This is SJC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SJC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Huge pipeline valves cost a lot, the controls cost a lot, oil companies and pipeline companies want to maximize profits by minimizing regulations. We have seen this story many times before. The number of cars will double in the next 30 years, we can not produce even 100 million barrels per day, how are we suppose to produce 200 million? The answer is we will NOT, which leads to more oil wars, more economic collapses and a reduced standard of living.
"Carbon reduction efforts in the airline industry will be outweighed by growth in air-traffic.." The implied conclusion is that we should just give up, forget about it and walk away. This is similar to the argument on here that biofuels will not provide ALL the fuels we need, so forget it.
"Carbon reduction efforts in the airline industry will be outweighed by growth in air-traffic.." The implied conclusion is that we should just give up, forget about it and walk away. This is similar to the argument on here that biofuels will not provide ALL the fuels we need, so forget it.
The pipes in the southern half of Keystone XL were laid on top of rocks which weakens the pipe. When a pipe ruptures it can release as much a one MILLION gallons of tar sands bitumen with propane into the land, rivers, lakes and aquifers. Monitoring will not prevent this, there is too much in the pipeline between valves under pressure. The rupture on the Yellowstone river took hours to shut off, the control was in Houston.
"..funded as part of a wider European Program called Zero Emissions Urban Bus System.." Key word is FUNDED. In the U.S. and California they pass unfunded mandates like RFS and LCFS, then expect the private corporate sector to fall into line, RFS with cellulose ethanol has shown that is not always the case. Levy a carbon tax, use the money to make direct loans to companies making renewable and low carbon fuels, then you might actually get RESULTS.
Why would you want to ignore renewable fuels and hope we get EVs? Doesn't that seem more than a bit risky to bet on ONE solution ONLY? How about an "all the above" strategy?
We have LOTS of depleted uranium from decades of uranium enrichment, just build fast breeder reactors, then we can power the world for the next 1000 years.
Harvey, We are NOT going to get 100 million EVs any time soon. What do you propose we do for the next 30 years? Wish and hope?
One billion cars heading to two billion cars worldwide and not even 0.1% of them are EV, this is why we need synthetic and biosynthetic fuels.
United States Department of the Navy’s expressed goal of obtaining 50-percent of total organizational consumption through alternative energy sources by 2020. YES!
low-cost water-splitting for hydrogen production This reduces the cost for the electolyzer, which is good. If you input heat, the production rate goes up, if you have the waste heat. It is still the idea of putting electrical power on the grid or making hydrogen at the point of use, since you don't have a use for the O2 at point of use, that is wasted. Reforming natural gas will still be the cost effective method.
1.5L mid-mounted naturally aspirated gasoline engines Ford downsized a 1.6L to a 1.5L because China taxes engines over 1.5L, you know China has an influence on automakers when this happens.
In some cases yes. Legislators are politicians that want to get reelected, contributions from corporations help them to do that. They need to look like they are doing something for the country and its people, while creating laws that the contributors can get around. ONLY Public Money for Public Office will fix that.
Gary, I doubt sea water can be used, they probably use PEM electrolyzers which require distilled water with an alkaline additive. Water that comes out of a fuel cell could be used, but 60% of the sea water to fresh water is created by using multi stage condensers on power plant cooling sections.
it is currently being cheaply produced from coal fly ash (CFA) Not only can they make bio synthetic diesel, but them make it using some of the billions of tons of coal ash.
I would not be so sure, PV operates in a narrow band, this is why it is 15-30% efficient over all. Even WITH 30% concentrated PV and positioning, you have 60% electrolysis for 18% efficiency now.
Sorghum takes half the water, half the fertilizer with TWICE the yield per acre. They can get 10 tones of dry cellulose in addition to 7000+ pounds of grain per acre with DDG as a final product. The drought will not last forever, they are already installing drip irrigation in their orchards, which farmers should have done long ago. In fact they should never have planted orchards in much of the state to begin with. The California Water Authority told them not to plant orchards in the first place, but they would not listen. Agriculture uses 85% of the water in California, they can easily get by with less and produce more if they use water more wisely. Abundance at low prices encourages waste, farmers in California are a prime example. The southwest central valley has saline soil from excessive irrigation evaporation over the years. Sorghum can grow in saline soils and recondition the land. It is annual, so they can rotate crops as well. California used to grow 470,000 acres of sorghum in 1967, now grows less than 10,000 acres, but the number is increasing every year, thanks to contracts with ethanol producers. California produces less than 25% of the ethanol it uses, but the number can double in the next 10 years using sorghum. They grow the crop to feed livestock anyway, might was well get fuel out of it as well. LESS land less water, less fertilizer and less pesticides than corn for the same yield per acre.
Roger, You are on to something there, under estimating the difficulty of the task goes beyond optimism. The "can do' attitude becomes more difficult than the first estimates.
Oil companies pay about 11% in income tax. The Calidornia Energy commission recently granted $9 million to grow sorghum for biofuels, which will create a $1 billion per year industry for the next 40 years. Just the income taxes from that grant will pay off in a short time. If the grant had not been made, the private sector would have not done it. The proof it that for decades they never DID do it.
With 60% electrolysis and 50% fuel cell, you have a 30% battery. Compare that with 70% NiMH and 90% lithium Ion. That makes H2 a REAL inefficient battery.
Could be group think blinded by beliefs. If the guys at the top think it is no problem, then it is NO problem. This has been seen at NASA and in corporations for many decades.
DME makes more sense, you can make it from biomass and run it in diesel hybrids that get 70 mpg.
It would be good to get many more E85 pumps elsewhere than the mid west and do away with the E15 idea in Chicago. We have almost 10 million vehicles that can take E85, supply that with cellulose.
A team at Cornell University... This is lab stuff at a University, a long way from production. However, being able to use lithium anodes without dendrites is a big deal, it could get us higher energy density batteries.