Are we pitching the wrong fuel?

MPF

It's the schtick. I'm not big on the global warming bandwagon. Maybe the globe is getting warmer but I once had a very well reknown geologist friend who assured me that man is arrogant in thinking that HE was the cause of the warming and that if man were to cease to exist tomorrow the earth would "forget" he ever existed in ~100,000 years, a geological blink of the eye. Granted Gore has increased awareness but IMHO based on shaky grounds. My interest in H2 as a fuel for the future is based on my desire to reduce pollution (which existed well before GW became a hot topic) and an interest in reducing the amount of fossil fuels we require from outside sources. Besides, if I can have a little plant in my house that supplies all the cheap fuel I need, with minor exceptions and at least partially provided by renewable sources, wouldn't I be a step ahead of the game?

[Deleted User]

Are we pitching the wrong fuel to our clients?

Last as I was driving home I had the CBC on for company. In the background 'Ideas' had a guest on that has just written a book on "The Hydrogen Solution". Quote "Energy is not just a fuel. It’s an entire system that links our civilization together, says David Sanborn Scott, a hydrogen energy expert. Energy is like a currency: it can be used like money for different purposes. Throughout history, new energy sources and systems have replaced old ones. Understanding how this works is essential to combating catastrophic climate change". Dr. Scott stated that hydrogen and (nuclear powered) electricity are really the only solutions to the twin problems of (human caused) global warming and our dependence on foreign sources of inexpensive energy. He made a compelling case for the benefits of clean electric power for our information and comfort needs and hydrogen as the fuel for transportation. Program link- http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/hydrogen-solution/index.html
My questions are these- are we inadvertently perpetuating dependence on an inevitably obsolete energy source when we continue to sell and install equipment that presupposes cheap and dirty (pun intended) fossil fuel? Should we not aggressively offer, or better yet promote (some refer to this as push), clean energy sources for space heating and cooling, and renewable energy sources (such as solar thermal) to all of our clients regardless the initial cost? Should we not be considering electric boilers for their cleanliness and efficiency especially where NG is presently not available and where LPG or oil are the other alternatives?
I am considering removing my Vitola boiler and exchanging it for an electric one. The installation is on the West Coast.
What counsels The Wall?

ALH_4

Energy Problems

Transmission losses in power lines can be horrendous. Where does the hydrogen come from? Nuclear-powered electrolysis? What do we do with the nuclear waste? None of us wants it in his backyard.

Solving our energy deficit requires us to conserve. This does not just mean more efficient equipment, it means we have to change our lifestyles to use less energy.

I look at energy on a hierarchical scale of usefulness. To raise a form of energy to the next level, some energy is consumed (wasted). Electricity is at the top of the heirarchy. It can be used for anything. Unfortunately, it cannot be easily stored and must be created from lower forms of energy. Next would be gases, which are less useful than electricity. I have yet to see a natural gas television. Gases can be stored, though they are still difficult to store in large quantities. Next would be liquid fuels. They are easier to store, but not quite as easy to use or clean burning as gases. Last would be solid fuels. These are easy to acquire and store, but they are dirty and more difficult to use than the other three types.

I would argue that we should never use natural gas to generate electricity. Natural gas's best use is as a heating fuel. We are wasting it when we use it to generate electricity.

What about biofuels? How much water, petroleum, and other energy types does it take to generate them? One thing is for sure, the net benefit is much smaller than the energy content of the fuel.

When choosing a heating fuel, we should be choosing the fuel that is lowest on the heirarchy yet still practical for the application. Oil and gas are currently those fuels. Coal should be used for industrial processes and to generate electricity where the combustion can be closely monitored. Nuclear energy can be part of the mix, but we have to decide what part of the country we are going to make uninhabitable for disposing of the waste.

I have noticed that with all the concern about energy prices, very few talk about real energy conservation. We spend our time on the futile search for a miracle energy source. When it comes down to it, the only energy source we have ever had is the sun.

To really make a difference, install solar panels to provide the solar fraction you can afford and let the traditional boiler take up the slack. Super-insulate your home. Sure, the payback is decades-long, but it's the only way to truly come to a solution to our energy probelms.

They need to lift the cap on the residential solar tax credit. Unfortunately, Congress cannot even agree whether to extend it at all.

MPF

Check this out...

As an answer to where the H2 is coming from. While providing the juice to run one of these might not be practical going totally solar with it supplementing it with solar or wind might show some advantages. My thought is, you produce H2 at your house which provides all your fuel needs: car, heat. a/c, cooking, hot water.

http://www.avalence.com/

Larry C_13

H2 by Electrolysis $$$$$$$$ running costs

Hydrogen at the Pressure of Business

Av

MPF

My thoughts are...

you could put it on the grid and supplement that with wind or solar and with any luck the renewable sources will carry a good portion of the energy requirements. Hypothetically, partial free energy. The story they're telling is the old method of pressurizing it to 5000 psi was cost prohibitive but they're development reduces that cost dramatically. I'm thinking they're using ultrasound like waves but that's just a guess. Big problem is they won't call me back. Not sure why.

Kevin_in_Denver_2

Electricity IS the future of heating

And it turns out that natural gas turbines are a good interim source for peak wattage. Much quicker to startup and peak power than coal turbines, which take about a day to bring online.

Is that a lossy scenario? Yes, but electricity is the best form of energy to supplement with renewables, which keep falling in cost.

As a rough estimate, your car may account for half your energy usage. Once you get an electric car, your cost per mile will go to one tenth of what it is today. That same electric car is also the key to eliminating those wasteful gas peaking turbines.

Using V2G and Smart Grid technology, the grid will pull power from the cars' batteries when necessary during those peak times.

MPF

Avalence

I did just talk to Mike over there, he guesses they are 2 years away from being able to release them as a household appliance. They are concentrating on large commercial stuff now but are working on jumping through the necessary hopes to get them approved for release to the GP.

Maine/Baltimore Doug_3

Combined cycle NG plants

We have a 174 megawatt one down the street. It supplies power and steam to the paper mill. The town is discussing adding a turbine to use about 4-5 mw of excess steam to power the town. I doubt the rates would be low enough for electric heat but one could hope. How do I retrofit a Biasi, put a big toaster in the chamber???

Maine/Baltimore Doug_3

There is hope

AC transmission lines have high losses from inductance and capacitance and charging currents. Each time the AC voltage goes to zero the line must be charged and you have current flow and then it stops with the AC cycle.

Long distant DC transmission is more efficient despite having to convert it at both ends. DC also facilitates synchronizing multiple distant locations.

The bulk, like 90% or more, of nuclear waste is/was from weapons research and production. The small amount of material from commercial power production is better managed than the bulk of non-nuclear waste. We have a facility but non-technical reasons still prevent using it. Oil spills, coal mining, coal power generation, manufacturing, chemical plants, refining, pesticide use all contaminate every day with most use unregulated.

A big problem with the US nuclear energy industry is plant design. Every plant is different. For some strange reason we like to build unique plants instead of building smaller standard plants that are simpler and very well built. This makes it easier to have trained people to run them. A person can could go to another plant and not have to start over.

Power plants have more issues when they are first built and when they are at the end of their lifespans. Most of the plants today are at or nearing the end so we are going to have more shutdowns. If we had used a standard simpler design and built them on a regular basis, there would be enough to be able to maintain them because shutting one off would not have such a huge impact on the grid. And we would have enough properly trained people.

For low cost power, you can build one in my backyard.


>>>>Transmission losses in power lines can be horrendous. Where does the hydrogen come from? Nuclear-powered electrolysis? What do we do with the nuclear waste? None of us wants it in his backyard.<<<<

Bruce Stevens_2

M/B Doug

" How do I retrofit a Biasi, put a big toaster in the chamber???"

A large Blow Dryer would look the part at least

Steve Garson_2

Doug:

DC is less efficient for transmission lines. This is one key reason that Edison couldn't sell the country on DC. he would have needed generation plants all over the city.

Steve

Maine/Baltimore Doug_3

At that time yes but

not now.

A DC line, requiring only 2 conductors instead of the 3 needed for an AC line costs less. There is less radio interference with DC because the effective voltage is the same as the peak voltage. AC peak is about 40% higher and contributes to the interference. So higher DC voltages can be used. The two wire is less costly
for under water lines.

Manitoba's Nelson River line carries DC power from generating plants on the Nelson River to Winnipeg, almost 1000 km south.

DC lends itself to bulk transmission over long distances. It makes sychronizing easier whereas AC requires everything connected to the grid to swing together.

Brazil has the largest DC at 600kV and 6300 MW. 50Hz at one end and 60Hz at the other on two wires no less. Try that with AC lines. And DC lines can carry power in both directions at the same time. AC requires parallel lines. Attached is a map of DC. Mr. Edison would be proud.

Unknown

some thoughts

This thread must be in part inspired by Al Gores recent speech.

As far as what Al is proposing, I'm concerned about how our financially strapped country is going to take on the monumental task of transforming our electric grid to 100% alternatives in 10 years. Even if you include nukes in the "alternative" category, permitting and commissioning a plant takes the better part of a decade on it's own. Even if the political will and technology to do this existed, is it remotely realistic in ten years?

I like Andrews hierarchal comparison but I disagree with the oil/gas part of his hierarchy. Gas has many important uses not the least of which is it's conversion to fertilizer, But Liquid fuels have some distinct characteristics that in my opinion put them higher on this scale, in-fact until the long awaited battery technology breakthrough arrives liquid fuel is ahead of electricity when it comes to energy intensive un-tethered applications like transportation. Super tankers can transport oil globally with economies of scale that have only a small effect on the overall EROEI (energy return on energy invested). Oil is vital in a multitude of ways that have nothing to do with BTU's. As a transportation fuel nothing compares to the energy density and stability of liquid fuels. Oil is king, and it appears that it's days of being cheap are numbered.

Does this mean you should scrap your vitrond for an electric boiler? I don't think so. Even if current economics would indicate the viability of such a decision I would imagine that electricity will catch up as consumers make opportunistic choices such as this.

Can we build an alternative fueled electric infrastructure that can accommodate heating and transportation in addition to all of the services it already supplies?

Efficiency and curtailment are the most important tools we have. Everybody loves the efficiency part but few will take the political risk of admitting the need for curtailment.

The "American way of life" and our religion of continuous economic growth can't be sustained indefinitely, Lets stop dreaming about a techno fix and start facing the realities of daily solar flux and energy equilibrium. Our civilization is built on stored solar energy in the form of fossil fuel. To think that we can just substitute alternatives for our existing fossil based infrastructure is week thinking at best. At worst this sort of thinking acts as a palliative that prevents us facing the realities of our situation. It permits us to ignore the pervasive greed that has transformed us from a thrift minded culture to one that has (across the class spectrum) almost completely surrendered to the seductions of comfort and consumption.

MPF

I guarantee you..

Nothing I have said is in any way inspired by anything Al Gore has had to say.

Unknown

Gore's electric utopia

Al has done a lot to bring energy and environmental issues into broader public discourse.

But I don't like his shtick much either, if that's what you mean.

It's novel to have an ex. VP suggesting a moon shot government investment in alternative energy. Personally I think the marshal plan would have been a better reference, but the moon is more upbeat, it congers confidence in what we can accomplish.

Before we go burning the kind of cash we spent on Apollo lets bring our modern day Vietnam to an end. How long do you think this country can use 24% of the worlds oil at it's current price, given the cost of our military engagements and balance of trade?... Print more money?... how long can this last?

As far as Al's moon shot, Well as much as it gives me chills to see the huge silver gelatin photographs that hang at the NYC planetarium, I wonder if it was worth the cost.

And let's face it without those ex. Nazis it would have taken a lot longer. The moon shot was a Public Relations spin-off of ICBM's. Perhaps the most tragic misapplications of technology (cold war) becomes a triumph of human inquiry and evolution, what a spin!

If technology ever had a shot a lifting man to the stars without scorching the earth it's sure off to a rocky start.

Unknown

hydrogen

Not sure how this plant would help you save energy. Hydrogen is about energy storage. Given the inefficiencies of electrolysis you would probably need an PV array larger than the southern exposer of most suburban lots to actualy accumulate a meaningful amount of hydrogen.

Why would you want to convert electric energy to H2 unless it was from wind or sun? I don't understand the partial part of this. Why store grid energy given the inefficiencies. Also hydrogen is difficult to store, it seeps through steel. And what about fuel cells? Not much progress in producing them affordably.

I wonder what the energy landscape will be like in ten years. Will systems we instal today become obsolete while they are still serviceable? It's quite possible. But I'm fairly confident that electric resistance is not the appropriate replacement.

MPF

Well,

The idea is the plant, just large enough to supply fuel for an average household's needs and a couple cars, would draw most of it's electricity from renewable sources. It's a trickle kind of thing, it constantly trickles into storage whenever renewable electricity is available, until the tanks are full of course. The grid is there to supplement. One thought is to set it at tank levels. Below a certain level the grid will kick in to boost production if renewable sources are not available at the time but above that level the plant will only use renewable sources exclusively to keep them topped off when they are available. So initially you might use the grid to kickstart the process but once the tanks reach an acceptable level you remove it from the grid automatically and run, as best you can, on renewable sources only using the grid when the resources are not available and there is a need to add to the tanks. The beauty of this particular machine is, if I recall correctly, the size plant I am talking about only requires ~10 amps to operate. So the huge array is not neccessary. Although a 10 amp array ain't cheap either. The big attraction for me is I am into gas fired ammonia based heating and cooling which means I can heat AND cool my house using H2 to at least supplement the gas (there's a product called "Hythane" for example)and, if the technology develops, use it (H2) exclusively. The units I use (Robur) only require ~ 10 total amps to cool vs the 30 or so conventional units use. So, when things are going really well (sunny/windy day), the cooling of the house could be done almost completely off the grid. The problem right now is condensation/precipitation of H2 vs NG but that could easily be solved by someone interested enough to do so. Apparently they have solved the tank problem although the solution is probably not cheap. This IS being done on a large scale now, I'm trying to interest them into getting more into the small scale stuff too. I had a really great talk with this Mike guy. You can use tap water, you just have to run it through a filter and Deionization cartridge and you're all set. Those need to be replaced ~ 6 months depending on your water quality. Another thing is cooking, H2 burns colorlessly so it would have to be mixed with something else so the flame could be seen to prevent accidents. Back to the Hythane. He also mentioned there are people out there trying to make it work with diesel.

Paul B_5

Yes and this a Little Warm.

Maine/Baltimore Doug_3

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

Info from Energy Information Administration..... I like to look at this whenever I read/hear someone talk about reducing/eliminating dependence on foreign oil. Our habit is so big who are they kidding.....

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
June 2008 Import Highlights: August 13, 2008

Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in June 2008 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.40 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of four countries exported over 1.00 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United State s (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 65 percent of United States crude oil imports in June while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 86 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for June were Canada (1.883 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.479 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.124 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.085 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (0.946 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.693 million barrels per day), Angola (0.636 million barrels per day), Brazil (0.280 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.236 million barrels per day), and Russia (0.228 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.994 million barrels per day in June, which is a increase of (0.337) million barrels per day from May 2008.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in June, exporting 2.319 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.346 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.490 million barrels per day.

MPF

Well,

The best solution is for everybody to stop driving to work one per car and sit in traffic idling every day. But I dare you to suggest that to anybody. LOL...

michael_34

great thread and great info.
Thanks all!

Glen

perhaps -

but look at this link; real time reporting of power generation in Alberta. Coal continues to fuel most electric generation while the greener alternatives remain idle.It makes one pause and rethink the game just as you have done.Even here in BC alternatives are costly; run of river, wind and geo all have their proponents and detractors. And if you follow BC Hydros (our provincial monopoly of power generation and sales) musings - their intention is to raise rates so that retail electricity costs per gigajoule are equal to those of fossil fuels.
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet