Posted on 05/06/2009 2:37:34 PM PDT by shove_it
I’ve written extensively on the severe economic, environmental, and national security problems the US faces as a result of its dependence on foreign oil imports in an era of peak oil. A recent series of my articles published here on SeekingAlpha have built strong cases to support the following assertions:
The transportation sector is 70% of total US oil consumption. To significantly reduce US foreign oil imports the US must reduce oil (gasoline) consumption in the transportation sector.
The only US domestic fuel capable of being scaled up to significantly reduce oil consumption in the transportation sector over the next 5-10 years is natural gas.
Natural gas vehicles emit 20% less CO2 than do gasoline powered internal combustion engines and none of the toxic particulates.
[...]
Not everyone agrees with all of these bullets. However, after much constructive debate in SA’s comment section, no evidence was presented that any other energy policy can significantly reduce foreign oil imports (say 5-7 million barrels a day) over the next 5 years.
[...]
{long article follows at link}
(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...
Fuelmaker and “The Phill”
NGV owners were shocked and dismayed (not to mention really PO’d) recently by news that Fuelmaker was headed for bankruptcy. Here is an article that describes what happened.
http://www.speroforum.com/a/18846/Honda-to-sell-Fuelmaker-amid-outrage
Not correct. Coal gasification which turns the solid coal into a liquid fuel is quite well understood. And we have plenty of coal.
Natural gas is a dead end technology as well. There are safety issues as well as pollution issues, and the stuff isn’t that great to burn off - one of the byproducts of CNG combustion is *formaldehyde*.
The only way forward seems to be hydrogen and electric - and building more nuclear power plants.
tap gas hydrate, then reconstitute it as the fuel itself, instead of a source of the fuel.
just thinkin...
There is no actual shortage of petroleum. Just government manufactured shortages of the refined product.
We don’t need a non cure for a non problem.
That admitted to, I want a 1937 Packard, with a totally silent fuel cell power train.
“The only way forward seems to be hydrogen and electric - and building more nuclear power plants.”
That’s too bad, since neither electric or H2 are “fuels”. One must burn some fuel or use nuclear energy to get either of them...
Correct, hydrogen and electric are merely media to transfer power from the reactor to your vehicles or other remote consumption devices.
Thing is, hydrogen can be made almost for “free” as you cannot throttle a nuclear reactor and the reaction continues to “burn” at a constant rate (more or less) at night when demand is minimal. Right now, all that power is going to waste, but if you could set up a hydrocracking plant next door to make hydrogen, you’d get hydrogen for cars at no significant additional energy expense.
And the only byproduct of hydrogen combustion or use in a fuel cell is water.
You are incorrect in how a nuclear power plant is operated. It can be throttled back, just not quickly without problems. Also electric utilities tend to keep the nuclear plants fully loaded and shut down and/or lower other plants during lower demand times.
I agree.
I was oversimplifying, of course.
It is not economical to throttle a nuclear plant up and down due to grid demand, as you’ve noticed. Thing is, if we build more nukes (as we need to), then we’ll end up with surplus power at night that could (and should) be used for other things.
We won’t have wasted power.
The reactor is not going to be able to produce heat that isn’t taken away through the turbine.
At least, not for very long.
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.