Solution to the oil problem

[Federal Farmer]

Just like no one will want a nuclear reactor in their back yard...yeah...I hear ya.

That's why you develop a central power plant utlizing these electricy-generating bacterial reactions. Duh.

Uh, 'tin-foil-hatted' silly person, I DO have a nuclear power plant in my back yard, and I LOVE IT! Frankly I wish they'd build 2 or 3 more of them. Nuclear power is the SAFEST and CLEANEST power source we have, and with the exception of the Chernobyl disaster, there has never been a major incident in ANY nuclear power plant in the United States, EVER (and no, TMI does NOT count).

 

[foggedinn]

What happens to a town that doesn't have a consistent conventional source of power? Answer... black outs. As such, let's say a town requires 200 Megawatts of power. Let us also say that town has 200 MWs of alternative energy, like Solar panels or windmills. Now unless the town wants to black out every time a cloud goes by, or the wind stops, that town will still need a 200 MW nuclear, coal or gas power plant. Thus, the alternative energy production is pointless.

The entire lower 48 is connected to the electrical grid. All of these alternative power generation methods just feed power into the grid. No town I'm aware of depends solely of alternative power to the exclusion of the grid. Therefore no blackouts just because it's raining or the wind isn't blowing.

I saw on the news that T. Boone Pickens is touting wind power to save us from the arabs in the middle east. Mr. Pickens ususally makes a lot of sense. I just have a hard time believing that wind power can be economically scaled to deliver power in the gigawatt range.

 

[Sihouette]

It depends on the region and consistency and predictability of the windflow.

In other situations solar is way more appropriate. In others still, geothermal or hydro.

Here's one that's relatively new but very fun to think about. If you had these systems randomly sunk into roadbeds in areas of high traffic (which in California for instance is just about everywhere), the power of the cars driving over them could be used twice. Efficiency is very exciting. It would mean that the cars themselves are even more efficient in the big picture.

KinergyPower is a new form of alternative energy which is also an example of distributed generation. KinergyPower was invented by two brothers Stefanos and Dimitri Horianopolous in Greece in 2002. Their system uses a series of hydraulic pistons to absorb the kinetic energy from the motion of traffic and transform it into hydraulic pressure. This pressure powers a hydro-generator unit which produces electricity. KinergyPowerUSA was established in September 2005 and is based in Bedford, NY. It is headed by a management team that includes local Westchester business executives Demetri and Susan Papacostas. Source: http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

 

[PLC1]

Yes and No. There are plenty of alternative energy sources being developed that have some potential. However we must live in the present, and currently only two have any real practical use.

Those being hydropower, and geothermal power. However there are large draw backs to both. Hydro power requires massive initial investment, and is not scaleable. Meaning, whatever energy generation is present, is pretty much all you can get. Geothermal also requires a large investment, is not scaleable, and has a reducing production dynamic, and finely is limited by suitable locations.

Thus both have a limited market, and are not likely to be anything but a small fraction of the US electrical energy generation.

As for the remaining alternative energy sources, the two largest being wind and solar, neither are viable. Not that wind and solar do not work... both do in fact produce electricity from their respective sources, however they can not replace a conventional source of power. Why?

Because you can't count on them. If a thunderstorm hits, how much power is that solar panel producing? None. If the wind stops, how much is that windmill producing? None.

What happens to a town that doesn't have a consistent conventional source of power? Answer... black outs. As such, let's say a town requires 200 Megawatts of power. Let us also say that town has 200 MWs of alternative energy, like Solar panels or windmills. Now unless the town wants to black out every time a cloud goes by, or the wind stops, that town will still need a 200 MW nuclear, coal or gas power plant. Thus, the alternative energy production is pointless.

"yeah well I know that when the wind is blowing or the sun is out, I'm saving fossil fuels with my panels and wind mills"

No you are not. See, wind and sun power can die in seconds. So the reliable conventional energy power plant, must be ready at a moments notice. Remember, all three run steam generators, which requires the boilers to be at temp constantly. It can take hours for a power plant to light, get up to temp, and start generating power. You think they are going to shut down the burners when the sun comes out or the wind blows? Of course not, because if they did, and it stopped, the town would be in black out till the boilers got up to temp.

So even when sun power and wind power are at peak output, there is still enough gas, coal or nuclear, burning at the local power plants to cover if it didn't exist. The only difference is the generator at the power plant is on standby, but everything is still burning.

Solar only works in locations that are consistently sunny every day with low chance of cloud cover, like the Nevada desert. Israel is big into solar power, but of course Israel is a desert wasteland, so it makes sense.

