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
A full repowering and total decarbonizing of the US economy would take on the order of 10,000 plants (though they would be much smaller than today's light-water reactors). I am doing the thermodynamics for a combined heat and power steam cycle right now.
The USA has something in excess of 1600 terawatt-years of uranium already mined, refined and sitting in inventory. Most of this is depleted uranium and most of the rest is in used LWR fuel, but it is all suitable fuel for fast-breeder reactors. It would be entirely feasible to run the entire US economy on only this uranium, without either mining or importing another gram.
This looks like it might lead to something like a switch from taxiing under main engine power to APU-powered electric nosewheel taxiing, or even transport from gate to the engine runup area by electric tugs. The less time the main engines are running on or near the ground, the lower the particle emissions where they are most likely to be inhaled.
Meanwhile, we have this development that also utterly contradicts everything you've claimed: Even though decisions to invest in coal-fired power plants declined to their lowest level this century and retirements rose, the global coal power fleet continued to expand, particularly in developing Asian countries. The continuing investments in coal plants, which have a long lifecycle, appear to be aimed at filling a growing gap between soaring demand for power and a levelling off of expected generation from low-carbon investments (renewables and nuclear). The one thing I have to look forward to is that there's probably no internet access in rest homes for those with senile dementia, and you'll soon be off-line.
Despite the spring thaw having just happened, Lake Mead is currently at 1088.15 feet (no link, the filter hates it), just 38 feet above the point where Hööver Dam can no longer generate power. I know I can remind you of that every day, and you'll ignore it and assert totally contrary things the next day or even later the same day.
No batteries and no pumped Hydro would be required to make 24/7 REs. So you responded to me in another thread thusly: "Supplying terawatt-years of storage required for terawatt-years of clean energy depends of where you are." Are you lyïng here, or were you lyïng over there? Or are you so senïle that you can't remember what you wrote 14 hours previous?
(running into filter problems again, so splitting comment up to find the problem.)The truth is that clean REs is generating more and more lower cost clean energy The truth is that this DOES NOT MATTER. It measures the wrong thing. What matters is the amount of fossil fuel being consumed. In Germany, those reductions have stalled out. This is ENTIRELY due to the demand for unreliable "REs" instead of clean, reliable nuclear. Without nuclear power, the backup for the ruinables can only be fossil fuel. This is why Germany continues to mine and burn lignite. It doesn't matter HOW much "renewable" energy you harvest; if you can't stop burning fossil fuels, you are going to kill the planet. and is becoming the main energy source in many more countries Ain't happening. In 2018, neither wind nor solar generated more energy on the US grid than conventional hydro, and together ALL the "renewables" only accounted for 17% of US electric generation. Of motor fuel, well under 10%. Of heating and industrial energy, aircraft fuel and chemical feedstocks, almost nothing. Wind/Solar energy sources can benefit from the huge Hydro water reservoirs to supply peak demands and periods when solar/wind sources are not producing enough. Those reservoirs are anything but "huge". Lake Erie dwarfs them all, and even pumping the entirety of Lake Erie uphill by its own average depth would not store the electric energy used by the USA for more than about a week and a half. That would leave transport, heating, industrial, etc. totally unmet.
NG can only be "the" answer if you have no price on carbon emissions. At even $50/ton you're going to see some pressure to electrify.
From the abstract of the report:In 2018, PEVs used 2.8 terawatt-hours of electricity to drive 8.6 billion miles, offsetting 320 million gallons of gasoline. The majority of these vehicles were assembled in the United States, and over 42 gigawatt-hours of lithium-ion batteries have been installed in vehicles. Dividing 2800 GWh of electricity by 42 GWh of battery capacity, this yields an average utilization of 66.7 full-capacity charges per battery per year. This is a disappointingly low figure, and shows that the allocation of batteries between vehicle types is very inefficient for the fuel savings created. Had all the batteries been allocated to PHEVs and used at 1.5 full charges per day on weekdays (390 full charges/year) and 0.75 charges/day on weekends (78 full charges/year), this would increase to 468 full charges/battery/year. 42 GWh of batteries would have accounted for 19.66 TWh of electric consumption and, pari passu, displaced 2.25 billion gallons of gasoline (about 1.5%). The savings in practice would be greater, because hybridizing the vehicle reduces fuel consumption by about 1/3 off the top.
