This is Engineer-Poet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Engineer-Poet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Maybe HQ only has surplus hydro when everyone else has surpluses too. Nobody's going to want your 4¢ power when their own wholesale cost is 2¢. Your thinking on these matters is very shallow.
Renewable fuels are in addition to fossil fuels. If they do not replace fossil fuels, they do not solve the climate-change or fossil depletion problems. If you have this much trouble understanding basic points, why are you here? You should be in remedial education.
If we treated the problem with the seriousness it deserves, there would be a Manhattan-project-level effort in place and the first units of something like NuScale would go critical by 2018.
We will figure out how to control the burning plasma and its radiation by using increasingly strong magnetic fields <sigh> Apparently, you are so ignorant of the basic science that you don't know that neutrons are neutral particles and not confined or re-directed by magnetic fields (they do have a magnetic dipole moment). I knew this by junior high school. Given the elementary science which you have still not learned, you should consider that when someone tells you your dreams of whatever cannot be achieved because X, it's a good time to start studying X until you understand what the problem is. Only when you do understand the science can you even begin to start thinking of ways around the problem; until then, you are practicing cargo-cultism.
I know the inner walls of a fusion reactor will be highly radiated and therefore become radioactive itself. However, for what I have read this is not a big problem as the quantity of radioactive material is only a tiny fraction of what it is for fission reactors How much tinier do you have to get than a few concrete casks before you stop worrying about it? The second major problem with fusion reactors isn't the quantity, it's the frequency of replacement. First walls in fusion reactors are going to take heavy damage quickly, and replacing them means tearing most of the machine apart. It's not like a reactor pressure vessel which is easily shielded from neutrons and can go 60, 80 or more years with ease. The first major problem with fusion reactors is that we are still 15-20 years away from having a first commercial prototype, and another 20 years to widespread deployment after that. We are already 35 years behind schedule in addressing GHG emissions. it is not as highly radioactive either as some of the stuff that is produced in a fission reactor. Highly radioactive stuff decays very quickly. I-131 is gone in months; N-16 is gone in minutes. How paranoid are you over half-lives, when the oceans are full of uranium and potassium with HLs in the billions of years? The world is a radioactive place. All life evolved in a radioactive environment, and is evolved to it. It is time to stop being fearful of the harmless.
There's a huge system built up around lead-acid batteries, a lot of inventory, and the recycling rate is one every other industry should envy. We don't have enough batteries for everything we ought to be doing with them, so it makes great sense to keep using that material and those facilities to promote the electrification of transport. If the cars suddenly switch to downsized engines with electric superchargers, TIGERS, electric power steering and A/C, does it matter if the 48 V battery is Li-ion or Pb-C? Not to the driver.
Between NuScale reactors and Lightbridge fuel, everything you've asked for is already coming.
We're not going to have fusion without nuclear waste, period. Fusion means neutrons, and neutrons means activated and neutron-damaged materials. 80% of the energy in D-T fusion comes as high-energy neutrons; for fission it's more like 5%.
Rickover and his protegé Milton Shaw did a lot of damage before they finally left. Had they not been promoted above their level of competence, they may have had unblemished records.
the only reason nuclear exist is because Admiral Rickover and the Federal government had incentivized it for 50 years. That's bullshit and you ought to know it. The AEC was replaced by the hostile NRC less than 20 years after Shippingport, and just over 30 after the first controlled chain reaction. we still don't have electricity that's "too cheap to meter" That lie is way past its prime and needs to go on the compost heap. Here are the actual prepared remarks of Strauss that day in 1954. Strauss was speculating, and said so; note that Shippingport didn't go critical until 1957, and Strauss was likely thinking about nuclear fusion instead. We could have "too cheap to meter" fission power today, if consumers were allowed to pay a straight monthly subscription fee to get a fixed number of watts 24/7/365. However, the regulations in today's "deregulated" markets don't allow anything like this. No private insurers will insure Nuclear power plants Every NPP in the USA has a large amount of private insurance; I believe it's $300 million. Then there is Price-Anderson, which puts EVERY NPP on the hook for damages at ANY plant which exceed the $300 million cap. Every cent of that is private money. You're a liar, Stockwell.
