You are not logged in.
Our biggest collective problem with providing solutions is that our leadership on both sides of the political spectrum (and Atlantic), are more or less clueless as to what is going on. They think of the economy as a financial system, that can be steered by adjustments to interest rates and quantity of money. As strange as it sounds, this has led to the idea that the economy is a non-physical entity, that can continue growing more prosperous, even as physical inputs shrink. Adherents of this philosophy contend that energy is simply one of many low cost inputs to the economic system, something that can be substuted. In this view, energy costs are irrelevant, because human ingenuity will find ways of using less of it, if prices rise higher. Our measure of economic prosperity (GDP) would even suggest that there is no problem with deteriorating prosperity, even as record numbers of people struggle to afford essentials. On paper, GDP continues to increase, but wealth is increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, with more and more of it tied up in soaring values of assets (real estate, stocks and bonds). This is of course paper wealth, because the only possible buyers of these assets are the shrinking pool of people that own them already.
The cause of our problems (and possible solution) becomes clear when one appreciates that the economy is not a financial system, but a physical system of process, by which energy acts on matter to produce the goods and services that we call wealth. Money is the language of the economy, an entirely artificial construct which allows us to represent, exchange and communicate value. But it has no value other than what we choose to assign it. To understand this, imagine being marooned of a deserted island with huge quantities of money. It would be worthless without anyone else prepared to accept it. Real goods, like food and water on the other hand, would be very valuable. The resources with which to create more food and fresh water, would be even more valuable.
Nothing of any use can be made without the expenditure of energy - its transformation from one form to another, with a net increase in entropy. Other resources are substitutable to some extent, but energy is not. Energy is the master resource, without which nothing of value can be produced. Prosperity in the Western World has been sliding since the 1990s, because the energy cost of energy has been rising. This means that for every hundred units of energy harnessed, an increasing proportion are now consuming just to access the energy, diminishing the amount available to perform useful work. At the same time, ore bodies are gradually diminishing, meaning that energy costs are gradually rising. The combined effect of these two trends is to drag down prosperity.
Globalisation really took off at the end of the 1990s. This provided a way of mitigating the effects of diminishing net energy return, by relocating manufacturing to nations with both abundant low cost coal-based energy resources and low wages, allowing a diminished portion of net wealth to be paid to workers. This allowed increased profitability to the owners of capital at the obvious expense of the working class populations of high-wage, western economies. Industry continued to be profitable for those that owned it however, but prosperity began to stagnate for those in Western countries that worked for wages rather than owning capital. It was for this reason, that high wage economies began experiencing economic stagnation at relatively low 'energy cost of energy', between 3-5%. Developing countries like China, were able to continue growing until recently. Energy cost of energy has now risen to the point where even developing countries now face declining prosperity.
The solutions to these problems, if indeed we can call them such, really fall along two broad lines of development: (1) Improving energy efficiency wherever we can. The scope for further improvements are limited, but there are still ways in which society can develop to extract more wealth from each unit of energy. The use of public transport, is generally more energy efficient than driving a car. Modern LED based light sources consume less energy than the sources that they replace. Better thermal insolation reduces the energy consumption of buildings. (2) The development of new energy sources with energy cost of energy more comparable to that of fossil fuels, before secular stagnation began in the 1990s.
I am generally sceptical of most renewable energy sources, because low power density and intermittent energy flows, results in their being high energy cost of energy (i.e low EROI). This makes them not very useful in solving the declining prosperity problem. To achieve high EROI, we need energy sources that are power dense and provide a high rate of return on the energy embodied in their construction. Some legacy fossil fuels meet that requirement. Hydropower can meet that requirement in many cases, but untapped resources are limited. Nuclear power meets that requirement better even than most fossil fuels and is sustainable for a long time to come, if we can increase conversion ratios and close the fuel cycle. It is the high EROI of nuclear power that makes it important to future prosperity. Space solar power has better whole system EROI than ground based solar, for reasons discussed before.
It should go without saying, that colonising other planets depends upon a large amount of surplus energy and disposable wealth. The US was able to accomplish the moon landings only because its oil, coal and gas resources produced enough surplus energy to provide a prosperous economy, with enough surplus wealth to allow development of new technology and industrial capability. Space travel is an energy intensive activity, that requires a lot of high embodied energy supporting infrastructure. We will lose our capability to carry this out if we fail to develop high EROI replacements for depleting fossil fuels. We will not have sufficient wealth to colonise other planets, using solar panels and windmills. It should be obvious, but for some reason it escapes a lot of people.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-20 11:52:39)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
All nations need to look at means to create energy that is not producing heat in excess of what is used to make the electricity from it.
Making electricity from a fossil fuel must sequestered the co2 and other exhaust outputs for other uses.
Solar may be the best method for the suns blocking of heat being absorbed into the water and land but we need to provide the panels at a cheaper rate to make the electricity for all to use at a lower cost not one that causes the grid to raise in price...
We need to capture the massive rain storms funneling that water to the most arid locations to make the land grow once more green.
Offline
On paper, GDP continues to increase, but wealth is increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, with more and more of it tied up in soaring values of assets (real estate, stocks and bonds). This is of course paper wealth, because the only possible buyers of these assets are the shrinking pool of people that own them already.
^^^ THIS! ^^^
If nobody can afford to buy or even rent the real estate asset you own, then it's only actual worth is whatever the holder of that asset believes in his or her head. All attempts to paper over the fact that we have more expensive energy to work with, in terms of energy returned for energy invested, will ultimately fail in spectacular fashion, because real economy really is about energy and labor acting on physical matter, not intangible human brain valuation of paper or ones and zeros or other intangible assets. Crypto-currency, for example, is only as "real" so long as people choose to believe that it's real. Otherwise, it's just an inordinately expensive computer simulation experiment that produces nothing of tangible value. Nobody can make a loaf of bread using any amount of BitCoin, so it's a worthless asset for human survival. No matter how infatuated someone may be with computer games, they're superfluous to human survival.
The cause of our problems (and possible solution) becomes clear when one appreciates that the economy is not a financial system, but a physical system of process, by which energy acts on matter to produce the goods and services that we call wealth. Money is the language of the economy, an entirely artificial construct which allows us to represent, exchange and communicate value. But it has no value other than what we choose to assign it. To understand this, imagine being marooned of a deserted island with huge quantities of money. It would be worthless without anyone else prepared to accept it. Real goods, like food and water on the other hand, would be very valuable. The resources with which to create more food and fresh water, would be even more valuable.
DING! DING! DING!
Money is a human brain construct. It only has the value that our human brains assign to it. You can't eat money and it can't stop you freezing to death in the dead of winter unless someone has a coat that they can make and sell that you can afford to purchase using whatever money you have. Money is only useful to have when it can purchase necessities for human life or contrivances that we think will enrich our lives. If there's no food, then even if you're a billionaire, all of your money won't prevent you from starving to death unless you can trade some of it for food. In a world that uses money for exchange, obviously the poor will starve to death first, since they have less money to start with, but ultimately energy poverty that leads to scarcity of food affects everyone. The ultimate end result is that a lack of food makes any amount of money utterly meaningless. Ditto for health care, clean drinking water, and any other good or service that requires energy, which would be absolutely every single one of them, period and end of story.
Nothing of any use can be made without the expenditure of energy - its transformation from one form to another, with a net increase in entropy. Other resources are substitutable to some extent, but energy is not. Energy is the master resource, without which nothing of value can be produced.
Exactly. Other forum readers need to take note of what that implies. The laws of thermodynamics are in full effect at all times, in all places throughout the universe, since the beginning of the universe, and no energy equals.
At the same time, ore bodies are gradually diminishing, meaning that energy costs are gradually rising. The combined effect of these two trends is to drag down prosperity.
In other words, to extract raw resources to transform them into useful products, more input energy is required at the same time that less is available.
Globalisation really took off at the end of the 1990s. This provided a way of mitigating the effects of diminishing net energy return, by relocating manufacturing to nations with both abundant low cost coal-based energy resources and low wages, allowing a diminished portion of net wealth to be paid to workers. This allowed increased profitability to the owners of capital at the obvious expense of the working class populations of high-wage, western economies. Industry continued to be profitable for those that owned it however, but prosperity began to stagnate for those in Western countries that worked for wages rather than owning capital. It was for this reason, that high wage economies began experiencing economic stagnation at relatively low 'energy cost of energy', between 3-5%. Developing countries like China, were able to continue growing until recently. Energy cost of energy has now risen to the point where even developing countries now face declining prosperity.
The explosion of economic growth in the US that followed WWII, after all other industrialized nations were left in ruins, stagnated after those countries were rebuilt and the world became saturated with manufactured goods sold to those who could afford to buy them. The price points of those goods increased as the price points of the energy required to make them increased due to depletion. The general thinking at that time was that manufacture of cheaper goods in communist countries like China, who manipulate their currencies to prevent inflation from increasing the cost of energy and labor, would somehow sustain the western world's standard of living. That clearly did not happen.
The baby boomers had little to no understanding of energy or economy or what real energy poverty was like, nor concept of what conditions existed to allow America to become as successful as it was, who began making decisions with energy / financial / strategic implications that never crossed their minds at the time the decisions were made. They were just "living in the moment", nearly all of them blissfully unaware of the living hell that was the Great Depression and WWII (a combination of energy poverty, followed by starvation and mass death, followed by mass production enabled by the one-time "gift from Mother Earth" of cheap and abundant energy. The baby boomer's parents had lived through enough hard times to come to grips with the underpinnings of the economy.
For example the "Greatest Generation" (simply what we called them, not that they were significantly better or worse than any other generation before or since, althoug they certainly had a good grasp of fundamentals that their own children lacked) understood that you needed your own steel making industry if your economy requires steel (and it does). Those types of "life lessons" were never learned by the baby boomers before they were placed in positions of authority. Their own parents wanted them to re-invent society, and they did, but not in a way that was aware that the economy was a physical rather than metaphysical entity. If you grew up with food on the table, a roof over your head, and a car to go to work, how could you ever understand any of that? Why would it be obvious that a technologically advanced civilization needs steel if you have a new "knowledge economy"? Even the oil embargoes were merely economic speed bumps compared to the Great Depression. Nobody died because there was such an extreme surplus of both energy and raw materials that it was utterly inconceivable to them and most of us presently living and working in industrialized countries that food wouldn't be available when the economy took a nose dive.
The solutions to these problems, if indeed we can call them such, really fall along two broad lines of development: (1) Improving energy efficiency wherever we can. The scope for further improvements are limited, but there are still ways in which society can develop to extract more wealth from each unit of energy. The use of public transport, is generally more energy efficient than driving a car. Modern LED based light sources consume less energy than the sources that they replace. Better thermal insolation reduces the energy consumption of buildings. (2) The development of new energy sources with energy cost of energy more comparable to that of fossil fuels, before secular stagnation began in the 1990s.
As SpaceNut has noted numerous times, one of the most remarkable things about improved energy efficiency is that virtually none of the newer and more efficient technologies, such as LED lighting or the use of Electronic Ignition and Electronic Fuel Injection, have caused energy usage to decline. If anything, we can clearly see how energy usage increases as technology becomes more efficient. Now that we have LED lights, people leave them on all the time. Beyond that, the new LED bulbs clearly require far more energy to produce, which is why incandescent light bulbs cost a few cents to manufacture, compared to several dollars or more for the LED bulbs. I'm not suggesting that we go back to using incandescent lights, as there are multiple factors that make them far less desirable than LED lights, but one has to wonder about whether or not "new and more efficient widget" that will supposedly replace the "old and less efficient widget", will ultimately reduce global energy consumption, because there's no historical indicator to suggest that that would happen.
I am generally sceptical of most renewable energy sources, because low power density and intermittent energy flows, results in their being high energy cost of energy (i.e low EROI). This makes them not very useful in solving the declining prosperity problem.
Understanding where a given energy technology fits in the grand scheme of utility to humanity is a very difficult issue to assess because it involves so many aspects of science and engineering that with vanishingly few exceptions, it's probable that no single person could make a completely accurate assessment. Even if such people exist, it's highly probable that personal biases and beliefs will override cold, hard, calculating decision making in nearly all cases where humans are involved. For example, no matter how abundant the sun and wind are at a global scale, since humanity doesn't build power plants at a global scale, we require energy solutions that work in practical ways, that individuals can understand at least well enough to use and maintain, at a local level.
