remember Dad feeling like a criminal for fillling the tank on that big new station wagon with a 460 in it. But I have never forgotten the film that So. Cal. left on our white trailer. Never came off. Made a heck of an impression on a 10 yr old. Thank you to all who have read and put some thought into this. It is important and it is vital that we mature :wacko: adults face some of these issues.

[Alloy Dave]

Jetsolver (and others), I can't help but inject some humor here. I worked in a research center for diesel engines for 8 years. I worked with lots of engineers, mostly mechanical, but some were electrical, chemical, physicists, etc. We used to joke and laugh about a material that had all of the following properties:

1. Inexpensive
   
2. Easy to machine
   
3. Not harmful to the environment
   
4. Won't rust or corrode
   
5. Malleable
   
6. Strong tensile and shear strength
   
7. Available in multiple colors
   
8. Impervious to chemicals
   
9. Impervious to heat/cold
   
10. Low thermal conductivity
    
11. Can be cast, formed, or forged
    
12. Readily available
    

 

We found this material. We named it. It's called...........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unobtanium

 

[JETSOLVER]

 

Unobtanium

 

 

Cause that there stuff just aint. Thats why as an eager young engineer I specialized in COMPOSITES. So we are just gonna start combining them to get the maximum out of each. For years I have had to fight aginst the tide and remind certain corporate weenies who INSIST on a product before we know how to create it, that you cannot direct BASIC research. It is just smart people asking good questions and knowing a usefull anomaly when it happens. Its worked pretty good for Bell Labs and Du pont amongst others But then again I live in a fantasy world where politicians and lobby groups are like a particlularly tenacious tape-worm....They add nothing to society but are very efficient at taking stuff from it. And they live in ones

[68fastback]

I guess I somewhat have a different slant on this for the automobile. I believe the future is with electric cars, and the success hinges on lighter, cheaper, and more powerful batteries. The sucker who comes up with a better battery, will go down in the history books as besting the guy who built a better mousetrap (who was he again? )

 

In all seriousness, any form of energy is readily converted to electricity. So no matter what the future holds for the energy sources in the world, the ability to plug into an electric socket will always be there. Plus, there will not be the need to build a whole new infrastructure, such as depending on hydrogen as the fuel source. My money right now is greater dependence on nuclear power as a primary energy source. I have been inside of a couple of these while doing investigations, and in the usa they are very well run, and very concerned about the envoronment, although I am sure some sources out there would try to convince you otherwise.

 

Added to this stance, the auto makers have quite a bit of experience with electric cars, and they tend to be pretty reliable overall. The battery is the weak part of getting greater public acceptance.

 

 

Yeah, the battery is the weak link. It's an energy density issue to my mind and no one knows how to improve that substantially without excessive weight -- like a rocketship, that's the problem.. weight! That's why they're increasingly turning from stored-charge chemistry (batteries) to molecular bonds (hydrogen, peroxide, etc) to eliminate much of the weight penalty of the battery. Of course, you could say that a PEM fuel cell is just a 'bettery' with an external fuel source, but it does offer significnt weight savings since the energy density in a tank of hydrogen is considerably greater than believed possible with any stored-charge chemistry (battery). So, ultimately, we may be discussing the same issues from only slightly different viewpoints.

 

Of course, the next logical step in the energy-density continuum would be to go from molecular bonds to quantum bonds (fission/fusion), but a mini-nuclear plant in your car, though eminently doable, is with unique risks and also potentialy quite heavy (that'll be $20,000 extra if you want the lifetime factory-filled option ;-)

 

That's why I'm thinking something like hydrogen has to be the battery and nuclear has to be the energy source to make it (with solar and wind supplementing as appropriate) -- at least in the forseeable interim. It takes advantage of scale quantum energy densities (albeit with conventional conversion and transmission losses) at the source (plant) and molecular-bond energy densities (hydro fuel cell) in the car. Together it can equal/exceed the cost-efficiencies of 'harvesting' and combusting fossil fuels and do it in a much more environmentally fiendly way. But IMO nuclear is key, else we just move tailpipe emissions to the smokestack -- smokestacks that are far more poluting than gasoline cars and contain hi sulphur and mercury content, etc poisoning our environment (coal stacks could be scrubbed, but still very inefficient and more expensive than nuc over its lifecycle).

 

An alternative hydrogen approach is compressed LNG with hydrogen-extraction and electricity-generation in a two-step fuel cell right in the car (already proven tech but certain LNG contaminants are proving problematic). The LNG model has good energy densities and better total system emissions than smokestack approach, but at the expense of extending fosil-fuel dependence -- it's one of the two main paths being seriously pushed forward; the other being hydrogen from electricity in a one-stage fuel cell. And then there's Ford's hydrogen-combustion technology that says: don't care how you make it we'll burn it with near zero emissions until fuel-cell prices are competitive (I like this).

