corysub
Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
Cory
No debate that we are in a financial crisis-question is how to solve it.
1) I'm not underestimating the capabilities of US companies to drill- but the permitting process and the drilling process to get to the 10,000 ft. depths these days is not rapid.
2) You underestimate the US research and development capabilities. Some of the greatest technological accomplishments of our time- notably the atom bomb and the moon landing were considered science fiction when proposed- yet both were realities in less than a decade.
3) The figures on the percentage of electricity generated from windpower come from Denmark which has been quite successful at implementing it.
4) Why is it better to use our resources to drill than to build out a better infrastructure for power generation and transmission? We need a smart grid, not some left over fossil from the idea of centralized power. People need jobs- strikes me that building a smart grid will put people to work and provide something useful. Make work jobs like deserted airports or empty bridges in Japan don't do anything positive in the long term for an economy- but a smart grid would make better use of our current energy generation, reduce the need for additional energy generation (which is debatable by the way- Europe has shown that there's no correlation between economic growth and increased demand for energy.
5) My analysis of the efficiency of fossil fuels is something that any intro course in thermodynamics covers. Sidi Carnot figured out in the 1800s that the efficiency of a heat engine is 1-T1/T2 T1 being the ambient temperature, T2 being the combustion temperature. Most of the coal plants in this country are at about 35% or so- and we do pretty good. China's plants are lower in efficiency overall, although some of their newer plants are supposedly higher. Even the much vaunted combined cycle plants have only cracked 40% or so- and their economics remain a deep, dark secret. Nuclear energy is little better- most of the energy of the fission reaction is wasted in cooling towers and other cooling requirements. It's a materials problem-can't transfer the heat generated without something cracking, scaling, etc. Note that wind turbines are already in the mid to high 50% efficiency range with a theoretical max of 60%- it's why wind is a mature technology. Solar has hit close to 50% with a multi junction cell, but most of what's out there today is still in the 15-20% range. Had we been consistent in funding solar cell research since Carter's time- we'd probably have practical cells in the 35-40% efficiency range- but Reagan took that money and threw it into Star Wars. (There's a reason I have a deep visceral hatred of that man- that was my career and a lot of my friends going up in smoke.)
6) Nuclear economics are another deep dark secret. The nuclear industry only has two costs that it puts on the books- cost of construction and operational costs. That's because insurance and dealing with nuclear waste falls to the US taxpayer. Given the time of construction and the enormous capital requirements- it's not surprising that there are about 100 or so nuke plants in this country- and we have more than anyone else. Breeder reactors have failed miserably- there's not one in operation today, and I don't know how many have been built and tried. French reprocessing of spent fuel is increases cost by a factor of 100-1000. (Typical fuel is $30/kg.) Nuclear plants have also needed some very generous incentives in terms of loan guarantees courtesy of the US taxpayer. Countries contemplating terrorist activity love the cover of a "peaceful" nuclear power industry.
8) Nobody talks about CO2 "burping" from the ground because its a doomsday scenario that will likely kill thousands to millions of people. Nobody's ever tracked what happens to the CO2 injected into oil wells for extraction purposes- and the volumes being discussed for sequestration are orders of magnitude larger than what's been stuck in the ground to date. And the fossil evidence of a lake turnover releasing a large volume of CO2 (which would be tiny compared to the amount being contemplated) is quite stark. CO2 burping from the ground is the elephant in the living room in any discussion about "clean coal."
Sam
Sam,
I think any reasonable person would be in favor of doing research on what I would rather call "supplemental fuels" rather than alternative fuels. We will have a needfor fossil fuels for generations to come. The major disagreement I have is with the Al Gore fantasy of humans causing "global warming" and all the cities on the coast are going to be drowned. While there are very bright scientist swho believe this thesis, there are also many who disagree totally that humans are causing the earth to warm:
"Fear is a very efficient weapon: It produces the desired effect without much waste. Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth. For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. What makes a whole lot of economic and political sense is to blame global warming on humans and create laws that keep the status quo and prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot."
Professor Kunihiko Takeda, Ph.D., vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080722jk.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are very nervous about the near-term, the possible loss of jobs, their homes, their life savings in 401K's, ...and they see a Government spending money like drunken sailors that is not aimed at stimulating business..but in growing government. I truly don't believe now is the time to accelerate drilling in favor of building windmills and than having to build a grid to transport the energy that is generated. People...and people like me...do not see the common sense in spending money on developing "windmill farms" while the economy is collapsing.
With respect to the Manhattan project and the race into space...neither one of these programs changed the lifestyle of the people in that day. What Obama and the super radical enviornmentalists are proposing is a total change in how we live, the cars we drive, the power we use, and all of it at great expense. Personally, I will never buy one of those small electric cars. Dont fee safe in them and they feel more like "toys" than cars. I had a diesel mercedes awhile back and it was an absolute pain having to find an outlet in teh winter to keep the engine block plugged into power so it would not freeze over night.
I don't feel like I want to go back to those days again, shopping for an outlet for my car.
As far as utilities directing CO2 emissions into the ground, this could be the way to go...
with careful monitoring. Maybe it could be utilized in Colorado where there are tight gas reserves. It would be an interesting experiment to see if injecting CO2 into the shale reserves out there to possibly have the double benefit of allowing the gas to be produced. Certainly it would be a safer idea than setting off a nuclear device as was done in the 1960's amd gave the Sierra Club national notice. The explosion did release the gas but, unfortunately, also flared radioactive tritium. Not a good thing
cory
< Message edited by corysub -- 3/4/2009 9:11:43 PM >
|
RE: Per R. Emanuel "Energy prices are too low" - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread