Re: The fast talking governor who has a plan to fuel the American dream
- From: PagCal <pagcal@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:00:56 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 04:26:01 -0400, PagCal wrote:
Coal gassification will let us continue our profligate life style for
another 200 years, that is, if the planet's atmosphere lasts that long.
I wouldn't worry about the atmosphere so much, but the oceans. :-) Then
again, is it an ocean if it boils into the atmosphere, or part of the
atmosphere? Ow, my brain... :-)
Unfortunately, the 'if' puts the kibosh in the fix. It now seems that
global warming is real, and therefore just burning more coal only makes
matters worse.
So, since we have to convert from Middle East oil, why not convert to
fuels that are green instead of ones that are not?
Uh...because of capital expenditure? :-)
And, we do have simple and cheap alternatives that are 'here today' and
not pie in the sky:
1. Just put up a 100 mile square solar array in out Southwest to provide
ALL electricty our country needs now and into the future.
This is debatable. (It's a nice idea though. I wish I could support it
more fully with the data I have.)
A recent plant in Lisbon, Portugal creates 11 megawatts from 60 hectares,
or 600,000 square meters, and costs or is costing $78.5M to build. Lisbon, Portugal is at 38°44' N -- which compares nicely to Washington DC
at 38°53' N. We might be able to get a little more power. The blurb is
clear as mud as to whether this is sustained power, daylight-only power,
or what. Assuming this is sustained power (i.e., 24/7, possibly with
onsite battery storage -- hmm, how many batteries would that require?):
100 square miles is about 260 km^2 or 2.6 * 10^8 m^2. Assuming this
scales up appropriately, that translates into 4.77 gigawatts or 41.8
kWh/year. This is about 1.07% of current US production rates.
One would have to make it at least 10,000 square miles -- bigger than the
state of Vermont.
OK, our deserts are that big.
Solar only gets 10% conversion, but solar collectors driving Sterling engines do 25%, thus reducing the land mass by 3x. Someone's already setting up an array in the Southwest with this technology.
The cost of this monster plant would run well into the trillions of
dollars (and that's if it doesn't turn into a boondoggle). It may be
trillions worth spending, admittedly...but it's a lot.
We've already spent 400b in Iraq, so if we can do that, we can do this.
There is the issue that any kWh produced by such a plant would be one less
kWh produced by a coal-burning plant, reducing CO2 emissions. I wish I
knew how much CO2 is produced by $78.5M of solar plant construction, but
that's a one-time cost, which is good.
Cost effective compared to what? If you factor in the cost of rebuilding a New Orleans every few years, solar is cheeper.
2. For city folk or commuters that drive less than 150 miles a day, an all
electric car is the answer.
If one has a good source of electrical energy: nuclear, solar, wind,
tidal, hydroelectric, natural gas (to some extent; my thinking is that
it'll escape into the air anyway but I'd have to research the issue). Electric cars have a problem similar to hydrogen cars: both electricity
and hydrogen are *not* sources of energy, but merely conduits. Admittedly, the same might be said for gasoline.
GM had one, called the EV1, that people loved
to drive, and they could just bring it back. Detroit may latch onto the
pluggable Hybrid in the next three years as an alternative. Huray!
There are issues with pluggables. My understanding is that the batteries
don't take kindly to deep discharge/recharge cycles, and require different
designs than those for current hybrids.
I'm also a little sorry to see the EV1 go but apparently it didn't meet
people's -- or perhaps Detroit's? -- needs.
3. Do simple things in the name of conservation, like what we did in the
70's. Such things has buying energy star appliances the next time around
or raising auto CAFE are easy to do and do not require any sacrafice from
any American.
Auto CAFE raising may require a sacrifice in terms of power and utility. SUVs are heavy beasts, which is partly why they get such poor gas mileage,
compared to hybrids. However, a contest between an SUV and a hybrid, has
a clear winner -- and it's not the hybrid. Safety is a concern, although
it would help if the driver of both SUV and hybrid had half a clue about
how much following distance to allow (2 second rule of thumb), and what
rain and snow does to streets (especially after a long hot summer).
Hybrids also aren't real good at playing "school bus". However, there are
a large number of socioeconomic issues here, starting with the simple
question as to why we aren't living right next door to our jobs, schools,
and entertainment districts?
These *are* issues. I for one would hope that the market will provide --
though the market has already been corrupted by various means, the most
obvious of them might be the replacement of trolley cars by busses in San
Francisco way back before my time. Also, Santa Clara made a rather dumb
(in retrospect) decision when Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) was first
being proposed here.
There's an interesting ad making the rounds on websites. This ad claims
that a train can get 410 miles per gallon of diesel. This ad is slightly
misleading for many reasons (is the train empty? full? how many cars? commuter? freight? # of stops?) but AFAIK it is quite true that commuter
trains are more efficient than private autos.
The catch, around here at least: it's $7.50 for a two-zone ticket for a
Caltrain ride...and my car gets 30 mpg, or $.10/mile at current fuel
prices. Since my commute is about a 44 mile round trip, that translates
into $4.40 or thereabouts. Of course a more realistic cost estimate might
be had by including insurance and repairs, and the IRS allows either
$0.33/mile or $0.35/mile as a deduction for a business expense (I forget
which, and commutes don't count). At $0.35/mile, that's $15.40 a day,
which makes the train somewhat more attractive -- and my car is rather
unhappy at the moment. (It's also 10 years old.)
A monthly pass -- about 20 trips -- would cost $99.50, about a 30-35%
savings. Might be worth looking into.
And then there's the 2 mile walk from my place to the station. :-)
All America needs a 2 mile walk every day - it'd burn off the fat, and we'd live longer, with lower medical bills, and a higher quality of life.
.
And yes, they're talking about a fare increase. Diesel fuel, after all,
is refined from oil, too.
Sigh. Is it even *possible* to win? :-)
Captain Compassion wrote:
The fast talking governor who has a plan to fuel the American dream By
Alec Russell in Billings
(Filed: 17/06/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/17/wmontana17.xml
The governor of Montana reached into the pocket of his black jeans,
pulled out a vial of liquid and banged it on the table in front of him
with a winning smile. "Diesel," he bellowed. "It smells nasty. It is
nasty."
Like one of the fairground hucksters who used to roam his giant western
state, he paused, then lobbed a nugget of coal into the air, before
pulling out another vial. "Now smell this. It doesn't smell at all. It
is the future."
Brian Schweitzer with a vial of fuel made from coal
Inside the second vial was a synthetic fuel made from, of all things,
coal. It looks like diesel. Indeed you can pour it into the fuel tank of
a diesel car and drive away. Yet it just may be the magic potion that
will help Americans to win independence from Middle Eastern oil and fill
up their tanks with home-grown fuel.
[rest snipped]
- Prev by Date: Re: You ready for a North Korean missile up you ass?
- Next by Date: Re: You ready for a North Korean missile up you ass?
- Previous by thread: You ready for a North Korean missile up you ass?
- Next by thread: Re: The fast talking governor who has a plan to fuel the American dream
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
