Posted on 08/11/2006 8:38:46 AM PDT by grandpa jones
Alternative Energy Sources. Nothing gets my spidey-news-senses tingling like that phrase. Heh™. Want to stop enabling ME terrorists? Then find a way to quit feeding the Oil-Ticks who bleed the wealth of the Western world, and then use the proceeds to fund terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at dearnuke.blogspot.com ...
I'd like to see the President really take the lead in this. Other than a few words about hydrogen fuel cells, and switch grass ethanol, he hasn't been out in front in the kind of way that it takes to rally the country.
Here's what I'd like to see. GWB in a national address, announces the introduction of the public sale of a new bond -- The US Energy Bond. The goal being to raise $10 bn. Announce that the research team which comes up with the most practical new energy source, along with the most practical implementation plan will share in a prize of $1 bn. The remaining $9 bn would be used to fund low-interest start-up loans for all of the new business opportunities that would result in the change-over from oil. I think about consortiums of technical research teams from MIT, along with physical distribution and marketing teams from Wharton or Harvard Business School. We've got the brain power to make this happen.
What a beautiful thought you have there. You really should send it to your congress-critter and your senator and to the White House. You have never lived a day in your life when you didn't see an American who didn't love competition and finding new ways to make life better for all of us. Cool thinking on your part. Now, if we could figure out a way to make diesel fuel out of kudzu, I'd be wealthy! I can't get rid of that stuff no matter what. It grows a foot a day, rain or shine. Maybe I should mate it with corn or soybeans..... :0 )
Chemistry and physics determine what the possible non-petroleum replacements for petroleum might be. The problem is that medium-sized alkanes are so very good at the task that the fuel of the future is likely to be synthesized alkanes!
First, almost all stationary energy consumption needs can be satisfied with electricity, the most flexible and easily transported (and therefore the highest quality) form of "raw" energy. Its only serious drawback is that it cannot be stored efficiently for later use - Every watt used must be generated at the same instant it is consumed, although generally at a great distance. Nuclear energy clearly can answer this need today, and nuclear fusion might fill that need in the future, so we can put this aside for the moment.
Crude oil provides over 95% of our transportation fuel, which accounts for about 2/3 of our crude oil consumption. Transportation fuel must have certain characteristics to be useful and practical, which is why an extension cord won't work. It must have a high concentration of fully oxidizable molecules, stable, predictable, and appropriate combustion characteristics, and chemical stability in environmental temperatures and pressures. In addition, it must be adaptable to powering a vehicle using atmospheric oxygen. Metallic sodium comes to mind as a BAD example.
The three most commonly mentioned alternatives are hydrogen, ethanol, and "biodiesel".
Hydrogen in liquified form would be perfect - except for the problems. It is not available in usable form anywhere on this planet. (But maybe we could run a pipeline to the Sun, where it exists in great abundance?) However, hydrogen is 11% of the oceans, so perhaps we could extract it from there. Then we would have to concentrate, store, and distribute it.
Concentration is a problem. Hydrogen cannot be liquified above cryogenic temperatures, an extremely expensive task that is not practical for small vehicles. (But it works for the space shuttle!) Hydrogen gas can be compressed, but how much? The tank full of gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicle holds twice as much hydrogen per gallon as the highest technology, custom, fiber-reinforced tanks filled to 10,000 PSI. Just the energy to compress the hydrogen to high pressure, or transfer it from a fill tank to the vehicle would be a significant fraction of the fuel energy value. The exit valve would freeze and the receiving tank would heat just from the transfer process, and as the station tank emptied (and its pressure declined) gas would have to be actively pumped into the vehicle tank - using more energy.
Hydrogen has three other problems: it causes embrittlement of metals; as the lightest molecule in existence, it penetrates the tiniest flaws in tanks and pipes, which always exist; and it is explosive over the widest mixture range of any combustible gas. This last means that hydrogen tanks and systems MUST be ventilated to prevent buildup and explosions.
Biodiesel works in most applications, but the problem is supply. To meet the consumption demand we would need a dedicated supply from purpose-grown crops, with all that requires, including tillage, pesticides and fertilizers, and most of all, water. Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado might work, with enough water, although I think you would have to add Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. Leftover cooking oil is not enough.
Ethanol and ethanol blends also work for most applications, although they have a lower energy content because the molecule (C2H5OH) is already partially oxidized. This might prevent its use for aviation. But they have the same problem in terms of sourcing.
OK, back to the President. He has just specified the two most promising technologies, right on target. Corn is currently the primary agricultural source for ethanol, and soybean (oil) for biodiesel. Neither of these is viable in the long term.
Switchgrass or cellulostic ethanol is the next step, because it will not require a complete restructuring of our agriculture. We need - and are developing - better enzymes, better fermenting bacteria, and better processes for this extraction, which will eventually more than double the per-acre and per-ton yield from these sources.
And fuel cells are far more efficient at converting fuel and air to electricity than a rotary engine/generator, but they are very expensive and very fragile. Will the fuel cell, full-electric car be our future? Perhaps.
I want to point out that a large sector of our commercial transport system already operates on hybrid technology - every freight locomotive is a large diesel generator with electric motors driving its wheels. No gears, no transmission, just electrical controls. Consider this; if we electrified our major train routes, we could eliminate that diesel consumption. By the way, I laugh when I hear the car people talk about the difficulty of scaling up their hybrids.
I think the car of the future will by the plug-in, "full" hybrid, that runs entirely on electricity but carries an on-board generator. You would plug it in to accumulate battery power from the grid for a short commute or errands, but when needed its internal generator would start up to keep you going. That generator would be either a diesel rotary or a fuel cell, depending on fuel technology and cost.
And by the time that cars like these fill the roads, perhaps we will find a method - some kind of trolley, or road slot arrangement - to provide and meter electricity to cars and trucks on major roads and intercity routes. How much diesel is used by trucks?
If this happened, we could tell the middle east that if they want to do business with us we might buy beach sand, but we don't need that other stuff any more.
One more thing. The generator would also be re-charging the batteries while the car is in transit.
He was a smart guy. And this was back when gas was less than 50 cents/gal.
Here is a link to what I consider to be a definitive analysis of why the kind of hydrogen projects currently under way are nothing but publicity stunts.
http://www.methanol.org/pdf/HydrogenEconomyReport2003.pdf
The authors of this 35-page report, even back in 2003, were as certain as I am that the fuel of the future that will replace the hydrocarbon fuels of today will be... manufactured (synthesized) hydrocarbons! Their favorite happens to be methanol ("wood alcohol", CH3OH), but they acknowledge ethanol, propane and butane, and octane (the primary component of gasoline.)
However, even after going through this report again, I do not think I would change ANYTHING I wrote earlier in post 7.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.