Nowhere near enough biogas to fuel them either.
More and more lies from GCC's propagandist-in-chief. Young growing forest can and do capture more CO2 than fully grown forests. Here's what Sustainable Economy has to say about that: All forms of logging generate carbon dioxide emissions because roughly 80 percent of the carbon dioxide stored in trees ends up being lost to the waste stream or burned in the manufacturing and consumption of lumber, paper, or biomass products. The waste stream decays rapidly, releasing major amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within a year or so of logging.....Most forms of logging, especially clearcutting, reduce the carbon sequestration capacity of a given site simply because trees that were once there capturing and storing carbon dioxide are no longer present. Lost carbon sequestration capacity is a form of indirect emissions because carbon dioxide that was once being removed from the atmosphere now remains and thus contributes to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. For clearcut sites, carbon sequestration capacity is not only reduced to zero but actually transforms sites from net carbon dioxide sinks to net carbon dioxide emitters for a period of 10-15 years. This is because any carbon dioxide sequestered by new seedlings or residual vegetation is overshadowed by emissions associated with the decay of slash, stumps, and roots left behind after logging as well as the carbon dioxide released from disturbed soils. In addition, logging roads permanently destroy sequestration capacity. The Energiewende has been turning old-growth forest into wood chips and clearcuts in the name of "sustainability". To put it in Montrealler terms, it has been "un échec majestueux". There will always be pro-pollution, anti-environment supporters to try to prove that green policies do not work or do not work fast enough. It's so ironic for a mouthpiece of the fossil lobby to call anyone else "pro-pollution" or "anti-environment". And whether they know it or not, that's what Greens are: fossil lobby mouthpieces. When it looked like Sierra Club's "Atoms Not Dams" might also wipe out coal and oil, ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson gave $400,000 to David Brower to get anti-nuclear "Friends of the Earth" off the ground. Right now, the same forces are trying to wipe out nuclear so most of its market can be taken over by polluting, climate-destroying natural gas. "Renewables" operating at less than 20% capacity factor leave lots of profit for gas interests. The West has been pursuing Green policies since the 1970's, and has YET to show even ONE that works. Well, we are OUT of time. We have what, 12 years before we bust our carbon budget? France pursued a nuclear energy program 4 decades ago with the goal of getting off oil, and almost completely decarbonized its grid... by accident. Greens have been making empty promises since the 1970's. If climate denial is a crime, the Greens need to go to jail. All of them. Essential storage is not longer a major problem. You've been saying this. Now prove it. How much would it cost to buy the terawatt-years of storage that the US economy would require? Whose technology? Proven where? You can't answer, because you know it isn't true. STOP LYING, HARVEY! Polluters should pay for every gram of pollution they produce. Ideological pollution too. Like what you spew here.
Here's what I'm talking about. The standard weight limit for an OTR truck on US highways is 80,000 lbs (with further per-axle limits). The standard limit for a railroad car is in excess of 260,000 lbs or more than 3x as much. It costs something between $2.31 million and $2.64 million to build a mile of new high-speed track in the USA. This compares to $2-$3 million per mile for a 2-lane paved road, which is roughly equivalent. But you can take some major economies with the rail. If you downgrade the carrying capacity to 60 tons per truck (50% more than the gross weight of the typical semi) you can probably cut the cost of rail, ties and ballast considerably from the $500,000/mile cost quoted here. Put in rail and you've got a "roadway" which takes higher gross weights, is far more durable and much cheaper to fix. It's also dead simple to electrify, as we've been doing this since the 19th century. It's time to recognize it as a superior way to ship significant volumes of freight even if the freight never leaves a truck. We should have public railways just as we have public roadways.