I don't know of any location with enough consistent, dependable wind, to make wind power viable.

California has deserts where the sun shines just about every day, winter and summer. I don't mean small places where a few panels could be put up, but many square miles that are really not good for much else, but which have abundant strong sunlight.

If a power plant has to produce all of the time, then hydro power is not a viable option, as they depend on adequate water. Hydro plants here work really well during the spring snowmelt, but kind of slack off in the fall when the rivers are low.

The main factor against solar is, as I said earlier, the relative cost. Once the cost comes down, that is if the cost comes down, then solar will be a viable and steady source of energy.

The same can be said for wind. We have windmills, for example, in the Coast Range mountains, where the wind usually blows 24/7 due to the temperature differential between the coast and the interior valley. That differential is pretty dependible, even if there are a few days in which the wind is unusually calm there.

One source that can't be shut down easily is nuclear. Once a nuclear plant comes on line, the supply is pretty much assured, whether it is needed at the moment or not. That's why combining nuclear and something else is a good idea. We have a nuclear plant on the California coast that is paired with a hydro plant in the Sierras. During the day, both plants produce electricity. During the night, when usage is less, the steady power from the nuclear plant is used to pump the water back uphill, where it can be used again the next day. It's like a huge battery, several miles long.

There are many ways of solving the power problem, and we need to exploit them all. Just drilling isn't going to get us energy independent.

 

[PLC1]

I think too many people have accepted as truth that there are people saying, "drill, drill, drill and do nothing else." Wonder where they got that idea.... (D)

Probably by listening to pundits and pols saying "drill, drill, drill, and nothing else"

That's just a wild guess, of course.

 

[Libsmasher]

It depends on the region and consistency and predictability of the windflow.

In other situations solar is way more appropriate. In others still, geothermal or hydro.

Here's one that's relatively new but very fun to think about. If you had these systems randomly sunk into roadbeds in areas of high traffic (which in California for instance is just about everywhere), the power of the cars driving over them could be used twice. Efficiency is very exciting. It would mean that the cars themselves are even more efficient in the big picture.

Any first-year physics student would laugh his ass off at this. Such a system can only get energy by stealing it from the kinetic energy of cars. Any energy derived would be at the cost of the car's fuel mileage. This is like generating energy by putting an engine on a block, attaching it to a generator, and hooking it to the power grid.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've already posted part of this, but here's the whole idea.

The US creates plants to "gassify" coal. The coal gassification plants are powered by a new generation of nuclear reactors, the first of maybe 100 new reactors to be built.

That more energy goes into the gassification than is yielded by the resulting synthetic gasoline is irrelevent - the US has huge amounts of both coal and uranium, and nuclear reactors generate energy in abundance.

After the amount of synthetic gas created equals that of a suitable base year, imports of oil are illegalized.

The gassification plants stay in operation until practical electric cars are created - then the gassifications plants are shut down, and the huge new demands for electricity to power the nations electric cars is available as the nuke plants switch their output to the power grid. In practice, there will be a gradual shut down of gassification plants and re-direction of the new electricrty produced, as electric cars become cheaper and in wider use.

The end result:

- Minimal polution.
- An end to energy imports.
- No more middle east blackmail of the US.
- As the technology spreads to other countries, an end to oil-financed islamofascists and arab theocracies.

We can all play the armchair general and spell out what we think it best. You might even be right. But what if you are not. What if we let the decision be up to a committee of congressmen and they were not right? No. the decision cannot be left up to any p[erson or group who will be swayed by politics, and will never have all the data they need to make the best decision.

The free market is the only sytem in which a perfect decision will eventually be arrived at. Whichever combination of energy sources and conservation techniques work best will occur!!

Now we all know that our politicians will tinker with things. So here is a half baked idea...I don't know if it has any value but I am sure that many minds debating it can decide...

You all remember that once our country was on the gold standard. If the price if gold went up the value of the dollar went up too. Of course if it went down so did the value of the dollar.

And you all know that the gold standard was an arbitrary decision to start and to stop. So why not set our economy on the oil standard. The price of oil is not going to go down any time soon. Let the price of the dollar be pegged to the price of oil. When the price of oil goes up so will the value of the dollar. At least for the US this will effectively freeze the price of gas. We could freeze it right where it is at now. High enough so that there is an incentive to explore alternatives but low enough so that our economy does not suffer too much.