What Henrik means is that this is large for a battery bank. In terms of even the California grid, it's tiny; 80 MW is about 1/25 the output of Diablo Canyon, and it would be exhausted in an hour.
If nuclear power had the same incentives as the unreliable wind and PV, we'd be seeing a massive decarbonization of the electric sector. The next step would be to electrify the transport sector, replacing fossil carbon with carbon-free electricity. Sadly, the "environmental" movement is run by natural-gas interests. This is why the CPP accounting incentivizes the replacement of existing nuclear with natural gas.
I shake my head when I see greenwashing like this. What is the incentive? There's no possible way to make enough plant-based jet fuel to replace petroleum. The USA uses around 1.5 million barrels (~63 million gallons) of jet fuel each day. Total production of plant oils is, IIUC, less than 2 billion gallons per year. The jet fleet would burn through that in about a month. There's no way to meet that demand by growing it, so what's the point?
Funny, everyone trying to make unreliable power replace conventional grid and forgot that just improving utilization of base load can do more and do it cheaper. Currently, we may have the strategy backwards.It wasn't forgotten, it was the goal. Gas interests are financing all the big "environmental" organizations.
CAFE standards don't affect consumer behavior post-sale (proven by the massive gap between EPA mileage and actual fuel consumption), carbon taxes will. Arguably an adequate carbon tax will make CAFE standards irrelevant. Carbon taxes applied across the board will affect the electric market before the vehicle market. $100/tCO2 adds about 3.3¢/kWh to the cost of power from NGCC plants, over 5¢/kWh to open-cycle plants. This is roughly double the current price disadvantage of nuclear power in "deregulated" markets. If the unreliables have their absolute grid priority taken away so that grid operators can curtail them to allow clean base-load to operate, we'll see a lot of interest in new clean base-load with cheap charging for PEVs overnight. This gets straight to the root of fuel consumption and direct displacement of carbon-emitting fuels.
3 billion bbl @ 20 million bbl/day (rough level of US consumption) = 150 days.
It is silly to round data to the nearest 0.1 MPG and then say that average fuel economy has gone up or down by that much. What would these curves look like if the data were rounded to the nearest 0.01 MPG? Possibly much less dramatic.
It makes all thermal management easier; less cooling air to do the same job. It also helps with e.g. use of heat to warm the cabin; higher temperatures mean smaller heat exchangers.
BTE is a direct measure of thermal efficiency, crankshaft work out over fuel heat of combustion in.
Because I cited one reference you assumed that I had not considered any others. It is knowable from your conclusions that the references you cite are bogus, because otherwise you'd be singing a different tune.You focus on wholesale price of energy, ignoring the cost of subsidies required to produce it; German feed-in prices for solar are still in excess of €0.08/kWh.You ignore the diluting effect of hydrogen on the existing system.You ignore the need at some point to build an entirely new system compatible with nearly-pure H2.You ignore the need to multiply the capacity of storage several times.You gloss over the losses in conversion.You ignore the effect of the cost-shifting of the subsidy system on the broader economy, like pushing business out. All of these things must be addressed to make good on the promises being made for ruinables. I see lots of handwaving but next to no detailed proposals or firm commitments. Your innumeracy doesn't help. For instance, electric power at €0.08/kWh converted to H2 at 70% efficiency yields a gross energy cost of €31.7/GJ (amortization and O&M are extra). This is on the order of double the world price of LNG. Germany will go broke before it becomes Green. More to the point, storing excess PV energy at €0.08/kWh with a round-trip efficiency of 40% yields an input energy cost of €0.20/kWh for what comes out again. That makes the two EPRs under construction at Flamanville and Olkiluoto positively cheap by comparison. you presented hydrogen reacting with sulphur as a show stopper for salt cavern storage. It's applicable to re-use of spent gas wells. Many gas fields have large amounts of H2S, so the presence of sulfide or sulfate minerals is very likely. I'd love to see a coherent argument for the Green power schemes. I'd love to see a proposal that would actually work. But all I've seen is evasion and dishonesty, and after calling the Greeniacs on the carpet year after year I have reached the limits of what I will tolerate.