More proof that the Green agenda as implemented is mostly bookkeeping ledgerdemain. Some people are getting rich off of this, though. Cui bono? If polluters are buying credits which allow them to avoid any reduction in their fossil-fuel consumption, the fossil-fuel interests are definitely among the cui receiving the bono. Every step of the way, we find that the "environmentalist" NGO position acts as protection for their fossil-fuel interest donors. The only true exceptions are underfunded upstarts like Environmental Progress and CGNP.
Have you ever lived in western NA? No, but crossed it enough times. Driving those wide, empty spaces induces a kind of Zen consciousness which lends itself to mental activities that are hard to do at home. I would say rail services a smaller fraction of communities than other places. Which wasn't the case even 75 years ago. A lot of local lines have been pulled up, converted from "rails to trails", and the like. But lots of the rights-of-way still exist, and new rail ROW can be made out of things like unused parts of road ROW. Freeway medians are a big possibility. Anyway intermodal is great, but trucks (at all distances) will be even more dominant in the future. Except it's not "intermodal", it's a truck on a different type of road. A road that happens to be cheaper to build and maintain than pavement, is easily electrified and handles heavy loads much better, FWIW. The fact that certain types of trains (the extended system might not be built to full freight-system specs, due to OTR trucks being much lighter) could use it too is beside the point. It's going to be far easier and cheaper to make a self-driving truck if it mostly doesn't have to steer and doesn't share space with passenger vehicles. Between the advantages of electrification without batteries/FCs, easier automation and greatly improved public safety, this could easily be the future... if it was on anyone's radar. So far, something seems to be keeping it off. Cui bono?
Lithium metal would react with H2O to make LiOH + H2, no? If this could be done with sodium, it would be earth-shaking.
Yes, Peter, it's quite the conundrum isn't it? Reducing VOCs reminds me of one of the earliest pollution-control schemes, the exhaust manifold reactor. It was an afterburner which used injected air to burn off the excess HC from a rich combustion process which prevented NOx formation. Today everything has a three-way catalyst. Perhaps it's time to go back to another old scheme, the electrically-preheated catalyst. Achieving immediate light-off and even a surge of heat as the excess fuel from cold-start hits it would probably do a lot to address that issue.
What AlzHarvey refuses to admit is that the increase in NGPPs is directly related to the unreliability of the "renewables" he loves so much.
Again with the lies. SAEP: I'm not against NPPs perse You have repeatedly characterized them as "dangerous", when they are provably safer than either wind or PV. That's a lie. against the many years required to plan, design, build and commission A direct consequence of government over-regulation, brought on by fear-mongering. Fear-mongering that YOU have PERSONALLY engaged in. current extremely high initial price tag Which is a solid argument for keeping the existing fleet running, but your own provincial utility, Gaz Metro (old name), was part of the effort to freeze Vermont Yankee out of the ISO-NE marketplace and force it to close. the high ongoing maintenance cost A great deal of this cost is for ridiculous levels of radiation "protection" for workers. This forces great expense in the planning of every job, multiplying the overall price tag. Another good chunk of cost is for extreme depth and frequency of inspections for things which wouldn't cause harm or damage if they failed. This comes from government, prompted by... fear-mongering. the lack of long term spent fuel safe disposal Dry casks will do. They will last until the stuff can be safely handled with gloves. There are plenty of options for permanent disposal, but they are blocked politically because of... fear-mongering by the likes of you. the lack of public acceptance. That comes from the lies the "no nukes" people have been telling for the last 50 years. That being said, NPPs (still) have their place for base loads and energy mix, specially where stead lower cost REs are not available. Those would be hydro and what, AlzHarvey? You've been asked this many times. You NEVER answer. You know your claim is dishonest, but you repeat it anyway. However, a mix of improved lower cost REs and storage will soon supply 24/7 REs without NPPs. And nuclear fusion has been 20 years off for the last 65-70 years. Your propaganda phrase "24/7 REs" is a lie, and you know it. Don't use it again.
