Fuel choices, Global Warming & Polution

Yes. Sooner or later we will as there is no other sure choice for base electric power. Fusion may be possible, but I doubt it can deliver at equally competitive cost, even if technologically possible. In some locations, limited hydroelectric can be a very significant part of the base load. Wind surely can displace water use in hydroelectric during the dryer part of the year. Mobile fuel must become renewable (from bio-mass) eventually. It is economically competitive with gasoline now and as cars etc have years of useful life, we need to start converting the transportation means to bio-fuels now.

My views on what is good and bad about fission nuclear power are summarized 4 or 5 posts below (at 34minutes after the hour) but I did not mention the radioactive waste problem, so I do so now: Spent fuel should be reprocessed to recover the unburnt fertile fraction (which in first use is greater that what was "burnt") and the radioactive waste that does not have medical use can be "vitrofied" (blended into glass and encapsulated in thin layer of pure glass making disks about a foot in diameter and a couple of inches thick). These disk can simple be dumped into a convenient deep ocean trench where tectonic movement will take them back towards the core of the Earth for at least a million years. (I would expect it feasible to throw these disks from the stern of a moving ship in an oscillatory arc, like "clay ducks" used in shot gun practice, and have near zero chance that any would collide on the way to the trench.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you know anything about the life down in the trenches?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. I am tempted to consider balls, instead of disk as no ocean depth will crack a glass ball. I only think the same is true of the disk I described. The disks aare going to distribute themselves very randomly over a much large area than their initial surface contact with ocean area, but more important is that they will not roll and cluster in low spots on the ocean floor (I do not think the balls would either as I think most of the floor is deep soft "mud" but there may be some areas relatively firm or celearted by currents (Submarine earthquakes etc can make strong transitory currents in normally stagnet water.)

On second reading of your post I think you were asking about life of giant squids etc. not the fracture of the disks: I doubt there is much in the trenches, perhaps some worms etc. I also doubt they would be injured unless a disk settled on top of them. We live in the radiation field of cosmic rays, natural radon in our well water (especially in Pa and some western states I forget, where basement are unsafe without continuous forced air ventulation). In some areas, brick houses are radioactive enought to keep geiger counters frequently clicking away. The mean distance of a randomly selected worm hole to a disk would be so large that the gamma rays would rarely reach it. Certainly we could not make them extinct even if we tried. (Considering the rate that we are making creatures extinct, this "problem" is a "non-starter.")The "pure glass" out layer stops all alphas inside it. I would be willing to bet that if the disk have any significant effect on life it is that some microscopic forms might prosper with a little local heat - certainly most deep life that is known to exist loves hot water and acid /sulpher rich conditions near the deep sea vents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree that tons of money are going to the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Yes, I'm pretty keen on the world of economics and because of that I believe you slightly underestimate the hold that OPEC has. It's true that there's oil in Russia, Alaska, the North Sea and a few other places, notably Nigeria and Venezuela. I think you should take note that with the exceptions of the effects of strikes in Venezuela which lowered production, there was no decrease in output from the other major areas that you and I have listed. However, even with that being true, the recent surge in world oil prices was mostly an effect of the loss of Iraqi oil during the coalition's invasion of the Middle East. Yes, speculation played a large role but the bottom line is that with increased demand from Asia (primarily China) there was an actual decline in supply vs demand. And although OPEC took steps to increase production as much as possible, they did NOT lower their prices at all. And that's the significant part.

Speaking purely economically, OPEC has clearly demonstrated to the world, as it did back in the 1970s, that it isn't all that difficult for a group of nations to control a strategic material. So the eventual (30, 40 years?) formation of an alcohol-based OPEC is certainly not unthinkable in the least. If the world's economy becomes based on alcohol for fuel, any number of undesirable things can occur. A near-total reliance on any one thing easily leads to political and economic abuse of those dependent upon others for their supply. The lessons of the 70s and the recent war are too easily overlooked.

 

While briefy describing the "radioactive disk placed in deep ocean trench" idea, I forgot to mention that the radioactive waste should be stored for a few years to let most of the short lifetime stuff go away. This is a security problem, but not any worse than many chemical plants or rail-road tank cars that go thus our cities.

 

The "hold that OPEC has" is not economic, it is geological. I think Nigeria is in OPEC and Know Venezuela is - that is why I did not mention them.

OPEC states are pumping as much as they can to try to keep prices down for reasons I mentioned in prior post (trying to avoid customers permanent switching to currently available alternative alcohol.) They also know that the current extraction rates will reduce the final total yield of their fields (Too quick removal cause compression of the porous rocks. - They need to remain under nearly their natural pressure or you will never recover most of the oil in them. If rulers were more sure that their grandchildren would still rule, the current production would be more for maximum total extraction and at less than half the current rate. The also fear, correctly so, that if they produced at the best total yield rate, the US would remove them from their thrones, instead of prop them up on them. If they had any doubts about this, Iraq made that clear.)

When demand exceeds production, as now, the buyers set the price, not the sellers.

One day soon you may see this in spades. I think the great Chinese military budget increase is for re annexation of Taiwan in a few years. If US impedes this, or tries to, the Chinese will just announce that they too plan a strategic oil reserve and guarantee at least $100/barrel price for oil to any and all the sellers. US is currently giving China the economic firepower to kill the US (and most of the western world) economically. (Carl Marks, in Das Capital said: "A capitalist will sell you the rope with which to hang him.")

First: you ignore my main point on this: oil is found in a few spots, but sunshine covers all. Any tropical nation can sell cheap alcohol.
Second: I am not an advocate of one fuel source. In recent post, replying to DaleSpam, I suggested reasons why bio-diesel is to be preferred to alcohol.

The point about alcohol is that it requires only political change in the major markets. IT IS AVAILABLE NOW and CHEAPER NOW and CAR HAVE BEEN DRIVING ON IT FOR 30 YEARS in Brazil.

 

Yes, Billy, I'm well aware that Venezuela is a member. But it required being specifically mentioned in the context of showing that the only reductions in production happened there and in Iraq during the past several years.

I agree with your assessment of the constraints on production in the Middle East. However, I must point out - and I hope you'll forgive me because I don't want to appears condescending - but that last statement is a little naive, economically speaking. While competition among buyers absolutely drives prices up, no doubt, it is the seller who has ultimate control. He can demand even more than is being bid. And you ignored the fact that OPEC has not lowered their asking price.

No, I'm not ignoring you point about oil/sunshine. But as you yourself have already pointed out much of the US is completely unproductive for a major portion of the year. And I'm certainly not advocating a single fuel either. Biodiesel could become very important and I've already suggested an increase in nuclear production/expansion.

But the point I was getting at is that there is a strong tendency for industry and consumers to migrate toward a single major type of energy. Even though the US uses large amounts of coal and natural gas, it is oil that primarily powers America. And because alcohol is fairly cheap and very easy to produce, it would not be difficult to see it become the next major energy source for the country. As you have pointed out, the pollution is low, no net gain of CO2 released, plus the fact that the majority of the infrastructure for it's use is already in place (pipelines, tanker trucks, service stations, etc.). And our tremendous (and still growing) number of motor vehicles are a huge market already waiting. So I don't see it taking any great leap of faith to expect the possibility that we could become an alcohol-based economy in terms of a flexible fuel for general use.

 

I agree that the link is pretty tenuous between climate change and industrial production of greenhouse gasses, especially CO2. For this reason among many others it is probably wise for the US to avoid the Kyoto treaty in general. However, biofuels would be environmentally safe to burn even if the most pessimistic greenhouse gas theories are taken as gospel truth (of course, according to those we are already and inevitably doomed).

As I mentioned in my previous post, I think that biofuels have some really convincing non-environmental benefits as well. The US may not have tropical sunshine, but we do have a huge surface area. A biofuel-driven economy would be more stable during peacetime because significant domestic production would always curb the maximum price. And it could probably provide a sufficient supply to drive a wartime economy even in an attack resulting in complete isolation from foriegn fuel sources.

I think that human health (and economic) impact is a much more reasonable and concrete basis for an environmental policy. Even a Libertarian would have to agree that, if someone kills you by shooting you or by poisoning you, you are still just as dead and they are still just as responsible.

-Dale

 

To Light:

I mainly disagree as to which of us is being a little naive.

You said I was naïve for saying that:
When the demand exceeds the supply, it is the buyer, not the seller who sets the price.

I agree in principle with the part of your response that:
“…it is the seller who has ultimate control. He can demand even more than is being bid.”
But think this unrealistic, if not naïve, when OPEC economies are deep in debt with many less than half finished development projects waiting for more funds. They must sell, just as US must buy.

I can not be so generous with your next sentence, as for me, it is very naïve:
“And you ignored the fact that OPEC has not lowered their asking price.”

Why would anyone selling anything tell a group of competing purchasers all willing to pay $55/ barrel of oil: “No sales today - I want to sell it for $45/barrel.”

Of course they have not lowered the price. I did not think that fact required comment. It is why I think my “The buyers set the price when demand exceeds the supply.” is not naïve, or false, but a simple and obvious fact.

Mainly To DaleSpam, PM:

Amery Lovins recently had a good article in the Brazilian version of Scientific American with hard facts from annual reports of several major US companies showing how great their return on energy efficiency improvement investments have been. His simple graph that backs up the improved efficiency on say an electric motor to the tons of coal saved is even more impressive. It would not only reduce CO2 emissions but be greatly profitable to follow Kyoto rules. Making US energy efficient would also create a lot of non exportable jobs, most with good pay. The same people who are telling you that there is no alternative to gas for driving your car are telling you Kyoto would be an economic disaster for US, impossible to meet, etc. Look a little deeper and lessen to these self-serving liars a little less. End user improvements in efficiency of a Kwh of electric power, when backup thru the transformers, local distribution system losses, Carnot limits on the turbine, generator losses at the plant, high voltage stepup for transmission mains with subsequent step down in substations, transport of the coal are amazing, but unfortunately I forget the number - I will guess it saves at least 5KWh of coal heat releasing CO2.
Via edit: I forgot the heat that must go out with the smoke to make combustion draft and the fact that getting it low is never done as that would require economiclly prohibitive boiler pipes/ heat exchange area. Up my guess to 10KWh total reduction / KWh improvement of end user efficiency. 1000% aint bad!

I do not trust the models that predict what the effects of CO2 increase will be. One seldom mentioned, especially by the “greens,” but well established in experimental greenhouses is that plant growth and yields will improve. The modelers don’t even know how big the ocean is when it comes to calculating the rate of CO2 absorption across the sea/air interface with at least a factor of two uncertainty. (The surface of air bubbles trapped in the sea may be greater than the ocean area on the maps.) There is just too much uncertain to believe the results. This said, it still is a little scary that the CO2 level is now higher (by more than one ice core bubble measurement) than any time in the last 650,000 years and the rate of increase is rapidly accelerating, even more so for methane, which not be a symmetric co-linear molecule is a much stronger absorber of IR trying to escape from the Earth.

Summary Kyoto will not necessarily be the economic disaster the oil interest portray it as. It will probably be a great aid to escaping their economic grasp as cleaner, cheaper fuels (like alcohol now and other bio-fuels soon) are used and end user efficiencies are pushed harder. (There is along away to go still, but not every one must insulate their house as Lovins has his. It is in the Colorado Mountains, if memory serves, with fresh air via counter flow heat exchangers and triple pane windows with the twin gaps filled with of Krypton gas. (High atomic mass reduces thermal conduction.) Etc. so he has little heat required even on cold windy winter nights. Etc.

It is not unreasonable to cut electric power use via end user efficiency improvement and save money (even considering the capital cost) while reducing coal consumption, CO2 emission, etc. by twice what Kyoto requires while also making more high paying domestic jobs.

 

Billy, I would really like to tone this down just a notch. Partly because I don like coming across as adversarial when in fact I agree with practically everything you have presented. I would also like to go on record as stating that I'm certainly no doom-sayer ( in my thoughts about an alcohol-based version of OPEC). In fact, I have little use for the "chicken littles" of the world who predict gloom and doom at every turn. I simply believe that clear lessons from history should not be summarily dismissed. Little was done to try and prevent the formation of OPEC and we've paid the price several times over - especially during the 1970s.

My point about OPEC not lowering the price actually had two parts. Most of those member nations are not strapped for cash regardless of their building programs;and if they allowed the price to go lower they could, to some degree, reverse the trend that you mentioned - forcing us to realize we need to develop alternative sources. They could actually accept lower bids and hardly feel the difference (in most of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia who is the largest producer). Of course that does nothing to relieve the short supply.

So at this point I will gracefully concede that you were correct all along. I simply want to see something starting to happen to move us away from our dependence on oil. Period.

 

If that is correct then it will happen any way due to competitive marketplace pressures. If not, then it would in fact be economically harmful. Either way, unnecessary or harmful, Kyoto is a bad idea IMO.

I have often wondered about that. It seems reasonable, but I didn't know that it had been demonstrated. I have wondered if "homeostasis" is a concept that can apply ecologically as well as medically.

I think that is a consensus here on this thread. Given that a group of such diverse opinions as ours can have such a strong concensus I think it is strange that this topic is not a significant part of public dialog.

-Dale

 

True, if we had a free market, which we do not. We have a market with TV and newspaper ads showing pretty girls next to the latest version of the gas guzzler, etc. That is the vested interests are in control of the free market we do have. They have even placed ex oil CEOs in charge of the government etc. No wonder most believe there is no current alternative to gasoline for their cars. Yes, in some sense the market is "free" BUT NOT FREE OF THOUGHT CONTROL, or "desire shaping" by vested interests who serve themselves, not the public interest, as they govern.

Yes. I am a weak supporter of the Galia concept: Earth is one living organism. To give you another example of homeostasis, still in the field of the global heating question: As the storms at sea become more intense, more bubbles get mixed deeper into the sea and the removal of CO2 from the air is increased. PS, If you live where it gets cold and have a greenhouse, slow burn a little wood in it.

I agree, and you must admit I am doing what I can to change that.

 

BillyT: your information that Brazil cars have used ethanol for thirty years sure made this motor-head's ears prick up. In USA this is rarely heard news.

Would you be patient enough to give this thread some general information about gas mileage, in a comparable weight vehicle, compared to gasoline? And, how thirty years actual experience gives a comparison concerning mainenance and vehicle wear-out?

I believe that a properly designed motor can be be very favorably compared, ethanol versus gasoline, but I believe that it would be good to have actual data which you have observed firsthand.

 

I have only lived in Brazil for a dozen years and don't have much first hand experience with cars here. (Public transport is very good, and free if over 65, which I am.) I looked back thru this thread for post where someone else gave the actual BTU content of alcohol vs. Gasoline and it checked out very well with the local rule of thumb that alcohol must be about 35% cheaper per liter to make it an even choice for lowest cost per mile of driving. I recall it was DaleSpam who pointed out that this is mainly due to fact it has oxygen in it already and that is also why it burns much cleaner.

I think in the early years there were some problems with alcohol cars not holding up as well, vaguely think it had to do with hoses etc that were designed to resist gas not doing as well against prolong exposure to alcohol, but I do not really know. Perhaps there were mechanical problems also if they only shaved the cylinder heads down of gas engine designs initially and forgot the extra stress the higher compression alcohol will tolerate without "knocking" in the cranks and shaft.* In thirty years they are all solved and I bet even the new "flex fuel" models will have few. (hope so as wife and I bought one.)

Extract from prior post (mainly about the cost at pump etc):

It is hard to be sure of anything in the tax and subsidies areas, especially for a foreigner (or even a native) in Brazil, where even contracts can get over turned if some judge decides they are "unfair." (Part of this is hangover from when triple digit annual inflation was the norm, but the "social/economic engineering" caused by extremes of wealth is also a factor.) However, that said, as far as I can tell the taxes on alcohol and gasoline are energy content based and thus neutral or favor neither. What certainly does happen, especially as the elections approach in period of rising oil prices, is that the state owned oil monopoly, PetroBras, does not raise the gas price at the pump.

There are many (hundreds, if not thousands) of independent alcohol plants as being near the cane fields reduces transport costs. They shut down if sugar is more profitable and charge what they can for alcohol when alcohol is more profitable. About 30 to 20 years ago more than 90% of all cars sold in Brazil ran on alcohol, then the world price of sugar went up and alcohol for the cars became more expensive than cheap gas of the post 1980 era, so 20 to 10 years ago, gas powered cars were 90% of new sales. Now 2/3 of all cars sold are "flex-fuel" and run on any mixture. (I don't know how they achieved this, but the efficiency is about the same. The old alcohol only cars may have been more efficient as I think they had higher compression ratios.)** The car buyers still remember when they got stuck with an alcohol only car.

Point is alcohol fueled cars may be the only economically feasible way currently available to reduce the global CO2, and like planting trees for "carbon credits" alcohol fuel deserves incentives /subsidies, but does not get any in Brazil.
________________________________________________________
*There is story, about Henry Ford, I believe is true: He hired and mechanic to take apart Fords in junk yards for a year to find out why they were there. Not one was there because the king pins had failed, so Henry called in his designers and told them to make cheaper / weaker king pins. Point is it does take years to get the optimum design and US would be wise to buy some Brazilian cars to take them apart, if it can swallow its pride and admit it is years behind in the design curve. (This may not be literally necessary as Ford, GM, Fiat, VW + others are global car makers and all already have 30 years in Brazil of experience.)
**There is also a "crop duster" airplane, locally made, that runs on Alcohol only, with lower cost to the farmer.

 

You have provided a great amount of useful information about actual operating results in Brazil.

Thank you.

 

We're going from from Global Warming, to Climate Change, to Bringing down the price of Oil, to Ethanol vs. Gasoline, to Alcohol use in cars. Whatever. What about hybrid vehicles that get over 80 miles/gallon-electricity. What about future alternative forms of transportation? What about the future need for no transportation at all? No mention yet about pollution free wind energy or ocean hydrodynamic sources of energy or potential sources in outer space outside of Earth's atmosphere?

We have a thread called "World's Ice Caps are Melting" under Earth Science that covers Global Warming.

 

What hybrid vehicles get 80mpg? I didn't know there were any that efficient on the market.

I think that most of the focus of this thread has been on biofuels largely because they are already available and require no new technical innovations, just different economic choices. Internal combustion engines using biofuels are well understood, reliable, and no more expensive than petroleum-burning engines. All of the things that you mention are great future directions, but the ones we have been mainly discussing could be done immediately. Personally I am particularly interested in alternative forms of transportation like personal rapid transit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rapid_Transit ), but again it is a future technology. Biofuels are here today.

-Dale

 

I think Honda has one out now. It's been in and out of the news for years now, but there are more than one company that produces hybrids. They use electrical power on short runs but can switch over to gas. There are also vehicles that run entirely from batteries. Of course then you can say that the energy that recharges those batteries may or may not (nuclear power plants) come from fossil fuels.

I saw a guy riding a bicycle yesterday that had a very small battery, a very large motor near the rear wheel, and an alternator above that was exactly like an alternator that you see on cars? I should have stopped to talk with him about this.

 

I do not doubt that 80mpg is possible. I think the record is over 1000 mpg, but is a very light weight aerodynamic “car” on bicycle wheels - one prone person drives with a less than lawn mower motor at low speed and no stops.
What can be done with batteries is irrelevant if they must be replaced every couple of years and during the life of the car more than double its price. I will consider them an alternative when they have half the practical experience in large numbers that Alcohol fueled cars already have.

 

I looked at the Honda website and the best hybrid I could find was 50mpg. Don't get me wrong, that is good mileage, but we are only talking about a 25% improvement over their non-hybrid (40mpg). 80mpg would be 100% improvement and I don't see that any time soon. The hybrids still are nowhere near economical, they save very little and cost a lot. Plus, dead batteries are already a serious environmental contaminant with direct human and animal health risks. (No greenhouse models needed). I think they will be great in the future, but they still have quite a ways to go. Hybrids get all of their energy from the gasoline they burn. Their efficiency comes from their brakes, not their engine. Instead of throwing energy away as heat when they brake they store it in the batteries for the next time they need to accelerate. A well-built hybrid will therefore have city and highway mileage approximately equal, but may actually have a reduced highway mileage due to the extra weight.

Now, there is a type of car that I have heard about that is quite different from hybrids. This other kind of car is not the same at all. It has rechargeable batteries. You plug it in each nite and then the gasoline is only burned when you run out of battery power. This one can get a very high "mileage" as long as you only use it for short commutes each day and recharge it each nite. That may be where the 80mpg figure is coming from.

Unfortunately this is fake mileage. Instead of having a gasoline-burning car you have a primarily coal-burning car (in the US). This type of car is only for environmentalist suckers because it relies on the fact that people are ignorant about how electrical power is generated. They see no emissions from their light socket and ignore the smoke-stacks on the other side of the hill. In the end it is actually highly inefficient because of the number of energy transformations involved (chemical to heat to mechanical to electrical to chemical to electrical to mechanical) where energy is lost in each transformation. Of course, you can put much more emission control on a big coal furnace than you can on a vehicle.

In the end, we need some primary source of energy that is environmentally sound. If we have a good primary source then it doesn't matter so much if you burn it in a vehicle or at a power plant. I think biofuels qualify. There are other options, but most would be like the wind-farm you mentioned earlier, only a means for municipal electricity and not really suitable for use in a vehicle where power needs are great and space and weight are limited. Of course, if we got rid of cars entirely and had vehicles powered by the roadway then you could, indeed, have a wind-powered vehicle. But again, this would be a future technology while biofuels are available today. I personally think we should switch from petroleum to biofuels immediately and continue research on these other advancements.

-Dale