Is solar and wind the wave of future?

Tony Conner_2

... don't have to "keep spinning". It can however take 24 hours to bring a 500 MW unit on-line from a cold start, and that's largely due to the huge mass of metal in the turbine rotors. It has to be "soaked", or heated-up evenly, or it can distort, which is bad. There is almost always a "spinning reserve" in which a number of units are not at full output, and can quickly respond to a load spike, or another unit tripping off-line. When the units shut down, it's necessary to have the turbines roll over slowly on turning or barring gear (driven by a relatively small electric motor), so the rotors cool evenly - again so they don't distort. Once they're cool enough, they're taken off turning gear, and come to a stop. These turbine requirements will be the same regardless of the steam source - fossil fuel, or nuke.

As far as the boilers go, pulverized coal fired boilers can follow load swings just like oil or gas. Boilers firing fuel on a fixed bed are usually slower to respond to load swings.

Toddj_2

Are solar and wind the wave of future?


I read an interesting article in Business Week this past week. You can read it online by going to WWW.Businessweek.com and going to tech section.. there is an article on solar energy. A company in Southwest called Stirling Energy just completed a deal with Southern Calif. Edison for supplying power (equivalent of a coal powered plant by 2011), via a solar dish that provides power source for the Stirling Engine. Whats really interesting is that the last paragraph states that 100 square miles of these dishes could replace all fossil fuels required for energy production in the US.. So if you complement that with wind turbines in select areas, as well as hydro, wood, waste then I its easy to figure that our use of fossil fuels and nuclear would be minimal. Another interesting point of article is that one factor blocking these stirling engine/solar devices is cost. With the So. CAl. Edison deal the cost per unit is cut significantly $250k to $150k..and with economies of scale one could expect that to be cut another 50% if enough of these devices were put on order!!

Just some food for thought...as we all approach the long expensive winter ahead!!

Todd

Wayco Wayne_2

We should

do it sooner than later. We need fossel fuel to manufacture the parts for the solar stuff. I hope it is as promising as the article makes it out to be, but a "show me & prove it" attitude persists in me.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Tony Conner

Research...

... and testing should definitately procede, however there are still the issues of what to do when the sun goes down, and the wind drops. Charging batteries may be OK for some residential applications, but working people need to be able to run things like washing machines, etc. when they get home from work. Industrial operations can't schedule their plants on the basis of "If the wind is blowing hard enough..." Even for the tradesmen who post here - are you going to schedule installation jobs around sunshine or wind? Or maybe spend the day like grandad, cutting & threading 2" (or bigger) pipe by hand? Giving up drill-drivers and going back to driving 100 screws a day - by hand - if the battery dies on a calm or cloudy day?

I gotta say, I just don't see it happening - at least any time in the foreseeable future.

Tundra

Right now it is the all or nothing attitude that seems to prevail. As energy prices rise I perdict that more people wil elect to make a "basic load" at home and purchase the surge from the power grid with any surplus electricity being dumped into the heat load.

Unknown

For large scale arrays, build a lake.

Have energy, pump it uphill. Need energy, let it flow down and use a hydroelectric generator.

That's the scale we should be talking about. not puny little residential projects. There are some things economies of scale do better in a centralized fashion, and that's one of them.

Tony Conner

That's ...

... "pumped storage", and it does work in some applications. But you do realize just how much land gets (and stays) flooded for any real size of hydroelectric project, right? Plus, a huge number of areas don't have the right geography. To get any sort of output, you need a big change in elevation, along with a pretty substantial river.

RonWHC

As usual

Tony hit the nail dead center. That coal fired plant the solar array may, or may not replace, doesn't care whether the sun is shining or not. It will keep on producing KWs.

As for wind, the last I read, the number of wind generators needed to produce 20% of the KWs we need, would cover an area the size of West Virginia. And once again, a coal fired plant doesn't care whether the wind is blowing or not.