Until you learn that writing utter nonsense is a waste of your time as well as everyone's who reads it, you will deserve every bit of "rudeness" you get. If you can't even make sense, correction will turn to vituperation to "shut the hell up"... and you have earned every bit of it.
the storage requirement in Germany is estimated at ONLY 16GW in 2023, 80GW in 2033 and 130GW in 2050?A quick look turns up a graph showing German electric consumption of a bit over 600 TWh in 2015, or perhaps 70 GW average. Storage of 130 GWh of energy is under 2 hours of average grid demand. If this is the plan, it is planning to fail and fail miserably.
you expose yourself terribly by making absolutely daft comments that 4% of the NG grid by energy AT ANY ONE TIME is in some way trivial Several times I have called you innumerate, and here you have confirmed it. 4% of the NG grid by energy is AT MOST 4% of the pipeline-carried energy consumed. It is a much smaller fraction of the total, because solid and liquid fuels aren't part of it and electricity may come from other sources. Worse than that, to get ~3.5% "renewable" energy into storage, roughly 3x as much energy from methane is displaced from storage; the total energy stored sinks rapidly. None of this would be news to you if you would DO THE MATH. Some would rather criticize than propose constructive solutions. Restart Germany's idled nukes. Build more. Once SMRs have been confirmed meltdown-proof by test, site them inside cities to provide steam and hot water for district heating and snow removal as well as electric power. Just because this proposal gives Greens conniption fits does not mean it isn't the best solution possible with any technology available, thus the only real solution we are capable of building out fast enough to save ourselves from climate chaos. I assume that methane would also encounter any potential problems due to sulphur. You also fail at chemistry. A bug trying to metabolize sulfate using methane has to do something with the carbon; a bug using hydrogen does not.
anyone who adopts this wholly intemperate mode of address without the slightest attempt to provide any substantiation for their argument Anyone who disputes this oft-substantiated claim without any attempt to check it out for themselves is an ignoramus, and a deeply arrogant one. Natural gas pipelines may handle up to 10% H2 without major technical difficulties (larger fractions reduce the molecular weight too much so that e.g. compressors cannot achieve their rated output pressure). At 10% H2 by volume, the energy content of the hydrogen is less than 4%. This is nigh-trivial. H2 may not be storable in underground reservoirs containing sulfate rocks because of bacterial metabolism of sulfate to H2S. Before switching to natural gas, the German gas networks were operated using towngas, which for 50–60 % consisted of hydrogen. That was when distribution was local (no LD pipelines or compressor stations) and all appliances were specified for town gas. This is no longer the case. Ironically, the claim about the storage capacity of the German NG network is unreferenced—yet you accept it uncritically. The capacity of reservoirs is by volume, not by energy, and substituting H2 for methane slashes it by 7% for every 10% H2. You have become more obsessive as your favoured alternatives have lagged. You mean "as the Greens have doubled down on failure that SHOULD have forced them to reconsider." Do try to act like a normal human being occasionally I am fed up with fools. The world can no longer endure their mistakes; had you been forced to bet on your favored options, you would have lost and would be out of the game now.
the NG pipeline network can also store large quantities of hydrogen, mixed in with the methane The storage capacity of NG pipelines is small, and the fraction of energy that hydrogen can store in them is vastly smaller due to the much lower volumetric energy density. Anyone who repeats this bit of nonsense is either innumerate, deluded or a shill for the scammers. What this scheme needs is a way to produce, not molecular hydrogen, but NADH from NAD. NADH can convert CO2 into methanol using well-understood enzymes. Methanol is safely storable at ambient conditions. I'm not even sure low efficiency is a big problem with this scheme. No efficiency is stated for the PV cells, but I'd guesstimate 20-22%. If power is first tapped off for vehicle charging demand, a PHFCV would run first on direct electric power with excess diverted to MeOH production. At perhaps 10% total efficiency, a system on a 150 m² roof receiving 3 kWh/m²/day of collector would capture... calculator... 16.4 MWh of storable energy. That' s about 56 million BTU or 560 therms. That much looks good, the rest comes down to resource requirements and cost—and we know that those are pretty dismal for PV systems. It might look better if excess wind power can also be dumped to it.