 

[PLC1]

We can all play the armchair general and spell out what we think it best. You might even be right. But what if you are not. What if we let the decision be up to a committee of congressmen and they were not right? No. the decision cannot be left up to any p[erson or group who will be swayed by politics, and will never have all the data they need to make the best decision.

The free market is the only sytem in which a perfect decision will eventually be arrived at. Whichever combination of energy sources and conservation techniques work best will occur!!

Now we all know that our politicians will tinker with things. So here is a half baked idea...I don't know if it has any value but I am sure that many minds debating it can decide...

You all remember that once our country was on the gold standard. If the price if gold went up the value of the dollar went up too. Of course if it went down so did the value of the dollar.

And you all know that the gold standard was an arbitrary decision to start and to stop. So why not set our economy on the oil standard. The price of oil is not going to go down any time soon. Let the price of the dollar be pegged to the price of oil. When the price of oil goes up so will the value of the dollar. At least for the US this will effectively freeze the price of gas. We could freeze it right where it is at now. High enough so that there is an incentive to explore alternatives but low enough so that our economy does not suffer too much.

That's an intriguing idea. Of course, the federal government couldn't just print money at will, so they would have to do what no one seems willing to do just now, balance the federal budget.

 

[Sihouette]

Libsmasher, apparently the folks in New York aren't laughing their asses off but rather smiling with happiness. If you have movement, you can harness energy, first year physics students know this. Honing the efficiency, mainly via reducing resistance friction, is the trick. That's why we have 3rd year physcis students, which apparently you're not.

California has deserts where the sun shines just about every day, winter and summer. I don't mean small places where a few panels could be put up, but many square miles that are really not good for much else, but which have abundant strong sunlight.

If a power plant has to produce all of the time, then hydro power is not a viable option, as they depend on adequate water. Hydro plants here work really well during the spring snowmelt, but kind of slack off in the fall when the rivers are low.

So here's a thought for this region. Have a central distribution center that grabs more power from hydro in the Spring and gradually switches over to solar as the Summer and Fall approach, the brightest times of years in most regions..

We don't have to try so hard to make it hard. BigOil will try every trick in the book to make what is actually very simple, look just too damned difficult to even possibly consider. They have a ve$ted interest in doing so. Time to tell them to stick it. That's what any first year sociology or economics student would rightly conclude.

 

[Sihouette]

There are several solar power plants in the Mojave Desert which supply power to the electricity grid. Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) is the name given to nine solar power plants in the Mojave Desert which were built in the 1980s. These plants have a combined capacity of 354 megawatts (MW) making them the largest solar power installation in the world.[1] Nevada Solar One is a new solar thermal plant with a 64-MW generating capacity, located near Boulder City, NV.[2] There are also plans to build other large solar plants in the Mojave Desert. The Mojave Solar Park will deliver 553 MW of solar thermal power when fully operational in 2011.[3]

Insolation (solar radiation) in the Mojave Desert is among the best available in the United States, and some significant population centers are located in the area. This makes the Mojave Desert particularly suitable for solar power plants. These plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials..

..Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert

Aerial view of the Solar Two facility, showing the power tower (left) surrounded by the sun-tracking mirrors (Same Source)

 

[Sihouette]

The Schatz Solar Hydrogen Project is a full-time, automated, stand-alone energy system that demonstrates that hydrogen can be used to store solar energy. It powers the air compressor that aerates the aquaria at Humboldt State University's Telonicher Marine Laboratory in Trinidad, California. The system uses energy from the sun to power the compressor directly and to produce hydrogen that powers the compressor when the sun is not available. The end result is that the fish enjoy solar-powered air bubbles twenty-four hours a day.

In the solar hydrogen cycle, solar energy provides the electricity to remove hydrogen from ordinary water by the process of electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be stored or transported. When hydrogen is recombined with oxygen, usable energy results. No resources are consumed and the only byproduct is pure water. In this cycle hydrogen is an energy carrier; it allows us to store and transport solar energy in large quantities.

How It Works
Sunlight hits the photovoltaic panels, which convert solar energy into electricity. This electricity is used to first power the air compressor directly. When more energy is available than the compressor needs, the excess electricity powers an electrolyzer, which splits water into oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen gas is vented to the atmosphere, and the hydrogen gas is stored in tanks behind the lab.

When the photovoltaic panels do not receive enough sunlight to power the compressor (either at night or when the weather is cloudy), the system automatically shifts to fuel cell operation. The fuel cell directly converts chemical energy into electricity by combining the stored hydrogen with oxygen from the air--basically the reverse of the electrolyzer. In this way water and sunlight, both natural and abundant, are used in a cycle to produce power. Hydrogen stores solar energy, so the power is available whenever it is needed.

A fuel cell is similar to a battery in that it converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy, but a battery requires recharging when it runs down. The fuel cell continues to produce power as long as it is supplied with hydrogen and air. This direct conversion of chemical energy to electricity is a shortcut from the usual way of obtaining electricity from a fuel, which involves burning the fuel, producing heat to boil water, and using the steam to turn a turbine that turns a generator, which produces electricity. Source http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/trinidad.html

How to get hydrogen power from the sun...Mr. Schwarzanegger, are you listening?

 

[Andy]

The entire lower 48 is connected to the electrical grid. All of these alternative power generation methods just feed power into the grid. No town I'm aware of depends solely of alternative power to the exclusion of the grid. Therefore no blackouts just because it's raining or the wind isn't blowing.

I saw on the news that T. Boone Pickens is touting wind power to save us from the arabs in the middle east. Mr. Pickens ususally makes a lot of sense. I just have a hard time believing that wind power can be economically scaled to deliver power in the gigawatt range.

Yes and no. It's true that each part of the grid is interconnected, but just like California lost power, or New York lost power, or any of the major black outs in history, if a connecting grid can not provide the balance of power required, it disconnects. I was at lake Erie in Ohio when the '03 black out happened.

The point wasn't to make a real life example, obviously because in real life, no one depends on wind or solar for power (psst: it doesn't work). The purpose was to simplify a situation to illustrate the flaw.

So, maybe I wasn't specific enough. Let me try again. If I put a wind mill in my back yard, and it generates power off and on for a week... How many coal power plants can close? Zero. "you need more" Ok, lets say I put a million of them on an acer, how many power plants can close? Zero. If I put ten million up, how many power plants can close? Zero.

If you had a billion wind mills that... when the wind is blowing... produce 500 GWs of power... again, how many power plants can close? ZERO! Not one single power plant can close, because the instant the wind dies, you MUST have the required power generation or the grid blacks out.

Now if you think I'm incorrect, by all means, you explain to me how the lights will stay when the wind dies.

 

[Andy]

California has deserts where the sun shines just about every day, winter and summer. I don't mean small places where a few panels could be put up, but many square miles that are really not good for much else, but which have abundant strong sunlight.

Yes, I'm aware of this. However in those locations there is a better system. Perhaps you have seen it. A tower with a water boiler at the top, with thousands of mirrors directing sun light at it. The water boils, and runs a steam generator.

Photovoltic is actually one of the least efficient and practical ways of converting sunlight into electricity. The world leader in solar power is Israel, and they use almost no photovoltic cells at all.

I have to hand it to the Jews. They don't get caught up in political scams, they use what works.

With that said, let me make it clear that I'm all for using whatever resources are available in the area. If you have a desert, by all means. If you have geological heat vents in your area, by all means use geothermal.

But this should be done at state level, by the locals of the area. As a national policy, this is a boondoggle in the making. Ohio doesn't have any reliable sun light. Ohio doesn't have any geological heat vents. Ohio doesn't have any consistent wind (as if it would help). We have gas, coal, uranium.

Forming national policy that hinders us and rewards you, would not only be immoral, but also an economic disaster.

If a power plant has to produce all of the time, then hydro power is not a viable option, as they depend on adequate water. Hydro plants here work really well during the spring snowmelt, but kind of slack off in the fall when the rivers are low.

Yes and no. Yes hydropower is not a complete replacement where, like you said, during a drought or in the dry season, they slack off power production. However, unlike Solar and Wind, a hydropower plant is predictable. If the reservoir is full, you can safely shut down a coal power plant, put the fires out, shut the doors and go home... because a massive dam isn't going to go from full to dry in a days time.

Solar and Wind on the other hand can go from maximum output to near zero in 10 minutes. As such, that coal power plant might be idling, but it had better be idling, or it's lights out.

The main factor against solar is, as I said earlier, the relative cost. Once the cost comes down, that is if the cost comes down, then solar will be a viable and steady source of energy.

Yeah, but that's a huge "if", and not likely to change anytime soon. Theories about cheap photovoltaic have circulated for ages, yet they never show up. Another issue is that most research indicates that (as it stands) more electricity is used in the production of a panel, than is ever produced from the panel during it's life time. Thus we are using tons of energy to gain less back. A little known fact about photovoltaic cells is that they degrade with use, and must be replaced at regular intervals.

The same can be said for wind. We have windmills, for example, in the Coast Range mountains, where the wind usually blows 24/7 due to the temperature differential between the coast and the interior valley. That differential is pretty dependible, even if there are a few days in which the wind is unusually calm there.