 

Maybe, enventually, there'll be an even better way, but some of the greatest minds around the world have been working on it in earnest for some 20 years because a fundamentally better battery (energy density and environmental considerations) is the holy-grail of the self-directed transportation equation. But the clock is ticking and we have to start doing something soon.

 

Plug-in commuter cars and fuel-cell cars that make their own hydrogen overnight are a possible early niche alternative (until infrastructure ramps up) and can utilize site-solar too, but, have limitations -- no long road trips without broader infrastructure and/or electric-generation smokestack polution. Nevertheless, I think we'll see these in a commuter context: battery-type within a couple of years and mini-gen fuel-cell later.

But neither IMO offer a solution to the broader systemic energy problems.

[RUFDRAFT]

Ah, yes! We need to ramp up that infrastructure!

[68fastback]

Ah, yes! We need to ramp up that infrastructure!

 

 

 

Hey, I got your ramp right here, pal!

 

(be nice to me -- it's what happens when strategists get old ;-)

 

.

[RUFDRAFT]

From the scene in Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou where the record label guy is trying to get the blind radio guy to help him locate the Soggy Bottom Boys:

 

"Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah - we got to beat that Competition!"

 

And - I'm always nice to you. Unless you've been a bad boy - you know what I mean! :happy feet:

[JETSOLVER]

.

But neither IMO offer a solution to the broader systemic energy problems.

 

You touched on the hardest to deal with issue. WASTED energy. If we could recover even a percentage of what is wasted we would be good to go for both growth and technology. I think the way ahead is going to take some unprecidented cooperation between what has become two armed camps, the enviro's and for lack of a better term, the pyro's. There is no magic bullet, and I firmly believe that even if we have a short term flattening of the growth curve of use(and increase of emissions), we really have no choice but to move 'twards a hydrogen economy as that is where we will end up. As better minds than mine have pointed out, we are essentially dealing with several completley unrelated problems. And although transportation is easily targeted politically, if one were to double the amount of vehicles at current levels you would still only be addressing a small part of greenhouse gases. Because the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour.

So to my mind given the fact that there is at least concensus on one issue,(OIL and its difficulty in increasing total supply) we should start moving now on the easist to approach methods. Even if they are some what energy negitive at the current pace of technology. I believe in the essential basic capitalist tennent that if one creates a market, innovation and efficiency will follow, becuase their is a $ to be made. It is up to American voters to make these issues front and center, becuase no one industry is going to be able to build that kind of capital. If the government picks its targets carefully( :wacko: I know, I know) this could be started RELATIVELY cost effectively. But the window is starting to close, as people in certain, er,.. unstable regions reliaze that they are fighting each other over a finite( and shrinking) resource. At that point, IMHO, All bets are off, becuase nothing fuels fear like desperation.

[RUFDRAFT]

Oh, yes. We've got to flatten that growth curve!

 

Let me make a few calls. :happy feet:

[KCMO-GT500]

Jetsolver (and others), I can't help but inject some humor here. I worked in a research center for diesel engines for 8 years. I worked with lots of engineers, mostly mechanical, but some were electrical, chemical, physicists, etc. We used to joke and laugh about a material that had all of the following properties:

1. Inexpensive

2. Easy to machine

3. Not harmful to the environment

4. Won't rust or corrode

5. Malleable

6. Strong tensile and shear strength

7. Available in multiple colors

8. Impervious to chemicals

9. Impervious to heat/cold

10. Low thermal conductivity

11. Can be cast, formed, or forged

12. Readily available

We found this material. We named it. It's called...........................

Unobtanium

 

 

 

that was the word in my head regarding the cheerleaders when I was in high school, ah....a couple of years ago

[JETSOLVER]

Oh, yes. We've got to flatten that growth curve!

 

Let me make a few calls. :happy feet:

 

Apparently the Chinese beat you to it, See thread in open topic Here

[JETSOLVER]

Furthere interesting reading in-light of recent events...WashingtonPost.com/BP and image

[KCMO-GT500]

there just seems to be a Perfect Storm when it comes to petroleum right now. Just too flucky to even be a conspiracy. War, hurricanes, increased use by 3rd world countries, lack of investment in refining capacity and infrastructure (failure to maintain existing and failure to build more pipelines).

 

Eliminate a couple of these and the problems are minimized. The USA, as well as many other countries, is now paying for the utter lack of a real energy policy. Bipartisan politics really sucks for fixing this type of problem.

[68fastback]

Apparently the Chinese beat you to it, See thread in open topic Here

 

 

:wacko:

 

Don't cook tonight, call Death Squad Delight! We deliver! Right to your door!

 

That's so sick... but efficient.. hope it meets ULEV or PZEV. Wouldn't want your local death-squad poluting.

 

 

 

 

 

You touched on the hardest to deal with issue. WASTED energy. If we could recover even a percentage of what is wasted we would be good to go for both growth and technology. I think the way ahead is going to take some unprecidented cooperation between what has become two armed camps, the enviro's and for lack of a better term, the pyro's. There is no magic bullet, and I firmly believe that even if we have a short term flattening of the growth curve of use(and increase of emissions), we really have no choice but to move 'twards a hydrogen economy as that is where we will end up. As better minds than mine have pointed out, we are essentially dealing with several completley unrelated problems. And although transportation is easily targeted politically, if one were to double the amount of vehicles at current levels you would still only be addressing a small part of greenhouse gases. Because the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour.

So to my mind given the fact that there is at least concensus on one issue,(OIL and its difficulty in increasing total supply) we should start moving now on the easist to approach methods. Even if they are some what energy negitive at the current pace of technology. I believe in the essential basic capitalist tennent that if one creates a market, innovation and efficiency will follow, becuase their is a $ to be made. It is up to American voters to make these issues front and center, becuase no one industry is going to be able to build that kind of capital. If the government picks its targets carefully( :wacko: I know, I know) this could be started RELATIVELY cost effectively. But the window is starting to close, as people in certain, er,.. unstable regions reliaze that they are fighting each other over a finite( and shrinking) resource. At that point, IMHO, All bets are off, becuase nothing fuels fear like desperation.

 

 

Yeah, I agree. If we as a society can at least agree on some priorities, it's possible to make progress. But in a society where the media are whores who'll do and say anything to get an extra 1% of Nielsen, it might be impossible to get a consistent message out to the public. Even then, we gotta get at least 51% of the oars in the watter an pulling in the same direction. Yeah, a viable but imperfect solution that can be 'sold' to the masses and start makig progress is better than a perfect solution that violates incumbent interestes and never gets traction. Hydrogen seems to be something not meeting with resistance, so maybe that's the tac. I hope we do someting real, and meaningful, and soon.

[RUFDRAFT]

Energy and water and food will be the deciding factors in whether or not we ever populate other planets.

 

Deep thoughts - and I'm off to bed! :bandance:

[ratnacage]

Holy science fair Batman!!!!

 

Heck, I studied Chemical Engineering for 2 years, and I have difficulty following all of this. At least I understand the principle of conservation of energy....energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Many people miss the point you make about the emissions caused by electricity creation used as an enabler for water atom splitting (to make Hydrogen). The proponents only talk about how you burn Hydrogen, and the only byproduct is water. Uh...hello...that's a very narrow view of the process...you have to count the emissions from creating the electricity.

 

 

Another point missed is that given all the ways you can create electricity, some are more efficient and/or less poluting than others. Thus, even though we are bound by the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) we can decrease the net energy usage to create hydrogen simply by changing the way we produce the electricity used to split the water molecule (nuclear vs coal vs solar vs wind, etc).

[68fastback]

Another point missed is that given all the ways you can create electricity, some are more efficient and/or less poluting than others. Thus, even though we are bound by the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) we can decrease the net energy usage to create hydrogen simply by changing the way we produce the electricity used to split the water molecule (nuclear vs coal vs solar vs wind, etc).

 

 

+1

 

we've got insane amounts of coal, but unless hi-tech scrubber technology is mandated there won;t be a lake east of the MS that survives -- most in the Adirondacks are dead from acid rain from mid-west coal plants. Coal sources 85% of US electricity.

[RUFDRAFT]

Dan - you are amazing. Period.

 

You're an asset to the boards.

[68fastback]

Dan - you are amazing. Period.

 

You're an asset to the boards.

 

 

...I paid Ruf to say that

 

seriously, though, thanks.

 

(conservation of energy, yes; conservations of words, uh, well... no ;-)

[RUFDRAFT]

I've learned a lot from you over the past few months.

 

You're kind - funny - and a wealth of information.

 

It's kinda like watching CNN!

 

You got any beer? Perhaps in a fridge with a tap?

[ratnacage]

+1

 

we've got insane amounts of coal, but unless hi-tech scrubber technology is mandated there won;t be a lake east of the MS that survives -- most in the Adirondacks are dead from acid rain from mid-west coal plants. Coal sources 85% of US electricity.

 

 

We once received a several Escapes from a dealer in N Carolina - every one of them had signs of acid rain damage to the paint.

[RUFDRAFT]

It wasn't me. I pee inside the double-wide.

 

Or do you mean damage to the clearcoat?

[68fastback]

I've learned a lot from you over the past few months.

 

You're kind - funny - and a wealth of information.

 

It's kinda like watching CNN!

 

You got any beer? Perhaps in a fridge with a tap?

 

 

Ya know why can you drink so much more beer than milk?

Beer doesn't have to change color!

 

Been nice hangin' Bryan... sleepy time now.

 

Later, my friend, you make things here fun.

[Alloy Dave]

You got any beer? Perhaps in a fridge with a tap?

 

That's ME, not Dan. :bandance: