Debunking alternative fuel myths and doubts

[David Wong]

Wow! What an awesome example this thread has turned into.

In this thread we have:

* Wind power is expensive, but is coming down in price.

* Wind power will never come down in price, because there is no reason the components will ever be cheaper.

* Nuclear power will always be too expensive if you factor in clean-up costs.

* Nuclear power is just as inexpensive as coal.

* Solar and wind power plants both cost more to build than the electricity they yield;

And finally, my two favorites and the heart of the discussion:

* The technology is available, just too expensive to be cost effective right now;

vs

* No technology will save us, we must drastically reduce our consumption and lifestyles.

So what's interesting about this to me is it's not a difference in opinion; it's a difference in fact. Most of what is being disputed here are dollars and kilowatt calculations and I'm surprised there's this much bad information out there.

And some of it has to be bad, because it all conflicts. Why is that?

 

[Dymanic]

So what's interesting about this to me is it's not a difference in opinion; it's a difference in fact.

The way you worded that suggests that you are offering it as an opinion rather than stating it as a fact.

I find the discrepancy to have more to do with the way facts are framed. Looking at the cost of yellowcake as a measure of the economic viability of nuclear fission ignores the other considerable costs involved (including cleanup). The observation that windmills and photovoltaics both use more energy to build than they put out is valid only up to the EROEI break-even point (which varies with location).

Most of what is being disputed here are dollars and kilowatt calculations and I'm surprised there's this much bad information out there.

It isn't a simple matter of the truth speaking for itself. There are gaps in our knowledge, so doing the calculations inevitably involves relying on some assumptions. Most of us aren't capable of saying "well, this is how I'd like to see things come out, so I'm just going to plug this made-up value in here..." we have to pretend to be unbiased, at least to ourselves. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. The value of conflicting viewpoints is that while the most treacherous assumptions are likely to be those we are completely unaware of, those made by others tend to be rather obvious. In my opinion.

 

[Jimbo07]

It isn't a simple matter of the truth speaking for itself. There are gaps in our knowledge, so doing the calculations inevitably involves relying on some assumptions.

Filling these gaps could be a big job. Also, sometimes process information can be proprietary. One would have to rely on what the operator is obliged to disclose to regulators.

 

[Don At Work]

car-hackers-hummer-gets-60-mpg/
Just thought this was very interesting.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Are you sure?

 

[Mongrel]

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.

It is my understanding that fast charging batteries shortened the usable life of the battery and uses more power than the, slower, 8 hour charge.

 

[quarky]

We're finally getting a wake-up call. Rising to its occasion supercedes other goals, such as our inevitable populating the galaxies, hopefully.

Doing more with less is the future, if there is one.

Perhaps the focus should be there, at first, to get people in the mood.
Because there's no way we can keep it up...and why should we?

No one is nostalgic for the Eniac computors that weighed six tons.
The shift to better computors you could hold in your hands, and did more...it was a painless shift.

I feel the same about what needs to happen next. It might be analogous to what happened with computors.
Using a tenth the energy we now use could be the boost we need, to have a much higher standard of living.

We're sort of taught to fear the imminent collapse of how we live.
Without cheap energy, we won't be able to wipe our butts anymore.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're sort of taught to fear the imminent collapse of how we live.
Without cheap energy, we won't be able to wipe our butts anymore.

The question was never whether we'd be able to wipe our butts anymore, but what we'd be wiping them with.

 

[Pope130]

[nitpick]

December, 1938: Germans discover fission.

August, 1945: US Nukes Japan.

6.5 years from discovery to weaponry.

[/nitpick]

Quite right, so far as the science goes, but I was referring to the development of the industry. The nuclear industry in the US went from nothing to a nationwide network employing some 320,000 people in three years.

Robert

 

[luchog]

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.

I don't agree that this is absolutely necessary. I agree that there isn't a single technology short of nuclear fusion that will solve all energy needs; but we can maintain at least our present level, and possibly even a decent amount of future growth, with a combination of technologies, applied to their strengths.

Fuel technology: Hydrogen is not going to fly with current technology. Right now, it's a net cradle-to-grave negative energy economy. It costs more than it produces. Plus, despite what all the eco-woos claim, it's not even remotely "green". It's highly dependent on fossil fuels, being cracked from natural gas, and thus generates just as much carbon dioxide as using the fossil fuels directly. If a good bio-generation source can be developed, then it'll be worthwhile; but until then it's useless.

Ethanol is a decent fuel, and should have a net positive energy economy; but crops need high-quality land, displacing food crops, and are still dependent on fossil fuel-based fertilizers. Because of the land requirements, and the low yeild per acre/kilogram, it's unlikely to be viable in the long term. If cracking cellulose for methanol is ever made commercially viable, then it'll be a hugely useful fuel source; but until then, it's worse than useless.

Biodiesel is an almost ideal fuel, in the right implementation. In the current implementation, far less so. Being currently based on soy as a feedstock, it requires high-quality land and displaces food crops. Because of the nature of the crop, it's not all that dependent on fossil fuel fertilizers. Because of the land requirement and moderate to low yeild per acre/kilogram, it's energy economy is posivite, but not very high; so it's not likely to be more than marginal in the long term. There is a crop which could make it highly viable as a fuel source. Hemp has a much higher yield per acre/kilogram, orders or magnitude higher than soy or rapeseed. It also grows well in marginal land, so it doesn't displace food crops. Biodiesel production based on hemp would be a significant component of an overall replacement fuel source program.

Thermal Depolymer Process petroleum is a relatively new technology that also has the potential to be a significant component of a replacement fuel source porgram. The feedstock is any waste biological or plastic substance; neither of which are in short supply. There is an excellent positive energy economy, particularly as it's powered by waste natural gas ocurring as a by-product in non-commercially-viable quantities. The problem with TDP petrol production facilities is that they need to be localized close to the waste/feedstock stream; and has a signifigant negative community presence (mainly smell and noise); and therefore is highly affected by NIMBY concerns, which must be overcome in order to scale up to commercially significant production levels.

Grid technology:

Current technologies should be adequate to replace existing usage, as well as expected increases in demand over the short term.

Hydro, Geothermal, and Wind are useful for localized uses in areas where they're feasible; but are too limited overall.

Solar still has a negative overall cradle-to-grave energy economy due to costs of producing the solar energy collectors at current technology. And it's also very localized and space-intensive.

Coal reserves will last for quite some time yet, and with new advances in processing technology increasing the efficiency of energy extraction, it'll become more important as a component of grid-energy production. However, it cannot handle much increase, if any.

The big one for future demand increases is nuclear. Using fast-breeder reactor technology, nuclear power can easily handle grid power demands for quite some time. Unfortunately, there's a lot of resistance to building nuclear reactors.

 

[David Wong]

Fuel technology: Hydrogen is not going to fly with current technology. Right now, it's a net cradle-to-grave negative energy economy. It costs more than it produces. Plus, despite what all the eco-woos claim, it's not even remotely "green". It's highly dependent on fossil fuels, being cracked from natural gas, and thus generates just as much carbon dioxide as using the fossil fuels directly. If a good bio-generation source can be developed, then it'll be worthwhile; but until then it's useless.

And there's #6. First time I've heard that one. What I always heard was that moving power generation to the power plant instead of the internal combustion engine resulted in a vast reduction of pollution and greenhouse gases, even if you were using something like coal.

Of course here I'm talking about the electricity needed to produce Hydrogen.

 

[Dymanic]

Hydrogen is not going to fly with current technology. Right now, it's a net cradle-to-grave negative energy economy. It costs more than it produces. Plus, despite what all the eco-woos claim, it's not even remotely "green". It's highly dependent on fossil fuels, being cracked from natural gas, and thus generates just as much carbon dioxide as using the fossil fuels directly.

I wouldn't agree with that if "using the fuels directly" means using them as automobile fuels. As David notes, using them to generate electricity can be done much more cleanly and efficiently (perhaps not the least reason being that the former involves many more opportunities for accidental releases of methane, considerably more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2). Since (as you note) it's a net energy sink anyway, the point is moot.

Ethanol is a decent fuel, and should have a net positive energy economy

I don't know about "should", but it doesn't; that is, if the feedstock is corn (and in the US, most of it is), it's not clear that it does; at least not with present technology.

Biodiesel production based on hemp would be a significant component of an overall replacement fuel source program.

Would be; except that the technology isn't ready. Ditto switchgrass, etc; as discussed above.

Solar still has a negative overall cradle-to-grave energy economy due to costs of producing the solar energy collectors at current technology.

It's not easy to calculate that (the EROEI), because efficiencies and lifespans of solar panels vary with type and location of installation, because the technology is in a state of flux, and because figuring the total cost of production means making judgement calls about what to include. Do you count the energy cost for the commute of every worker involved in producing anything used in constructing or operating the plant? His lunch, and everything associated with that? By twiddling the numbers enough, it might be possible to get a return ratio of less than 1:1, but what is it really?

 

[quarky]

I think the hemp-as-bio-fuel is a fantasy propagated by fans of marijuana. I'm not against hemp as a fiber plant or as a drug, but its not a magic bullet. Its not even a legume. It needs nitrogen.
Algae certainly holds more promise as a bio-fuel, but the economics of producing high-oil algae suggest that it has more value as an animal feed than as fuel.

 

[casebro]

Grid technology:

Current technologies should be adequate to replace existing usage, as well as expected increases in demand over the short term.

.

Grid technologies yes. Grid size no. Currently our grid runs at capacity in the summer. It can't handle the added electricity demand of automotive use. Not only will we need to built zillions of reactors, we'll need to umm triple the capacity of the grid to run any fleet electric cars.

 

[robinson]

The number of myths being put forth in this thread is funny. I thought it was a debunking thread, not a "here are some myths I heard or made up" kind of thread.

 

[Dymanic]

The number of myths being put forth in this thread is funny. I thought it was a debunking thread, not a "here are some myths I heard or made up" kind of thread.

It could turn into a "here's my flippant but essentially content-free drive-by contribution" kind of thread. Depends on who shows up.

 

[David Wong]

As I said before, it's turned into a beautiful example of the problem.

What I had observed in all the dozens of other discussions was that there were "fans" of each solution the same as there are fans of a particular operating system or video game console or stereo. Its like people attach themselves to a solution and they've memorized all the reasons the competing ones won't work.

Another one that came up today, on another site:

#. Hydrogen was never a serious technology for American car companies, they simply threw some money at sham programs so they could come back later and say it didn't work, and use that as leverage against higher mileage standards. "What you're asking for is impossible!!!"

This person claimed that the prototypes and whatnot that had been produced had been made specifically to demonstrate that the technoloqy wasn't feasible.

 

[luchog]

I don't know about "should", but it doesn't; that is, if the feedstock is corn (and in the US, most of it is), it's not clear that it does; at least not with present technology.

It does with sugar cane; but so far only sugar cane. Until someone manages to develop a commercially viable method of cracking cellulose.

Would be; except that the technology isn't ready. Ditto switchgrass, etc; as discussed above.

The technology does exist. The reason that soy is used for biodiesel is that there are no industrialized countries outside of China which will allow the legal growing of industrial hemp on that level. Industrial extraction of oils is ridiculously simple, and it's done on high-volume commercial levels every day for food purposes. The major issue is post-extraction processing to remove glycerides. As it stands now, the cost of soy-based biodiesel is competitive with petrol diesel at local prices. This could be greatly improved by moving to a higher-yeild crop like Hemp. Particularly since hemp oil doesn't require nearly as much processing as soy oil, which also greatly reduces costs.

It's not easy to calculate that (the EROEI), because efficiencies and lifespans of solar panels vary with type and location of installation, because the technology is in a state of flux, and because figuring the total cost of production means making judgement calls about what to include. Do you count the energy cost for the commute of every worker involved in producing anything used in constructing or operating the plant? His lunch, and everything associated with that? By twiddling the numbers enough, it might be possible to get a return ratio of less than 1:1, but what is it really?

Even figuring strictly the energy cost of the materials and construction process vs. the demonstrated output over the average lifespan, there is no technology currently on the market that has a net positive energy economy. The cost of solar is far above what would be necessary to achive a positive ROI.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm

 

[luchog]

I think the hemp-as-bio-fuel is a fantasy propagated by fans of marijuana. I'm not against hemp as a fiber plant or as a drug, but its not a magic bullet. Its not even a legume. It needs nitrogen.

I specifically stated that there are no magic bullets available with current technology. Nothing we know of has the energy economy of fossil fuels. Hemp is merely the best alternative for transportation fuel that currently exists.

Yes, it needs nitrogen, but not as much as food crops, and a simple crop rotation with hardy legumes or other nitrogen-fixing crops, or supplementation with cyanobacteria, would remedy that issue.

 

[luchog]

Grid technologies yes. Grid size no. Currently our grid runs at capacity in the summer. It can't handle the added electricity demand of automotive use. Not only will we need to built zillions of reactors, we'll need to umm triple the capacity of the grid to run any fleet electric cars.

Which is why I split fuel technology from grid technology. Seperation of the two, and dropping the electric car pipe dream, will need to happen until something like nuclear fusion is technologically feasible.