Debunking alternative fuel myths and doubts

[David Wong]

If you check the comments under any news story or any blog post about alternative fuel cars and/or hybrids, you see the same debate format.

Poster 1: "Our problems won't be solved until we convert to (insert alternative fuel here)!"

Poster 2: "Wrong! That technology will never be viable due to (insert limitations here). We need to convert to (insert another alternative fuel here)!"

Poster 3: "Wrong! That technology will never be viable due to..."

And so on. What I'd like to do in this thread is sort through some of the supposed insurmountable technical barriers and find out which ones are real and which are being over-stated by fans of some competing technology. So let me start with a couple I just heard, some elsewhere, some right here at JREF:

1. Hydrogen fuel cells will never be necessary, because the next generation of lithium ion batteries will have a range of 300-400 miles, and can be charged in a few minutes.

This was stated by someone who claimed to work in the industry, for one company's hydrogen program. They were reacting to comments made by someone high up at Toyota who said the same thing publicly. When someone challenged that there was in fact no way to fast-charge electric vehicles, they responded that this was only a limitation in household outlets, and that powering stations would be able to transfer the charge fast enough so that it'd be just a little slower than gassing up now.

Is that true? When they say that electric vehicles take 8 hours to recharge, is that purely because of the capabilities of the electrical outlets in your garage? If so then I don't understand why this was ever considered a limitation.

2. Hydrogen components will never be affordable, because the components require significant amounts of platinum.

3. As for the extra stress an all-electric vehicle fleet would put on the power grid, and the automatic answer of "build more nuclear plants," one claim was that there literally are not enough experts and engineers in America to build the 500 nuclear power plants that would be required to meet the need over the next 30 years.

4. None of the technologies we currently have or are about to have - next generation of solar, wind, nuclear fission, coal - will produce enough energy to replace what we're getting from petroleum, and the only solution is to take an enormous step back in our lifestyles and consumption until something like nuclear fusion comes along.

(Edited in from this thread)

Can anybody tackle those? Have any of your own?

 

[Pope130]

I'll take a swing at No. 3.

It doesn't take that long to train engineers and technicians to build nuclear power plants. The tricky bit is the original physics and design. That is all done (not that improvements aren't possible and desirable).

Remember that we went from effectively no nuclear industry whatever to full production of weapons in only three years (1942 to 1945).

I suspect the real problem with going nuclear will be political rather than technical.


Robert

 

[Dymanic]

If "solving the problems" means finding something that will replace cheap petroleum as a fuel source, then the first thing we need to acknowledge is that nothing short of nuclear fusion is ever going to do that for us. Once you recognize that it isn't about that; that we're in for severe reductions in energy consumption no matter what, then approaches that didn't look like they wanted to work -- because you were trying to get them to sustain a way of life that is just not sustainable -- suddenly start to look more promising. When your daily commute is maybe two or three miles, you don't have the same requirements that you had when it was maybe twenty or thirty.

 

[David Wong]

If "solving the problems" means finding something that will replace cheap petroleum as a fuel source, then the first thing we need to acknowledge is that nothing short of nuclear fusion is ever going to do that for us. Once you recognize that it isn't about that; that we're in for severe reductions in energy consumption no matter what, then approaches that didn't look like they wanted to work -- because you were trying to get them to sustain a way of life that is just not sustainable -- suddenly start to look more promising. When your daily commute is maybe two or three miles, you don't have the same requirements that you had when it was maybe twenty or thirty.

Alrighty, we have #4 for the list.

This person says that no technology currently available - be it nuclear fission, wind, high-efficiency solar, coal or all those combined, can replace the energy we're currently getting from petroleum.

Is he right? This should be easily answerable since it's a number value; we know how much solar energy is hitting the earth, and how much is lost in transporting the energy from sunny areas to non-sunny. We know how much uranium is out there more or less, and how much we'd have to use.

This is in fact the first time I've heard this assertion, that there literally are no replacements with any technologies on the horizon.

 

[rjh01]

One issue is cost. Every alternative of producing electricity is far more expensive than now. Nuclear power is expensive. If you ever see a costing of a nuclear power station then see if it includes clean up costs. Wind power is currently expensive but coming down in price.

If cars are not fueled by hydrocarbons then power must be generated elsewhere. But how?

 

[Viper Daimao]

1. Hydrogen fuel cells will never be necessary, because the next generation of lithium ion batteries will have a range of 300-400 miles, and can be charged in a few minutes.

This was stated by someone who claimed to work in the industry, for one company's hydrogen program. They were reacting to comments made by someone high up at Toyota who said the same thing publicly. When someone challenged that there was in fact no way to fast-charge electric vehicles, they responded that this was only a limitation in household outlets, and that powering stations would be able to transfer the charge fast enough so that it'd be just a little slower than gassing up now.

Is that true? When they say that electric vehicles take 8 hours to recharge, is that purely because of the capabilities of the electrical outlets in your garage? If so then I don't understand why this was ever considered a limitation.

I'm no expert by any means, but these claims sound more like those of super capacitors rather than litihium ion batteries. It's my understanding that fast charging is a limitation on batteries.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10601407

 

[Acleron]

I'm no expert by any means, but these claims sound more like those of super capacitors rather than litihium ion batteries. It's my understanding that fast charging is a limitation on batteries.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10601407

Altairnano claim a lithium ion battery that can be charged in one minute.

The main point to keep in mind is to distinguish between energy production and energy transport and distribution. A battery/hydrogen powered vehicle may be clean in terms of direct emissions but could probably worsen the general problem by the emissions at the energy generating point being added to the transport costs.

 

[Viper Daimao]

Altairnano claim a lithium ion battery that can be charged in one minute.

The main point to keep in mind is to distinguish between energy production and energy transport and distribution. A battery/hydrogen powered vehicle may be clean in terms of direct emissions but could probably worsen the general problem by the emissions at the energy generating point being added to the transport costs.

I disagree. Power plants have a higher efficiency than combustion engines if I recall. Plus, with a greater emphasis on generating power through clean methods such as nuclear, solar and wind, electricity will be cleaner still.

 

[Acleron]

I disagree. Power plants have a higher efficiency than combustion engines if I recall. Plus, with a greater emphasis on generating power through clean methods such as nuclear, solar and wind, electricity will be cleaner still.

I agree that a power station may be more efficient at producing the energy.

The point I would make is that the pollution is not just a function of efficiency at the point of generation. Losses occur during transmission and battery charging. Other power losses occur when batteries need to be made and replaced.

None of the methods available to us now, including those you mention, are truly clean. Their production and installation involve energy costs or other problems.

While being very concerned about global warming I am also worried that diving off into one new technology or another may cause even more problems.

Nevertheless, I am optimistic that technological solutions will appear but just doubt we are there yet.

 

[soylent]

If "solving the problems" means finding something that will replace cheap petroleum as a fuel source, then the first thing we need to acknowledge is that nothing short of nuclear fusion is ever going to do that for us.

A pound of yellow cake costs ~70 USD and represents ~50 barrels of oil worth of thermal energy in a vanilla LWR.

Oil is nice and portable, but it's about the most expensive energy source out there.

 

[PixyMisa]

A pound of yellow cake costs ~70 USD and represents ~50 barrels of oil worth of thermal energy in a vanilla LWR.

Yeah, but a nuclear-powered car won't fit in my garage.

 

[soylent]

Nuclear power is expensive.

Dependable ~2 US cent per kWh production cost is competitive even with coal.

Out of the cost of construction the majority(in the US) was interest on loans and labour costs payed while being forced to re-re-re-re-re-design a reactor due to regulatory ratcheting and being forced to sit through endless hearings and bickering. The difference between the cheapest and the most expensive construction costs for 1 GW nuclear reactors in the 80's was a factor of ~4 despite similar design.

The nuclear opposition was very well aware of this and went to extreme lengths to obstruct construction and run up the tab.

If you ever see a costing of a nuclear power station then see if it includes clean up costs.

Comparable to coal power, which is the only cost-effective alternative. Except of course if you give coal a free pass to never properly clean up the site and return to green-field status; which is the usual course of action.

Wind power is currently expensive but coming down in price.

The cost of steel, concrete and generators is going up steeply, so just how can a diffuse energy source that relies on mountains of the stuff go down in price?

Wind power is intermittent(power output varies as the cube of wind speed) and has a tendency not to be available at all in parts of the year(e.g. Texas summer when demand is the highest).

Wind must have either storage, which is currently more expensive than the wind power itself; an additional source of generation like hydropower or natural gas to balance its output or interruptible customers that can act as an energy sink for wind power whenever it's available(to compel anyone to accept intermittent power you'll have to sell it really cheap, and it's still only going to be a niché thing).

If hydropower is used to balance output you may occasionable be forced to use the most valuable power, peaking power, to produce base-load power to balance wind capacity. This is not very economical unless like Sweden or Norway you've got so much hydro that you're already forced to use it for baseload.

If natural gas is used to balance the output of wind power, 2/3 of your energy is comming from natural gas as opposed to wind, as the capacity factor of wind is only 1/3. NG turbine capacity is cheap, especially if you do single cycle, but the production cost is about 4 times that of coal or nuclear. but the When there is no wind you'll need to keep NG turbines spinning at no load, burning a little natural gas for the abillity to respond to changes in wind supply. When there is a little wind you're forced to run your NG turbines at lower output, which is not quite as efficient.

The variability of wind forces grid operators to keep a larger safety margin, overproducing power from some other source to prevent a serious emergency like the one in Texas recently: http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...om/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228 . ( The next step after a stage 2 emergency, that is dropping interruptible industry and paying them for the priviledge, is rolling black-outs).

You have to go where the wind is, unlike a regular power plant that you can build close to the power distribution system, and you'll be paying for putting the nameplate capacity through the power lines even though your capacity factor is only 1/3. If you put NG fired turbines where the wind turbines are you're talking about a fairly small plant, it may not even be combined cycle in which case your savings over just burning NG are non-existent.

 

[soylent]

Yeah, but a nuclear-powered car won't fit in my garage.

You might not want to sit in it, or be anywhere near it, but with HEU and no shielding you could certainly squeeze a nuclear reactor into the size of a SUV.

 

[casebro]

I guess the most obvious fallacy in the eregy source debates is that so many of the given options are NOT sources, but storage and transport systems.

Hydrogen or electric cars are not SOURCES. Only ways to transport the energy.

Shale oil is a source. Thermal solar is a source. Wind and photo-electric both use more energy to build than they put out.

Synthetic gasoline is not energy efficient either, it is only made for political purposes- to cut down on oil imports.

Synthetic diesel is the best chance. Algae or oil crops. Veggie diesel is available now, just buy it at the grocery store.

 

[Don At Work]

I'll take a swing at No. 3.

It doesn't take that long to train engineers and technicians to build nuclear power plants. The tricky bit is the original physics and design. That is all done (not that improvements aren't possible and desirable).

Remember that we went from effectively no nuclear industry whatever to full production of weapons in only three years (1942 to 1945).

I suspect the real problem with going nuclear will be political rather than technical.


Robert

[nitpick]

December, 1938: Germans discover fission.

August, 1945: US Nukes Japan.

6.5 years from discovery to weaponry.

[/nitpick]

 

[fuelair]

Alrighty, we have #4 for the list.

This person says that no technology currently available - be it nuclear fission, wind, high-efficiency solar, coal or all those combined, can replace the energy we're currently getting from petroleum.

Is he right? This should be easily answerable since it's a number value; we know how much solar energy is hitting the earth, and how much is lost in transporting the energy from sunny areas to non-sunny. We know how much uranium is out there more or less, and how much we'd have to use.

This is in fact the first time I've heard this assertion, that there literally are no replacements with any technologies on the horizon.

Not no replacements, no replacements currently available, feasible at the cost.

 

[Bikewer]

I must admit I listen to a lot of pundits and experts as I patrol each day; NPR is on the radio all the time.

Seems to me that for the vast majority of personal transport needs, the "plug-in" hybrid is going to be the best short-term solution. Are they not using these in Europe now?

Electricity generation by combined use of nuclear, wind, "wave", waste-generated methane, etc, etc.
Nuclear (according to the pundits) is, as stated above, more of a political than a physical problem. The French appear to have a safe and efficient nuclear sector, using standardized plant designs.
I have seen reactor designs in the big science magazines that are relatively simple and extremely safe.
By most accounts, wind could easily handle 20% of US electricity needs within 20 years, IF the industry receives the sort of corporate welfare lavished on the petroleum sector.

I keep recalling a quote from Buckminster Fuller, "You are going to have to clean things up sooner or later. The longer it takes, the more it's going to cost."

 

[Jimbo07]

Wind and photo-electric both use more energy to build than they put out.

What? Says who?

 

[quarky]

Everything must be redesigned. Retro-fitting won't do.
Alternatives to fossil fuels are hopeless, given the present population and the present inefficiencies in our consumption habits.

Perhaps we have time to redesign everything, using fossil fuels for the enormous effort that will be required...but not without population controls.

Without a rennisance in the way we use power, there is simply no hope.

Imagine a huge investment in wind power, for instance. What if the drag we put on the air flow causes a shift in the wind, and it moves north a few miles; leaving the turbines in a slow wind zone? The best engineers in the world are fairly clueless about these potential problems.

 

[Dymanic]

This person says that no technology currently available - be it nuclear fission, wind, high-efficiency solar, coal or all those combined, can replace the energy we're currently getting from petroleum.

I'm also saying that a combination of alternatives to petroleum can work, if we're willing to adjust our lifestyles to accomodate what's available, rather than expecting it to be the other way around.

Of those who arrived first at the goldfields in California in 1848, some were able to earn thousands of dollars in a single day collecting the gold that was lying right on the surface. As the easy stuff was exhausted, a prospector might might simply move off in search of a more productive spot, but as the area became more crowded with gold seekers, it became more profitable to employ more sophisticated techniques such as cradles and rockers in order to extract more gold by moving more dirt. A particularly successful and frugal prospector might return home with a fortune. But if he ended up broke again after frittering that fortune away on liquor and gambling and women, and if, despite possessing saleable skills, he refused any work that offered less than what he had earned during his most productive days in the goldfields, he'd be as disappointed as he would have been if he had remained there and kept flogging the same tired ground.

When it's over, it's over. What remains is to learn to deal with it.