And I can promise you they have enough conventional power plant capacity to cover every single wind mill you have. So what's the point?

One source that can't be shut down easily is nuclear. Once a nuclear plant comes on line, the supply is pretty much assured, whether it is needed at the moment or not. That's why combining nuclear and something else is a good idea.

Not true. That is a urban myth based on old out dated information. I used to think that as well, but this is because we (the U.S.) have not continued to develop nuclear technology like other nations have. The latest generation of nuclear power plants can but put into a low power, low burn mode just as easily as any other power plant type.

However, there is another reason for this myth. Nuclear power plants are by far, the cheapest most cost effective, least upkeep, power generation available. Therefore, when a power company chooses which power plant to shut down during low demand, which is it going to choose? The expensive natural gas plant? The moderate coal plant? Or the extremely cheap nuclear plant? It'll be the gas and coal first. Not because you can't switch a nuclear reactor off, but because the others are more expensive.

Nuclear reactors are shut down routinely. They if I remember right, in a four-core plant, one reactor is shut down each mouth for routine maintenance checks and safety inspections. (I'd have to double check, but that sounds right)

Just drilling isn't going to get us energy independent.

I respectfully disagree!

 

[Federal Farmer]

Now if you think I'm incorrect, by all means, you explain to me how the lights will stay when the wind dies.

The same way I was doing it back in the '70s, and the same way lots of people are doing it today, it's called going "off the grid". The solar panels and wind turbines provide energy to the home itself, as well as to your battery back-up system, that's how you can be totally off the grid and still have electricity at night! With enough batteries, you can actually go for days on them when there's no sunshine. LINK ANOTHER LINK

If you really want to make your system pay for itself, stay "on the grid" and have it set up where your excess energy, after your batteries are fully charged, goes back INTO the grid, and your local power company will actually pay you for the energy you're providing. If you have a really cloudy winter, and can't recharge your batteries, you can still draw from the grid, and pay for it just like everyone else. The advantage to staying "on the grid" is that if it's just a really cloudy, nasty winter, you can stay on the grid and keep your batteries charged with no problems even if the wind isn't blowing, AND, if the power does go out (trees falling across lines, ice and snow bring them down, etc.), with your battery back-up, and judicial use of it, you can keep your home going, running just the basics, until the electrical company gets their lines repaired, and you won't have to go to an emergency shelter, or freeze to death, or have to resort to using a generator (although I do recommend one 'just in case', as well as emergency kerosene heaters).

 

[Andy]

You all remember that once our country was on the gold standard. If the price if gold went up the value of the dollar went up too. Of course if it went down so did the value of the dollar.

Actually, that's a reversed view. If an oz. of gold is worth more $, it's isn't the value of the Gold that changes. It's the value of the dollar. When our money is worth less, it requires more money to buy the same amount of gold. Does that make sense? Gold stays the same, it's the dollar that changes position. It's an example of inflation and de-inflation.

During the Gold standard, the "value" of gold, nor the currency could change. $20 dollars was worth 1 oz. of Gold. Next year, $20 = 1 oz gold. One hundred years later, $20 = 1 oz. Gold. That's the point of a currency standard... to have a stable knowable value of the currency.

With out the standard, $1,000 in the 1940s was 1/4th the cost of a newly built home, and now it's barely a months rent. The value of the dollar changes, because it's not based on anything.

And you all know that the gold standard was an arbitrary decision to start and to stop. So why not set our economy on the oil standard. The price of oil is not going to go down any time soon. Let the price of the dollar be pegged to the price of oil. When the price of oil goes up so will the value of the dollar. At least for the US this will effectively freeze the price of gas. We could freeze it right where it is at now. High enough so that there is an incentive to explore alternatives but low enough so that our economy does not suffer too much.

Amusing, but very bad. By having the dollar based on the "oil standard", would mean that every dollar would be worth a determined amount of oil. This would mean the government would have to compensate every federal note (dollar) with oil. Do you think our government has roughly $10 trillion worth in oil? Of course not. If any enemy of the US wished to cause us economic harm, they could demand compensation by trading in US currency.

Example, we buy million in imports. If those countries demanded to redeem the millions of dollars they have, with oil, our government would be instantly bankrupt.

Or China, which has a trillion or so of our debt, could demand oil in payment, which our government could not do, and again, instantly bankrupt.

The value of the dollar will not drop, but crash, having no value at all since our government couldn't back it. Economic chaos would ensue.