It's also clear that all energy storage technologies are very primitive in nature, essentially limited to hydrocarbon fuels and electro-chemical reaction cells with an energy density more than an order of magnitude lower than liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
To wit, only heat engines, a handful of low speed diesels, solar thermal, and nuclear thermal power plants have operated without significant changes and technological evolution on the time scale of human lifetimes. The first electric motors, photovoltaic cells, and wind turbines are completely unlike their modern computer-controlled analogs that we use today, whereas heat engine technologies are not fundamentally different than what we started with, except for the addition of computer control mechanisms. In short, we have mastered thermal power production, but not direct electrical power production. That's a blessing and a curse, because it means we still have the opportunity for substantial improvements to those newer power generation technologies, but that we also have a lot left to learn about how to improve upon them.
It should go without saying, that colonising other planets depends upon a large amount of surplus energy and disposable wealth. ... We will not have sufficient wealth to colonise other planets, using solar panels and windmills. It should be obvious, but for some reason it escapes a lot of people.
Maybe it should be obvious, but it's not, because even now in the 21st century, we still have people who think that because they imagined something in their head, then that must make whatever they imagined, "real". The fact that people have ideas is clearly very real, but there's such a difference between ideation and actualization that the two seldom resemble each other.
You, along with most other engineers, have conscious competence (you're painfully aware of all the problems and actively looking for the solutions to the inevitable problems that "gum up the works" of the "machine" you're designing or operating), whereas most people who are not engineers do not have that level of understanding and never will. The overwhelming majority of us are competent at doing some specific task, generally a range of tasks, but the degree to which we understand what we're doing can have a "night and day" difference from person to person.
Hundreds of millions of people can competently drive a car, at least well enough to avoid frequent collisions with other objects, but far fewer can fix their car if something in the electrical system or drive train malfunctions, and fewer still have the engineering knowledge to recognize the underlying reason for a parts failure versus operator error. Even at that, most drivers couldn't tell you exactly why they're doing what they're doing while they're driving, because that requires conscious competence. They may understand that they need to keep some distance from other vehicles to provide enough reaction time for braking, but they couldn't tell you exactly what distance to keep, why you should keep at least that much distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you (implying an understanding of their own reaction time and the braking performance of a specific type of vehicle they're driving), and under what conditions those rules apply (road is dry and in good repair, versus poorly maintained or wet or potentially covered with ice, thus resulting in excessive stopping distances that mandate increased following distance to assure the vehicle can stop to prevent collision with another vehicle or fixed object).
The question derived from all of this then becomes as follows:
How is it that engineers can convey these incredibly complex subjects to people with far less knowledge of the subject matter, in a way that they can understand and act upon in ways that are beneficial to them and everyone else?
We can't over-simplify the subject matter to the point that the wrong conclusions are drawn, as our "green energy" evangelists have done, nor can we dive so deep that the "man or woman on the street" is drowning in a sea of data, with no idea of what to make of it. We're operating an ocean liner filled with people who can't swim, and they're not going to learn how to swim by booting them off the stern of the ship.
Offline
There's a repeating theme of longevity in operation that carries forward through time. There are wooden violins used in concerts and steel swords housed in museums that are every bit as functional as the day they were made, centuries prior. There are no wind turbines from that era still in operation. Photovoltaics have existed for a century now, yet precisely zero photovoltaics from the early 1900s remain in operation. In contrast, the iron combustion engines from that era are still present in numerous automobiles and oilfields that function every bit as well as they did the day they rolled off the assembly line, provided that they were well maintained. Heck, there are still a handful of aircraft from that era that remain airworthy because they were meticulously cared for. There are a number of solar thermal and nuclear thermal power plants that have more than 50 years of service to their credit.
Over a period of about 30 years, internal combustion engines replaced steam locomotives, and by the end of WWII, diesels had replaced boilers on most new ships. People have had photovoltaic panels mounted on their roofs since I was a child, yet none of those systems remain in operation today and 30 years from now, none of the solar panels in current use will remain in use.
The basic technology of the majority of internal combustion engines closely resemble those from the inception of internal combustion engines. Various experiments were tried along the way, but the basic engine block, piston, crankshaft, and camshaft technology remains in place. The only major technological advancements have been better materials and mass manufacturing methods, along with computer control over fuel and spark delivery. Similarly, apart from computer control methods and materials technology improvements, electric motors are about as advanced as they're likely to get, with most models in electric vehicles 95% to 98% efficient. In short, both of these technologies are "tapped out", with respect to massive efficiency improvements to the basic designs.
Three principle questions arise about the fundamental soundness of thinking that photovoltaics and wind turbines will replace fossil fuels and nuclear power sources for human civilization-level power generation:
1. If it was reasonable to think that photovoltaics and wind turbines would substantially supplant other forms of electric energy generation, then why hasn't that already happened?
This is a very different question than whether or not we can produce the quantity required, if both cost and EROI are completely ignored. If it ultimately takes another 30 to 50 years to replace most of the existing power generating infrastructure with wind and solar, but we don't have that much time before we either run out of economically extractable fossil fuels or climate change does more damage than humanity can realistically contend with, then why is it reasonable to view wind and solar as the only viable solution? How is this not exactly like holding out hope that one day 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years from now, fusion power or anti-matter power will work as envisioned?
2. Why is it reasonable to think that a "forever energy source" can be completely replaced or substantially altered every 10 to 20 years?
This question directly relates to whether or not supposed energy efficiency improvements actually have the desired effect of reducing or at least slowing the rate of increase of the consumption of energy. Solar and wind may have that effect by default, since the total power delivered is rather paltry, but that's simple energy poverty, as compared to what we have today.
3. If frequent replacements of a majority of the electric power generation infrastructure are required, then what percentage of the total lifetime generating capacity of a photovoltaic or wind turbine electric generating system does this truly represent, and is that merely sufficient to sustain the industrialized civilization that we live in today?