We have hundreds of years of proven coal reserves. Let's perfect clean burn technologies & use them.

mp1969

Alternatives

Gentlemen,
All the above stated ideas are very doable and within reach. However something we promote daily, energy conservation (utilizing energy saving heating and cooling devices) has not yet been practiced in a similar fashion by transportation vehicle manufacturers or energy providers (who actually promote excessive energy use.)
The USA is absent of a mandatory energy conservation policy.
After almost a decade and one half of oil and electric gluttony we are facing a terrific lifestyle change in order to manage our resources sensibly !!!
I would bet that any two competant paticipants of this forum could drive around for 48 hours and come up with conservation ideas that would save millions of dollars worth of very valuable resources!
Conservation before alternatives otherwise the alternatives will be squandered away like the liquid gold was in about 125 years.

MP 1969

toddj

I am definitely not an engineer or a heating specialist for that matter...but it seems to me that its not an all or nothing situation. I dont think we'll do away with coal or oil..but I think this type of solar device, some hydro and some wind could go a looooong way to reducing our use of fossil fuels. At a $1/gallon for heating oil these technologies arent feasible..but even the Saudi's have warned the markets that price oil too high and you will see these alternative fuel sources take hold..and once we start using them then costs will continue to drop for awhile, especially as more units are built.

Tony Conner

\"Even The Saudi's Say...\"

That's a big part of what happened in the '70's. All kinds of alternative fuel technology was showing up. Some was new, and some were things like old German technology from the later part of WWII for converting coal to diesel fuel & gasoline. All of a sudden, this stuff was starting to show the promise of a bit of a payback. Uh-oh. That technical reality combined with the other reality of if you throw your biggest customers into an economic tailspin, that's very bad news for you, as a supplier.

Things aren't exactly the same now, though. China & India are industrializing very quickly. They're sucking up lots of oil, and aren't likely to slow down their rate of acceleration, let alone stop. I'm not sure how much more oil OPEC can pump, and even if they can pump enough, somebody will have to build some more refinery capacity. That takes a few years to engineer, construct, and bring on line.

Wayco Wayne_2

We need leadership

in this area. People have been taught to consume. This stimulates the economy and makes the current leadership look good on paper. Long term thinking is not popular with our culture and it's hard to get elected speaking the truth about the need to conserve. I feel pretty alone when I talk to customers about the need for high efficiency. Edumacation be needed by Gum. WW

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

toddj

I'm not sure if it will be deja vu all over again

Well the energy price spike we are experiencing may be a result of increased demand from China, India, et al, as well as refining capacity blockages..hence lots of crude no refined product..sorta like the old sailors saying water water everywhere but not a drop to drink..may be we are seeing crude crude everywhere but not a drop refined.

I think the world needs to get on the bandwagon and accept that while alt fuel sources like solar, hydro or wind among a few may still be relatively expensive..it is commonly known that oil will only get more expensive as more demand plus increased per gallon extraction is reality. So maybe we could trade off slightly higher fuel costs this winter for more stable and probably more affordable energy in the future.

toddj

Constantin

Allow me to quibble...

The US does have minimum energy efficiency mandates. I worked on several of them. Trouble is, the current US policy is focused squarely on appliances, not the houses/homes that they will be used in.

On a more local level, how do you ensure that homes are built up to snuff? Whereas controlling the energy efficiency of stuff rolling out of a plant is easy, getting a network of quality inspectors for homes is proving difficult indeed, no? Some town don't even have inspectors... Note all the homes you guys run into with "creative", yet ineffective heating systems, absent or badly-installed insulation, etc.

In my mind, the next step for the DoE is to tackle the issue of home construction standards. These standards haven't been updated since the 1980's, IIRC and better insulation/weatherization requirements would drive the need for energy down significantly.

For example, it would probably be a good day when fiberglass insulation is made illegal for whole-house envelope applications. Dense-pack cellulose is more environmentally benign, performs better, is less expensive, etc. For that matter, going from 4" to 6" or even 8" stud construction allows for deeper wall cavities and very low heat gain and loss.

Yup, there are many solutions, and if energy prices continue to rise the way they have, the market will eventually find them as well.

Constantin

Also realize...

... that as much as the energy prices "hurt" our economy, they are a disaster in the third world. For the people living in those countries, energy is a much larger percentage of their daily living costs.

Many third world countries there have subsidized the price of fuel for a long time, something that is now coming home to roost. In Yemen, they've already had fuel riots, ditto for China. And, as long as the Chinese, Indonesian, etc. states continue to mandate below-market fuel prices, you'll see lots of smuggling and other forms of arbitrage.

Ron Schroeder

coal is dirty

The cost to remove mercury and radiation emissions from coal is too high. Solar can be convert to hydrogen for storage in remote areas (ie,flat deserts).

Constantin

Hydrogen?

Remember, transporting H₂ is difficult, at best. The cheapest option to reducing our energy costs is still conservation. Then, create incentives to shape energy demand to suit the least expensive generation options.

For example, the local electric utility in AZ or NM has experimented with well-insulated, high-mass homes that are only cooled during the night. In France, where 80%+ of electrical energy is generated in nuclear plants, there are different rate schedules of day vs. night that also shape demand. For example, all the homes I've seen there have electric water heaters on timers...

Is nuclear the best option to cover baseline demand? That's for a different thread, perhaps a different web-site. Coal too is a technology that cannot be spooled up relatively quickly to meet demand like gas turbines. Keep in mind that those turbines have to keep spinning, whether they're used or not.

Anyway, could coal be cleaned of mercury and other harmful issues besides radiation? IMO, yes - there is always a way when there is a will. For example, I read a report on a fluidized bed coal plant in Germany where the emissions are so clean that the chimney is only 9m tall. It can be done. But doing so costs money, money that the operators do not want to spend.

JCD

Is solar and wind the wave of future?

I am a homeowner who I'll say lurks on the wall to make better informed decisions. I have learned a lot from all of you and as a group you seem to be people who are open to new ideas and a good cross section of opinions which bodes well for discussions.
I will say that I do own a hybred, a Prius, that gets an honest 45-50 miles a gallon. I DO realize that this would NOT work for all people, like most of you. For your wives, your kids, maybe. For my car they do sell an kit that allows you to recharge the car during the overnight and get 50 miles out of it without the engine ever starting. Enough for me to get to work, home and side trip off to get groceries and beer. Would this work on vacation, I think not. The other 50 weeks of the year, yes. Would wind work for this? I think yes. As the link to article provided later states, it would provide better, more stable use of power plants.
If one of four cars on the road got milage like my car, imagine how much pressure it would take off other systems and the national debt, and as Katrina showed, energy dependance on other countries for oil.
Also hydrogen technology as I understand it, many millions of dollars and much research later, would yield milage....just like the car I drive to work today.
Is solar and wind the future?, not for everybody, not for everything, but if it solves 25 percent of our energy needs, it is something we cannot overlook. Maybe you cannot have everyone run a washing machine off it, or thread pipe by it, but if you used it provide supplimental heat to that same house, good. If you can power a TV and a fridge, boy you have most couch potatoes happy. (And that is more of the good old USA than any of us care to admit.)
Coal, as it is used today is dirty, but we have so much of it, we should/we need to find a way to use it safely.
I am an enviornmentalist, but an open eyed one. I bought the Prius AFTER cruching numbers and figuring that cost wise, it came to a couple hundred dollars over a seven year time frame. Meanwhile it poluted a whole lot less to the world my family lives in. I do not begrudge people who need a big vehicle to earn a living, I would just hope they use them wisely.
For more see this link: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5620961.html
makes sense to me. Minn HO

Tony Conner_2

Gasoline...

... engines in vehicles are about 15% efficient, when you measure input to actual power through the wheels to the road. Diesels run about 24%. There are a lot of savings to be had right there. Currently though, diesel is an expensive option on most vehicles, and you have to drive about 20,000 miles a year to make it pay back in 3 years.

Wayco Wayne_2

Very good article

I had never heard of the kit that allows the Pruis to run without the gas engine on an overnight charge. Way cool. Down here in MD I have not heard of any bio fuel being availible. If only we could turn turbines with the hot air blowing out of Congress. (Hmm?)Got me wondering about that Prius. WW

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

toddj

But how do we get to tommorow sooner



I think everyone has made some really great points. Again there is no magic bullet when it comes to producing energy. But its important to realize that these alternative fuel sources, solar dish powering a Stirling Engine or Wind power..may put a significant dent into burning of fossil fuels.

Of course I do wonder how long it is before we see hydrogen powered cars as much as hybrids..or the power for my tv or fan or microwave produced by solar, wind, hydrogen, or burning of waste wood or waste . I want to believe the market will be the driving force behind these innovations..but do wonder if some of the record profits that oil companies are making will go to purchase these technologies for us to pay versus them becoming public utilities or worse slowing the innovation. I know this is counter to the notion of free market is quickest for innovation and at lowest cost..but I'd say in the early stages these technologies need to have public funding and public support so they dont get put on the back of the shelf.

hr

Solar, wind, wave power, etc

are all good options to supplement our current sources. It may be a loooong ways off before these could replace coal.

Germany has a very aggressive plan to cut fossil fuel dependance. Check out www.solartoday.org for up to date info on all alternate energy numbers and installations.

You'd be surprised how many large commercial projects in NYC and Chicago are implementing solar, both PV and hydro panels.

Aspen, Colorado is another progressive area. They use "sin tax" fees from the gas guzzling, mega trophy homes to fund solar on the cities buildings.

There is a lot going on in the solar arena, it is a bit underground, still, however.

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Tony Conner_2

One Of...

... the tricky bits with fuels like hydrogen for vehicles, is that there has to be a distribution network like there is for gasoline stations. You hit this "chicken & the egg" thing. Nobody will really go for hydrogen vehicles unless they've got a reasonably accessible fuel supply. Nobody will put up a chain of fuel stations unless there's a customer base for it. This issue is aside from the one that hydrogen can be a very "exciting" thing to handle. It makes natural gas or propane look like you're handling tap water.

Burning wood waste & garbage has been around for decades. A lot of people who get bent out of shape by what goes up a coal fired plant stack are amazed at the nasties that come off a wood fire. This is NOT a benign fuel source. The greens just freak-out when you talk about burning garbage, and there isn't enough to really generate any significant amount of power anyway. The main thing it does, is get rid of the garbage, and give some cheap steam for heating or process.

I think you'll find that any solar or wind generating plants have a LOT of subsidy money in them - either as tax breaks, or the utility paying a LOT more for the power than if they got it from fossil or nuke plants. (The power output is such a drop in the bucket, that it's basically a PR/advertising expense for them.) As stand-alone entities, they currently make no financial sense at all. The installed cost per MW is huge. I have no problem with experimental plants like this - I think it's great. I also think the folks who are pushing large scale projects like wind farms are either well-meaning hard core eco-freaks with no sense of economic reality, or folks who are very financially aware, and much more interested in farming subsidies than the wind, or anything else, for that matter.

Tony Conner_2

This...

... quote is from another board I frequent called Engineering Tips.

"EPRI studies have shown that in the air over the USA, there are something like 3000 tons of mercury. 42 tons comes from US powerplants. The vast majority comes from Asia and natural sources.

In coal there is lots of stuff. just about every element on the periodic chart can be found in there. So mercury is in coal. But in trace amounts. when they conduct tests on the flue gas for mercury, they measure parts per trillion."

I'm not suggesting for a moment that there are any "health benefits" from mercury exposure - it's pretty nasty stuff, but subtract the 42 tons from the 3,000 tons, and you're still left with 2,958 tons. This is a "whopping" 1.4% drop, and I believe is something less than a lot of people are anticipating when they advocate the end of burning coal in electrical generating plants.

Bob Eh?_2

Sounds like an interesting site.... Do you have a URL handy?

Thanks....

Bob

PJO_5

Renewables...

This list should also include biodiesel. While it won't replace the crap (high sulfur) stuff we currently burn it will augment it with much less pollution...and with the prices today it's economically feasible.

My electricity comes from 100% renenwables...how, you ask? I have electric choice. It costs me about a 10-15% premium (another $25.00 a month or so) but I believe it's worth it for being supplied by solar, biomass and wind. When I get PV panels on my roof in the spring, the non-profit co-op I buy from will pay me for my extra juice. Not a bad deal...

There's a trash to steam plant I toured near me, and while it doesn't supply the region with power (just the plant itslef and an adjoing shopping mall - including steam), it does three things good for the environement...and paid for itself in about six years (so I'm told).

Subsidies? Yes, wind and solar are subsidized...and so are the "current" (petroleum) suppliers. How about the $9 Billion to existing energy companies in the new energy bill? How about all the B.S. in Iraq? How much of the $300+ Billion should we say is a "subsidy" from our government for our thirst for petroleum...in addition to the high cost at the pump right now?

IMHO, all forms of enrgy are subsidized in one way or the other by the feds...I wish the renewables were more.

Nukes; what will be the true cost of all the waste? What if - God forbid - something happens? How much is that area in Nevada costing the U.S.? When the plants are built is there a subsidy? How about when they have to be de-commissioned and taken apart? Who pays for that?

Windmills; yes, a high up-front cost - even with the subsidy - but NO fuel cost for it's life...and built for a long life.

And I haven't even mentioned less/no pollution with all of these items...

Just remember this; if we don't start sometime, not only will we all be in the same boat as the seventies, but we will continue the damage...the Earth will still be here the whole time...we just might not.

Guess I'm a "well-meaning eco freak..." :-)

Take Care, PJO

JCD

Are solar and wind the wave of future?

I had never heard of the kit that allows the Prius to run without the gas engine on an overnight charge. – Wayne, this is a kit that I had heard about available in the San Francisco area. Installing the kit however voids the eight year warranty on the battery that’s integral to the car, which is why I have not installed it….. yet. However the concept of getting around for twenty five cents a mile…Getting back on topic, yes, there are subsidies to the wind generators and other alternative forms of energy. However in Mpls., we do burn the garbage, some of it anyway and what comes out IS clean. And we get energy as steam as a by-product. Meets all of the Clinton-era clean air acts, and it does have a positive cash flow, or at the least, costs less than doing the alternatives. What are lacking in some of these posts are the alternative costs. Burning the garbage is much better than land filling it, or taking it out to sea and dumping it. In southeastern MN there are sinkholes and they used to use them as garbage pits, now the aquifers over a multi state area are being affected. When I put my foot on the brake in my Prius, the motor turns into a generator and the potential energy goes into the battery rather than the alternative of wasting it as heat off the brake disc. This is not rocket science, just common sense to me in the same way that I read on the Wall, guys telling people to “seal the envelope”. From what I have seen published, those wind farms in southwestern MN put out enough watts to have kept a new power plant from being built here in Mpls/St.Paul, (for now). And when a new power plant does need to get built, there will be subsidies for it too. Nuclear powers plants would not exist without lots of subsidies and now how long has the debate on storage of spent nuclear power plant fuel gone on? Also, US war ships off the coast of Yemen and elsewhere guarding choke points that oil tankers move through. Look in the mirror to see who foots that cost. When I was a little kid I remember Reddy Kilowatt telling us in a film that nuclear energy would be so cheap that meters couldn’t measure it. Now forty years later…The subsidy that goes to a wind farm, I can take a whole lot better than the subsidy of a tax credit some CEO who buys a big SUV gets. Again, I do not begrudge the guy who needs a truck to work out of as his office. The US has about three percent of the world’s oil, but we use 25 percent of the energy. At some point as China comes more on line they will drive energy costs up to where wind and solar will be feasible. I have read on the wall where many lament that the truly efficient boilers come from off shore, in the same manner, Ford’s new hybrid,… is based on technology bought from Toyota. What ever happened to American can-do and know-how anyway? Another point with being petroleum dependent on other counties: Of the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela, how many of these countries we get our oil from are either not friendly to the US or even stable and would not deal with us were not for the US coming with cash in hand? If, if by using some wind, some solar, some common sense, some American can-do and know how, we can turn those numbers the other way, and cut down on sending US dollars off shore for oil, that is fine by me. As Katrina pointed out, we are a very short time span from deep trouble if something disrupts the supply for an extended period. Since this string started, now another hurricane is headed to land in the gulf and gas prices again spiked.
The alternatives cost though; think about it. If not a wind farm or solar farm, you get a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant. And which would you rather see next door or down the block. I have stated that I am an open eyed environmentalist, and I do realize that coal, and yes in some manner, nuclear have their place. However we need to be honest, there are many aspects of the way many of us live that are hard to justify except through wasting energy needlessly. Before somebody yells “nanny state”, your health care is already rationed, (what does and what doesn’t your health care plan cover?) How much more of your life do you want to see this spread onto? Let’s explore the alternatives. MN HO

Tony Conner_2

Wind Power

The only way the windmills have displaced the need for another conventional powerplant is if they're supplying a load that only exists when the wind is blowing over a certain velocity. Otherwise, all that's been done (economically) by building the windfarm, is to have duplicate plants in place.

It can be said that while the wind is blowing, less fossil fuel is being burned. However, the fixed cost is still there - the conventional plant and the crew. The utility with the windfarm will have to have enough spinning reserve to pick up the load when the wind drops, so the conventional units will not only have to be in-place, and be staffed, but but actually be on-line.

Unless you live in an area where the population and business/industries don't mind numerous, unpredictable power interuptions of hours in duration (and a LOT less power even when it is on), solar & wind power isn't much more than an interesting experiment, given the current level of the technology.

Tony Conner_2

The...

..."spinning reserve" from conventional power sources still has to be there, unless people are going off-grid. And if folks want to go off-grid and do their eco-thing with wind & solar, I applaud them and wish them the best of luck.

I personally think burning garbage (properly) is the way to go. A lot of green-types strongly disagree, however.

Brian (Tankless)

This green-type

agrees completely.

Burn ANYTHING cleanly to make energy.

Tankless in Rita-land.

David_24

Some figures must be wrong

I just read it would take an area the size of Manhattan Island full of solar cells to replace the output of one average gas station, energy wise. So the 10 x 10 mile area (100 sq miles) sounds woefully inadequate to power one major city, let alone the whole country. Also - the one point made that it takes fossil fuels to produce other forms is a good one. Hydrogen requires more energy to extract than you get back. There is only one source other than fossils that produces so much energy per pound - nuclear - it seems the answer would be - just build a bunch of nukes and then run everything on that (hydrogen extraction, battery charging, home heat, etc) - but there is only one serious problem - our supply of fissionable materials is barely adequate to keep the nuke plants we have operating - and we need a new place to dispose of the waste - rocket to the sun maybe. Each piece of food travels an average of 1500 miles by truck before it hits your plate, not to mention the energy to plant and harvest and process. For some good reading - check the story and links at http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
This subject is going to be a bigger and bigger item as we approach the post industrial stone age - unless some miracle energy source is found.
dave

David_24

And one other scary thought

NPR replayed some of the stories from the early 70's and the oil embargo, where basically someone woke up one morning and decided to turn off the faucet until they got their way. We talk about China and India as people in competition for our oil, but even worse, they are now a serious alternative market to keep the Saudi's homes stocked with solid gold faucets - they don't need the USA as much anymore for that. It seems we are even more vulnerable than ever to someone over there getting ticked off - knowing it would cause total economic collapse in the USA. And in the face of all the dangers, Detroit still puts out ads every day for hemi powered muscle trucks and cars - I wonder if it is philosophical ploy to get people to think all is well generally. An OPEC official last Feb slipped and said they have lost control of prices because they are already pumping flat-out full. Considering that USA oil production peaked in 1970, and world production is peaking now, the biggest asset a person might have soon is a nice collection of Mother Earth News - certainly not a hemi in the garage. After 75 years of learning we can live 100 miles away from the job and make it work, it will be very difficult to change fast enough. Bush went to Iraq for one reason - to control politics in the oil region - and that's why he is sticking it out against popular opinion - I think the govt is scared to death of the prospects of peak oil and economic health in the future.

David_24

How to Start the rapid change-over to Conservation?

As one writer said - serious conservation is the best place to start - but how does the country start a wholesale effort without collapsing the economy? We somehow feel comfortable (trusting) knowing that if 5% of your banks customers came in and wanted their deposits back, the bank would have to heavily borrow to pay off. But what if Bush came on TV and said we could be facing serious depression, and even economic collapse and anarchy in the future without serious immediate changes to our energy consumption - that alone would cause big problems at your local WalMart. Hints don't work - energy use continues rising even in the face of these prices, which should be hint enough - people aren't wasting in their eyes - just going to work, and they deserve to take the family for a Sunday drive. Changing directions on energy use would be like standing on an LA freeway and shouting that all cars should reverse the direction they are traveling - we have so much inertia to overcome, and the problems seem to be coming way too fast.
One solution - a job/home trade service. Instead of you traveling 50 miles to work, and someone in that town driving to your town to work, just trade jobs or homes (whichever works out best) - some big website to orchestrate all this - everyone goes back to the days of Dagwood Bumsted and walks to work - end of energy crisis. Of course - who would do that? Raising taxes on energy won't work - most people don't really waste gas - it just increases the problem which is high costs to begin with. How many guys with a mortgage and 3 or 4 payment books and a wife and kids can afford $2k a month for gas and still make it? Another solution might be based on the fact that almost all the money we earn working goes to pay for the infastructure necessary to have a job. All we have to do is plant our own gardens, maybe a few sheep or cotton balls growing to make some clothes, and just let the economy as we know it collapse! We can live just fine without Fox News! Maybe it would be like the Rod Taylor character in the original Time Machine movie found when he went to the future - just run naked and play in the woods all day - seems a lot more sane than the long-lens shots of the LA freeways at rush hour!

David_24

Hydrogen Car Conversion link

Remember Bob Lazar of Area 51 fame? Check out his site and what he is doing to make kits available to convert your car to hydrogen, and make your own fuel in the garage by solar power - automatically converts back to gas when hydrogen runs out - stored safe in hydride tanks - 4 scuba-size tanks go 600 miles. Go to the following link, but notice in the news section that they have found "Hydrogen Embrittlement" occuring - hydrogen mixing with the metal in the engine causing cracks forming - maybe back to the drawing board. http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

David_24

A battery for AC power....

Tony,
You are essentially right, but there IS a way to store AC power in a "battery". Consider what they do in Ludington, MI. During off-peak, the power company uses the excess power to run large pumps that fill a reservoir from Lake Michigan. During heavy demand, they run the water from the reservoir through turbines to make extra power. Kinda cool, huh? Of course, putting a reservoir like that on every county in Kansas might be a problem....

Constantin

The market will find a solution...

... it always has, and always will.

Until energy prices become a large part of the living costs, you can't expect its users to treat it as if it was precious. If energy prices do indeed continue to rise as they have, the participants in the market will respond, by changing their behavior. Naturally, the adjustment process is going to be more painful for some than for others.

For example, those that live in drafty, uninsulated homes while commuting 100 miles each day because they want the white-picket-fence dream for their family are going to get hit more than the city-dwellers that live in an well-insulated apartment and which walk to work. We may yet see a reversal of urban sprawl, driven by the same market forces that created it in the first place.

Tony Conner_2

I've Seen...

...how some of my neighbours handle & store gasoline. I can't imagine why they haven't burned their houses down. The thought of these people making their own hydrogen anywhere near me just gives me the willies. Hydrogen is wild, wild stuff to handle.

Tony Conner_2

That's...

... pumped storage. You can indeed "store" some degree of power generating capability. Where it works, and makes sense, it should be used. But it doesn't really give you much more generating capacity, in the grand scheme of things. It's pretty marginal. If you've got much in the way of an industrial base, there are not many jurisdictions that can even approach delivering the power required, by falling water alone.

Constantin

I had the same thoughts last winter...

... as my neighbor poured gasoline into/onto his snowblower gas tank. He didn't use a cone, so about half of the stuff landed on the hot engine block, where it vaporized instantly and rose as a steamy cloud. One small spark and we would have had a conflagration.

I stepped away. I've been burned before.

Tony Conner_2

Sure...

... it's www.eng-tips.com . It's one site with a number of boards covering just about every engineering discipline you can imagine.The one on mercury is in the "Power Generating Facility Engineering Forum". Sorry for not responding earlier - I missed your post.

Tony Conner_2

Compare...

... hydrogen to natural gas. Gas has 1,000 BTU/cubic foot. Hydrogen has 60,000 (that's SIXTY THOUSAND) BTU/cubic foot. Combine that with hydrogen being explosive over 75% of it's mixture range with air, vs 9% for gas, and there you go. Hydrogen molecules are very small, and can actually permiate steel pipe. There have been cases of petro-chem workers suffering serious burns, as not only does hydrogen combust with almost any mixture ratio with air - you can't see the flame unless it's dark. You can have an invisible flame coming off the side of a line - right through the pipe wall. Even to demolish hydrogen piping is an adventure, as it will stay embedded right in the metal for some time. Cut into it with a torch (or pretty much anything) too soon after the line is taken out of service, and things can turn exciting pretty quickly.

To imagine homeowners or backyard mechanics loose with hydrogen is just not happening. It's literally "too much of a good thing".