There is a rather extensive rail network across the western provinces of Canada, stretching from NW Alberta to Winnipeg. Ironically, it only gets sparse when it hits Ontario and BC (though those provinces may be covered by other rail companies). It would likely be better to move as much of this road freight as possible to dual-mode, rail-capable trucks, and electrify the rail system. This would eliminate emissions without any range restrictions, and would probably allow serious down-sizing of the FC system as it would mostly be used for the "last mile" or short-haul from rail sidings to the ultimate destination. It might even allow replacement of the FC by batteries.
I'm going to list the buzz-phrases in advance. Every one is or contains a lie:"with advanced heat recovery""24/7 REs" (the only such are hydro and geothermal)"continue to favor extremely costly NPPs and not so clean NGPPs".Details in the fisking. With advanced heat recovery, recent NEL electrolysers have reached up to 80%-85% efficiency. A half-truth is a whole lie, and the half-truth in that statement is that the recovered heat is (a) not very useful, as it's generally low-temperature, and (b) effectively cannot be stored or transported. This "efficiency" is no efficiency at all when the heat is generated at the wrong place or the wrong time to make it useful. Hydrogen has 33.3 MJ/kg LHV and 39.4 MJ/kg HHV. 53 kWh/kg input power yields 59.4% conversion efficiency based on the LHV, which is what you'd be able to use with e.g. a gas turbine power plant. Fed to the type of open-cycle gas-turbine plant required to follow rapidly varying "renewables" like wind and PV, and you get maybe 40% of the HHV back for a round-trip efficiency of under 24%. The mass produced containerized units would be ideal for smaller distributed clean H2 production for FCEVs, fixed standby power units etc. Unless they were sited where heat was required and operated only WHEN heat was required, their heat would be useless and the "efficiency" based on heat recovery would be a lie. Anti-H2 posters will remain against H2 and 24/7 REs economy There is no such thing as a "24/7 REs economy" anywhere in the world, except ones based on 100% hydro. Wind and especially solar are grossly unreliable and solar's seasonal cycle is opposite to the needs of civilization. H2 is the Procrustean bed that Greens want everything stretched or cut to fit in order to make "renewables" look like a solution. H2 is great for making ammonia; it stinks on ice as an energy storage and transport medium. 24% round-trip efficiency SUCKS, AlzHarvey. That gross waste is sufficient reason to oppose it. favor extremely costly NPPs and not so clean NGPPs. You're the one who wants the NGPPs, AlzHarvey. If you don't have hydro to back up your "renewables", you have to fall back to gas. STOP LYING! A mix of many energy sources with a progressive shift to clean REs may be needed to reduce pollution and GHGs. Nuclear France's grid has 1/10 the per-kWh emissions of "Green" Germany's. Nuclear Sweden's grid has 1/10 the emissions of "Green" Denmark's. If you say you want "clean" power but oppose nuclear, you are a liar.
No, it wouldn't be 70%. Do the math.
Okay, so 5 kW gets you 1 Nm³/h. 1 Nm³ is 1000 liters, there's 22.4 liters per mole of gas at STP and H2 is 0.002 kg/mol, so this comes to 5 / (1000 * 0.002 / 22.4) = 56 kWh/kg. What's hydrogen supposed to yield, 33.9 kWh/kg? 56 kWh in is about 60% efficiency.
it would be nice if everyone went to Hybrids or EVs, but there is not much sign of it. When the First World decided it had had enough of smog, it didn't say "it would be nice if everyone went to unleaded gas and catalytic converters." It MANDATED them. I don't see a problem with mandates for e.g. maximum fuel consumption over the WLTP either. The customer can always replace liquid fuel with batteries and grid power; if they want a bigger vehicle, they shell out for more batteries. This would be far better than the trend to monster SUVs and would put a lid on it.