Ignoring financial impacts, is it merely technologically feasible to generate enough energy to contend with the constant churn of successive generations of photovoltaics and wind turbines? If it's not, then are why aren't we investing more into alternatives that feasibly could?
If we don't get this right, then we're going to destroy technologically advanced human civilization through energy poverty, irrespective of what climate change or pollution or depletion of fossil fuels, or any other aspect of power generation manages to do to us. A prudent gambler wouldn't bet the entire farm on wind / solar / battery technologies that have yet to approach the hype surrounding them in terms of actual performance over time.
There are a couple of high risk / high reward technologies such as Hydrino or LENR energy generation technology that receive very little investment, but would completely revolutionize energy generation if they perform even half as well as claims would suggest, whilst photovoltaics and wind turbines and batteries have all received enormous infusions of money and brain power, despite falling woefully short of performance requirements to supply the energy required.
I'm left wondering what it would take before we finally admit to ourselves that simply re-packaging the same "new" energy generating technologies, if technologies that are older than I am can still validly be thought of as being "new", over and over again, expecting a dramatically different result, is only a recipe for eventual disappointment and energy poverty. The longer the current status quo persists, the more what we have been doing looks like ideologically-motivated lunacy than anything remotely resembling a practical "forever" energy solution. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising since humans are involved.
Offline
One of my hobbies is fencing (foil). Steel swords will last for centuries in a museum. But they have a relatively short life in use, because bending and impact result in stress fractures, which eventually grow long enough to break the sword. Wind turbine towers and blades, fail after a service life of a couple of decades for the same reason. They are subject to repeated bending, which results in stress fractures that gradually grow. When cracks reach a critical length, a component will fail catastrophically. Fatigue life is usually calculated to allow some margin before failure, to allow the device to be decommissioned safely.
In many ways, I wonder if we have evolved backwards when it comes to renewable energy. A traditional windmill is considered primative by today's standard. But it's tower was made from stone or brick, which absorbed lateral thrust through compressive forces. The towers lasted for centuries, many of them still exist today. Stone and brick both have low embodied energy per unit mass. Likewise the sails. These were wooden structures with the maximum span being limited by the tensile strength of wooden members. The sails were not well optimised in shape to catch the wind and a lot of energy was wasted due to cavitation. But wood has low embodied energy. Much of the internal mechanism was wood as well. Later windmills used cast iron bearings to reduce frictional losses. So whilst a traditional wind mill was not well optimised for efficiency, its EROI would have been improved by its design simplicity and the use of low embodied energy materials.
Before the industrial revolution, the technology for energy storage didn't really exist. Machines could store some energy in their own angular momentum, which could be enhanced with flywheels. Electricity did not exist, but as the windmill produced mechanical power that would be used straight from the shaft, it was not needed. The speed of machines powered by windmills would adjust to the wind speed. When wind speed was high for long periods, millers would work 20 hour days, sometimes for several days at a time. In becalmed conditions, they would either maintain equipment or take time off. They would live at the site, allowing them to respond quickly to changes in weather. Instead of trying to store energy to match their work schedule, their work schedule would adjust to the energy supply. So little energy was wasted. None was wasted in storage and there was no backup power plant, with its associated embodied energy or fuel costs. The whole system would have had a respectable EROI. But it depended upon a workforce that was willing to work within its limitations.
In the two centuries since, we have built energy intensive ways of living and infrastructure that grew up as a result of almost free stored energy from fossil fuels. We are now attempting to return to the intermittent, ambient energy sources that we used before the age of steam and are attempting to make these energy sources fit the fossil fuel lifestyle and infrastructure to which we have become accustomed. This isn't working very well. Nature supplies ambient energy on its own timescale. Nature dishes it out in ebbs and flows, which carry limited power density. Ambient energy is therefore unsuitable for high-speed JIT supply lines. It will require human beings to work around its limitations, rather than attempt to overcome its limitations. I suspect that it will be extremely difficult to make this transition. I very much doubt that it is compatible with a high income society, in which people have the freedom to work fixed shift structures and commute to their employment.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-21 09:20:38)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For kbd512 re preceding posts ....
Thanks for the thought you put into this posts!
SearchTerm:history of renewable energy and remarkably cost effective early wind mills
If we had a ThumbsUp topic, I'm much prefer to put these notes there.
If you think that might be a good idea, please let SpaceNut know ...
The active membership (at the present time) is very small, and I would much prefer to leave the original author's name in the active list instead of replacing it with mine as will inevitably happen here.
However, to your concluding paragraph ....
The modern age ** does ** have the distinct advantage of sophisticated automation and remote supervision of renewable energy systems.
The word movie you provided of millers working with the wind instead of according to a clock was one I'd not "seen" before, and it was quite helpful
(th)
Offline
Interesting article.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021 … -supplies/
We are now 10 million barrels per day beneath all time peak in global oil production in November 2018. The actions of the new US president haven't exactly been helpful to the US oil industry. Without Canadian bitumen, it will be difficult to refine even the diminished supplies of US tight oil.
A large part of US liquids production is natural gas liquids (NGLs). These are hydrocarbons heavier than methane, present within natural gas streams. Mostly ethane and propane, but also butane and pentane. These compounds are seldom used for production of liquid fuels and principally feedstock for manufacture of polymers. The all time peak in US crude oil production occurred in 2015. Total liquids production (inc NGLs) reached peak 3 years later.
https://www.kindermorgan.com/getAttachm … iquids.pdf
Global peak production in diesel oil fuel, which powers all goods transportation, appears to have occurred in 2015. Production of the world's premium transportation fuel has now been sliding for six years.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018 … g-for-you/
In terms of the most important fuel (diesel), peak oil is now several years behind us. The most important challenge going forward, is to reduce diesel consumption as rapidly as possible. This will be difficult to achieve.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-22 07:09:27)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For Calliban re topic and #307 in particular ...
Thank you for the timely review of a variety of hydrocarbon products and their rate of production world wide!
In recent days I've noticed a couple of articles about ammonia in production, and significantly, ammonia produced using renewable energy sources.
kbd512 has written extensively about ammonia in a number of posts in this forum. If anyone would care to review that earlier work, search for ammonia and author kbd512.
For you (Calliban) I am wondering how ammonia compares to diesel for applications where diesel is favored.
I can think of a few, but there must be many others:
Construction equipment
Heavy transport equipment (trucks, trains, ships)
Backup generators (industry - factories, banks, office buildings, malls)
Factories (I'm less sure about that one)
In short, can ammonia replace diesel in some of those applications?
Edit#1: There are 44 posts in which kbd512 mentioned ammonia
I note with some interest that in the first of these, kbd512 was bantering with Dook about life on Mars, and the reference to ammonia was to urine, which kbd512 predicted would be noticeable in the underground shelters he was advocating for Mars settlers at the time.
It would take a stout heart to read all 44 of those references in hopes of finding the ones about using ammonia as an all-purpose fuel/energy storage medium.
If there is a currently active member of the forum with posting privileges, I'd appreciate a summary of those 44 messages, and specifically citation of those that consider ammonia as an all-purpose fuel/energy storage medium.
(th)
Last edited by tahanson43206 (2021-06-22 07:23:09)
Offline
Chilled, liquid anhydrous ammonia (-42°C) has some promise as a diesel replacement. Volumetric energy density is only about 1/3 of diesel, which might be a problem as it would necessitate much bulkier fuel tanks than diesel. Ammonia vapours are toxic and irritant, so care would be needed to ensure that any boiloff from tanks is discharged up a stack, to prevent vapours from accumulating at ground level. Ammonia is chemically compatible with carbon steels, but at -42°C, there may be embrittlement issues.
Cost may turn out to be a stumbling block. One barrel of oil is equivalent to 1700kWh of energy. Typically, the economy runs into trouble when oil prices exceed $40/barrel, which is $0.0235/kWh. Can we manufacture ammonia this cheaply from primary electricity? I think it will be difficult. Firstly, electrolysis is about 70% efficient and more energy will be consumed in the ammonia plant, which operates at temperatures exceeding 500°C. The capital cost of the electrolysis stack and ammonia plant need to be amortised as well. So electricity needs to be provided at costs less than $0.015/kWh and the electrolysis stack and ammonia plant need to be operated at high capacity factor to keep capital and operating costs low.
Liquid anhydrous ammonia is the synthetic fuel considered in this report.
https://www.lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report
The authors conclude that producing ammonia at an acceptably low cost, would require the use of small modular high temperature nuclear reactors. These would provide the electricity to the electrolysis stack and the process heat needed to drive ammonia synthesis. Using intermittent electricity from renewable energy sources would result in expensive ammonia, due to a combination of high electricity cost and low capacity factor of the electrolysis stack and ammonia plant.
Solid oxide fuel cells could be used to power ships, trains and trucks using anhydrous ammonia as fuel, thanks to its zero sulphur content. These should allow a 50% efficiency improvement over diesel engines, which should partially compensate for increased fuel cost. Anhydrous ammonia should be compatible with existing diesel engines with some modification. However, the relatively low energy density, toxicity and low temperature of the fuel, may result in complications.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-22 10:26:36)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For Calliban re #309
Thank you for your thoughtful (and helpful) reply to my inquiry about (possibly) replacing diesel with ammonia.
I am not an investor per se, although I am grateful for the success of small investments made over the years.
In that respect I am like many folks living on Earth today. There is definitely risk in making investments, and I have tended toward conservative choices. Others who have been bolder are either doing better or worse. I do not envy those who have done better, and I sympathize with those who've chosen with less good fortune.
With that caveat out of the way, I ** do ** try to think like an investor, and I pay light attention to various prospective outlooks that appear from time to time.
In ** this ** case, taking into account the magnitude of the problem set facing the human population alive on Earth today, I am intrigued by the idea you have reported in #309.
I am taking into account your expertise in nuclear fission power, starting with your Masters thesis, and (I am hoping) supplemented with careful readings over the years since, and (possibly) even some practical experience.
I would guess that those who are betting on ammonia are going to do reasonably well, but (perhaps) those who bet on ammonia ** AND ** modern nuclear fission plants will do very well indeed.
The points you've made about the adjustments that would be needed to use ammonia on a large scale have been made before, by kbd512 and (I am sure) others in the forum (and elsewhere, of course).
A younger person might be able to catch a wave of investment in the combination of ammonia and nuclear power.
That would be investment in ammonia as an energy carrier and in nuclear fission as a power source.
The beauty of this is that the fission plants DO NOT have to be located in risk averse nations such as the United States, most of Europe and perhaps a few other nations whose sentiments are less familiar to me.
Thus, those nations who are willing to bet BIG on the combination ** should ** be able to take the place of Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations in the years ahead.
There might even be a State or two in the United States where sufficiently bold populations would be willing to support ventures along these lines.
The downstream opportunities would include:
1) Manufacturers of machinery
2) Transport (as listed previously)
3) Manufacturing
4) Banking (funding opportunities)
There must be many more similar opportunities, and with any luck, Louis might be willing to add a thought or two ...
***
For all current members with posting privileges ...
I'd be interested in your assessment of this potential investment opportunity
(th)
Offline
tahanson43206,
Planned obsolescence and the explosion of non-durable goods from the 1950s onward, especially motor vehicles / home appliances / furnishings / construction materials, was a terrible idea. Computer control over various electrical or electronic motorized gadgets was an equally bad idea. These changes brought about the increased production of various non-durable yet energy-intensive goods that don't have service lives comparable to what they purported to replace and haven't significantly decreased the weight of modern goods, if all of the input energy and constant churn of successive generations of plastic and light alloy widgets is any guide. This is especially true of the absurd over-production of packaging materials that both pollute the world's bodies of water as well as become difficult to recycle refuse mandating even more energy input to turn them back into useful products, assuming they're not simply burned. Manufacturers definitely "responded" to consumer purchasing habits, but both the manufacturers and consumers learned the wrong lessons about the cost of goods.
That's why I said we need to revert back to much simpler technology that eschews push button this / that / the other, in favor of simple and durable manual human control over things that never needed to be electrified or computerized or motorized. All aircraft seats are adjusted with levers and cranks. Nobody whines about the fact that they have to do it, because the alternative is much heavier, more complicated to repair when it breaks (and it will since humans made it), and more expensive to replace when it breaks. A simple seat can be a seat, rather than a computer-controlled motorized gadget that's triple or quadruple the cost of a simple seat, due to the energy sunk it making it something other than what it needs to be, in order to be usable for its intended purpose.
A motor vehicle side mirror is another good example of technology running amok. A mirror doesn't need 6-way power adjust, power folding, electrical heating, its own cleaning system, or a computer-controlled LED vehicle approach warning and blinker light. A simple piece of polished or chrome plated steel still gets the job done with minimal fuss and can be adjusted by good 'ole hand-power after the user rolls down their window, which also doesn't need a computer-controlled electric motor. Drastic simplification of superfluous "features" enables spending of manufacturing money on the quality of the few features a vehicle must have to be a good vehicle. That is also the only way we're ever going to get a handle on the wild over-production of meaningless varieties of widgets that all contribute to the bad end result of planned obsolescence, namely absurd levels of energy consumption driven by continuous new production of products that don't have good durability (another aspect of quality). We need to switch back to making durable goods from steel, and universally agreed upon grades of steel at that, for ease of recycling.
Consumers need to have realistic performance expectations from motor vehicles. Every car you get into does not need to be a race car or so many computer control features that you need an electrical engineering degree to figure out how to put the vehicle in gear. Those pickup trucks from the 1950s that had 100hp to 200hp straight six engines were very good trucks, with reasonably good fuel economy and hauling / towing capabilities, given their weight. Yes, modern trucks can obviously haul / tow even more if you completely ignore fuel economy and the insane amounts of energy required to make them. We can't afford to do that anymore. We need to economize on that shiny new computer technology to control the engine and transmission, the only applications where what came before (Magnetos and Distributors) was clearly lacking (in both durability and performance), as compared to what we have now (EFI and EI). The headlights and blinkers don't need to rely upon a computer if a simple relay switch can get the job done. If you want an infotainment system in your vehicle, then you can afford to purchase an iPad for that purpose. The vehicle itself needs to be as simple yet refined as we can make it, without turning what should be a durable good that lasts a lifetime or more, into a disposable computer-controlled consumer appliance on wheels. We simply don't have enough energy to endlessly produce more vehicles that are scrap inside of three to five years during an energy crunch.
Soda water doesn't need to be sold in a dozen or more different container types and sizes. 2 liter bottles or even larger reusable containers are sufficient. Nobdy needs to have Coca Cola advertised to them with each can or bottle sold. The entire industrialized world knows what it is and won't stop purchasing it merely because it comes in reusable containers that the purchaser brings to the store with them. You go to the store where soda is dispensed from the same machines large restaurants have that mix the sugary liquid with CO2 and water. All the hydrocarbon energy that went into making / packaging / delivering a myriad of different forms of plastic, Aluminum, and glass containers needs to be conserved by merely delivering the packages of "special sugar water flavoring", which require far less packaging material and far less energy to transport than soda water divvied up into a bazillion tiny containers. The water and CO2 can be locally sourced, rather than trucked half way across the country. Beer and wine would still have to be trucked, but those beverages can also arrive for dispensing in much larger containers. In much the same way that gasoline and diesel jugs have to be appropriately marked, I'm sure we could come up with a system to identify beer and wine to satisfy laws regarding sale to minors. Similarly, potato chips and other mass manufactured foodstuffs could be packaging-optimized to minimize energy expenditure on superfluous materials production, all of which depends upon energy abundance. This is the world that existed before the explosion in energy consumption enabled by cheap / abundant fossil fuels enabled individual packaging products that are often not worth as much as the packaging materials they're shipped in.
When it comes to diet, it's pretty clear to me that what was on the dinner table in the 1950s was at least as bad as what we eat today, with the exception of refined sugars, but the single factor that transformed Americans from a people who were every bit as skinny as they were anywhere else in the world, to the amorphous blobs many of them resemble today, was portion control, dictated to them by the energy cost of food production. Food was expensive, even in America, because the energy to produce food was still scarce following WWII. It appears as if history will repeat itself and energy-induced portion control will once again have a vote in the obesity epidemic of western societies.
Offline
For klbd512 re #311
If SpaceNut ever figures out how to give feedback without creating a post, I'd have given your post a ** chuckle ** icon.
SearchTerm:Obesity included in long post by kbd512 generally about making better products for consumer use
(th)
Offline
When it comes to diet, it's pretty clear to me that what was on the dinner table in the 1950s was at least as bad as what we eat today, with the exception of refined sugars, but the single factor that transformed Americans from a people who were every bit as skinny as they were anywhere else in the world, to the amorphous blobs many of them resemble today, was portion control, dictated to them by the energy cost of food production. Food was expensive, even in America, because the energy to produce food was still scarce following WWII. It appears as if history will repeat itself and energy-induced portion control will once again have a vote in the obesity epidemic of western societies.
One issue is diet drinks. The human brain is sensitive to blood glucose. The brain only consumes glucose, nothing else. If food does not contain enough glucose, your liver will make glucose from other food. When blood glucose level is high enough, your brain no longer craves sugar. But artificial sweeteners may taste sweet, but do not contribute to blood glucose. So you continue to crave sweet food regardless how much you consume. Furthermore, one trend is high fructose to sweeten soda pop. The excuse is it tastes more sweet while having fewer calories than sucrose (normal white sugar). Using pure fructose, soda pop can contain 1/4 as many calories while tasting just as sweet. Of course the real reason they do it is they only have to use 1/4 as much sugar, so it saves them money. However, your body craves glucose, not fructose. So this won't satiate your craving for sweets either.
You may criticize refined sugar, but I'm saying normal sugar good, diet alternatives bad.
Offline
tahanson43206,
It wasn't a swipe at people who are overweight, it's explaining how we got to where we are today. It's not diet, it's excess calories made possible by cheap and abundant energy. Your body doesn't know the difference between a steak or baked potato or a soda. If it can feasibly transform whatever you chew up and swallow into energy, then it's going to do it. Calories are calories. My overriding point is that we're not going to be fat, dumb, and happy without cheap and abundant energy. That's why so many Europeans are skinny. The fat ones you see on the beaches who look like Americans are that way because their income level allows them to eat the way we do, despite the high cost of food and everything else in Europe where they've gone green goofy. As energy becomes so expensive that you have to choose between eating and not freezing to death in the winter, most people choose to keep warm, because you can go for days without eating, but won't survive long enough to see your next sunrise if you can't stay warm enough.
Technological "Progress", Or Not?
This is steel making from the 1940s to the 2010s.
This was Youngstown, Ohio in 1944:
Steel Industry 1944 Youngstown, Ohio
Bethlehem Steel from the 1980s:
Beth Steel Furnaces
The documentary below was China from back in 2004, not 1944. I challenge anyone to watch the rate of progress who still think we're going to electrify the world in a few short years:
A Look Inside The Giant Blast Furnaces Of Chinese Industry | The Earth's Riches | Spark
This was from 2011. Despite the rate of change in China, some things are obviously just as they were in America, a half century ago:
A quick tour of the 'worst place on earth' aka, BaoGang Steel Mill
This document shows the decline of energy usage in steel making in the US over time (scroll to Page 27):
ENERGY USE IN THE U.S. STEEL INDUSTRY: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
Note that EAF requires around 770kWh of electricity to produce a finished product from recycled scrap steel.
Here's a video claiming some kind of "breakthrough" in low CO2 steel, that nonetheless requires 3.8MWh of electricity per ton of steel produced:
Fossil free steel. Another giant step towards net carbon zero?
The proposed "giant step forward" requires more electricity energy than the existing steel making processes- vastly more than a blast furnace and around 5 times as much as EAF steel recycling.
Where will we get 3.8MWh of electricity you might ask?
Obviously by burning something if the Sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. When does that happen? Every single day, at least once per day. What do we need to produce orders of magnitude more of, in order to build all of these wind and solar generating stations. More steel, more Aluminum, more glass, more concrete, more more more. Why do we need orders of magnitude more production devoted to technologies that fundamentally won't deliver what fossil fuels and nuclear energy were delivering before this nonsense was proposed as a solution? Well, these are the kinds of solutions you get when so many people have been "educated" to the point of idiocy. Their ability to connect the dots between everything that a purported solution requires is nearly non-existent.
Why is that whenever wind turbines and photovoltaics are brought onto the grid, the electricity rates only go up? Because you can't required 1 to 3 orders of magnitude "more stuff" every 10 to 20 years without paying for it somehow. The notion that it would ever be cheaper is a big bright shining fraud mercilessly beating everyone over the head, and only people who can't do basic math would ever believe it.
Remember how I kept harping on reduction in waste and maximizing recycling rates?
This is why.
If you scroll to the footnotes, you'll notice that the new reduced-CO2 process notionally requires 8% more energy. Our own experts determined that they could save an additional 10% of the input energy merely by using more efficient electric motors in the steel factories, so now low-CO2 steel is at 18% over the current process with comparatively minor technological improvements. Somehow we're supposed to believe that we're going to replace virtually all of the existing power generation and distribution infrastructure using energy sources that require 1 to 3 orders of magnitude more material input using 18% more energy than the existing processes with minor improvements. If that sounds facially absurd to anyone else who hasn't been mentally disabled by this new age "green ideology" silliness, then you're not alone.
All I see is a spending plan to oblivion that requires orders of magnitude more production of the resource inputs into a new energy technology, using new manufacturing technology, all of which must either be built from scratch or using existing manufacturing technology, which is much cheaper since it uses a lot less energy. In short, we have a plan to drastically increase CO2 emissions that people who can't count and can't connect dots are very enamored with, because it feeds into their ideology and since they're completely clueless about the end results, it has the appearance of "doing something", even though it's actually doing the exact opposite of what they claim they want.
Offline
Energy for decomposing the ammonia not free but necessary so as to free up the hydrogen to either burn or use in a fuel cell with the atmosphere used for the o2 and to exhaust at a higher than normal Nitrogen content if combusted. That while its not a problem with vehicles that are spaced appart to allow for it to dissipate but when multiplied by hundreds across miles of roadway we may have caused a problem for those needed supplemental air to breath for health reasons and maybe for others.
Offline
SpaceNut,
If we're going to use Ammonia as a fuel, then it's likely to be a specialty fuel, possibly limited to generating stations. If we're exceptionally stringent about tanking sealing and vapor control, then perhaps it can be used as an aviation fuel or fuel for heavy duty trucks. Many of the forum readers here could likely operate a vehicle using Ammonia fuel, but the real test is if we can give it to the average motorist without extreme danger of them being killed by it. While it's true that farmers regularly use Ammonia to fertilize their crops, without keeling over, it's also true that many people forget to turn off their stove and crash their cars.
Offline
Looking at the energy consumption figures for steel production in the article that Kbd referenced, I get an energy consumption of about 5000kWh per metric tonne, if we attempt to produce fresh steel using electrical energy alone, I.e. with no supplemental fossil fuels. Not so long ago, fresh steel was trading at a price of $300/tonne. It is now up to $500/tonne, thanks to the recent boom in commodity prices. If we had to make steel using electricity alone, then fresh steel would be much more expensive, unless electrical energy could be produced very cheaply. If electricity were to cost $0.2/kWh, which is about the average retail price in Western Europe, then 1 tonne of steel would cost $1000 in electricity alone. On a per unit strength basis, this would make steel almost as energy intensive as aluminium alloys.
But it gets worse than that. Because of the thermal gradients that exist in a steel furnace, it isn't really practical to run these items intermittently, because cooling the liner would fracture it. So steel furnaces need to run continuously. The same with electrolysis. Whilst thermal gradients are less of a problem, capital cost of the electrolysis stack is a large proportion of hydrogen end cost, so there is a lot of benefit in running the stack continuously. Hydrogen cannot be stored in large quantities at any acceptable cost, so it needs to be used as it is generated. Collectively this suggests that to compete with fossil fuel derived steel, electric steel production needs very cheap, uninterrupted electric power. Thanks to the green tech lobby, electricity supply cost and reliability are headed in the opposite direction at present. Adding together various capital costs and electricity cost, I would estimate that electric steel would be 3-5 times more expensive than fresh steel is at present. Given the enormous stocks of steel in the form of retiring buildings and cars, it would be sensible to focus upon reducing global per capita steel use and recycling using arc furnaces. A large reduction in global steel use would require significant changes in the techniques used for building construction as well as reductions in car use.
I agree with the comment on ammonia being most practical for large users. It might be appropriate to locate ammonia fuel factories at airports and sea ports. I suspect that if we are using modular nuclear power sources to produce ammonia, then it makes more sense installing those reactors directly into large cargo ships for direct mechanical power, rather than attempting to manufacture an intermediate chemical fuel. Ammonia isn't something that you really want to be piping or shipping unnecessarily. Large spills could kill entire populations downwind. But it could be used to supply truck fuel stations located on trunk roads or train fuel depots.
At present, it would be sensible to convert as many large vehicles as possible to run on LPG or gasoline. This would reduce consumption of diesel oil, which is the most problematic fuel in terms of supply. As conventional oil production declines, remaining production is getting lighter. There is already a steady business in converting diesel vehicles to LPG. It is existing technology. Legislation could provide a helping hand here.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-23 05:30:06)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Interesting article on lead cooled fast reactors.
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in … LFR-05.pdf
The very high heat capacity and boiling point of lead, combined with the naturally high thermal conductivity of a liquid metal, makes these reactors very resistant to nuclear accidents. This feature, along with the very long cycle times and inert chemical properties of lead, makes LFRs very suitable as small modular reactors. Russian studies concluded that the LFR would be one of the cheapest electricity sources.
The above article concerns reactor cores with uranium oxide fuel and MgO filler to further soften neutron spectrum. This is designed to ensure unity breeding ratio. Of more interest to me is the idea of a LFR using metallic uranium alloy fuel, with Pb-208 cooling and stainless steel cladding. This would result in a very high energy neutron spectrum. A sizable portion of total fission events would be fast fission of 238U. At higher neutron energy, more neutrons are released per fission event. The dense liquid lead surrounding the core is also an efficient reflector, resulting in half of all leakage neutrons returning to the core with almost energy intact. These three factors taken together, would allow high power output per kg of fissile material and high breeding ratio. This would allow a rapid increase in reactor capacity on Earth and good economic performance. On Mars, LFRs would allow small initial starter cores to rapidly build up fissile materials for larger power reactors. The design simplicity and compatibility of lead with water, would allow LFRs to be built on Mars early in the settlement phase.
On Earth, the high operating temperature, safety and chemically inert properties of lead, make these reactors the ideal choice for synthetic fuel production. The haber process produces ammonia by reacting hydrogen and nitrogen over an iron catalyst at 500°C. These reactors could provide all of the process heat. They will also provide process heat needed for high temperature electrolysis, for efficient electrolysis of water. The high temperature also allows efficient electricity generation.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-23 12:42:18)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Anyone can cherry-pick a price comparison point. This shows that the steel price was well above $500 per tonne for most of 2012-2014. So steel was more, not less, expensive in the past.
https://www.focus-economics.com/commodi … /steel-usa
Why would electricity cost 20 cents per KwHe? That's nuclear industry type pricing.
Some solar contracts now have electricity being produced at less than 2 cents per KwHe.
So, the energy input would cost less than $100.
I think your EROI alarmism is as unwarranted as climate alarmism.
Thermodynamics is a reality but you tend to underestimate the impact of technological innovation. Just take use of robots in mining...this is clearly going to drive down the cost of all mined ores over time.
Looking at the energy consumption figures for steel production in the article that Kbd referenced, I get an energy consumption of about 5000kWh per metric tonne, if we attempt to produce fresh steel using electrical energy alone, I.e. with no supplemental fossil fuels. Not so long ago, fresh steel was trading at a price of $300/tonne. It is now up to $500/tonne, thanks to the recent boom in commodity prices. If we had to make steel using electricity alone, then fresh steel would be much more expensive, unless electrical energy could be produced very cheaply. If electricity were to cost $0.2/kWh, which is about the average retail price in Western Europe, then 1 tonne of steel would cost $1000 in electricity alone. On a per unit strength basis, this would make steel almost as energy intensive as aluminium alloys.
But it gets worse than that. Because of the thermal gradients that exist in a steel furnace, it isn't really practical to run these items intermittently, because cooling the liner would fracture it. So steel furnaces need to run continuously. The same with electrolysis. Whilst thermal gradients are less of a problem, capital cost of the electrolysis stack is a large proportion of hydrogen end cost, so there is a lot of benefit in running the stack continuously. Hydrogen cannot be stored in large quantities at any acceptable cost, so it needs to be used as it is generated. Collectively this suggests that to compete with fossil fuel derived steel, electric steel production needs very cheap, uninterrupted electric power. Thanks to the green tech lobby, electricity supply cost and reliability are headed in the opposite direction at present. Adding together various capital costs and electricity cost, I would estimate that electric steel would be 3-5 times more expensive than fresh steel is at present. Given the enormous stocks of steel in the form of retiring buildings and cars, it would be sensible to focus upon reducing global per capita steel use and recycling using arc furnaces. A large reduction in global steel use would require significant changes in the techniques used for building construction as well as reductions in car use.
I agree with the comment on ammonia being most practical for large users. It might be appropriate to locate ammonia fuel factories at airports and sea ports. I suspect that if we are using modular nuclear power sources to produce ammonia, then it makes more sense installing those reactors directly into large cargo ships for direct mechanical power, rather than attempting to manufacture an intermediate chemical fuel. Ammonia isn't something that you really want to be piping or shipping unnecessarily. Large spills could kill entire populations downwind. But it could be used to supply truck fuel stations located on trunk roads or train fuel depots.
At present, it would be sensible to convert as many large vehicles as possible to run on LPG or gasoline. This would reduce consumption of diesel oil, which is the most problematic fuel in terms of supply. As conventional oil production declines, remaining production is getting lighter. There is already a steady business in converting diesel vehicles to LPG. It is existing technology. Legislation could provide a helping hand here.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis,
The steel price points per metric ton were price projections at current Europen electricity rates, not cherry-picking of prices. The weighted average rate paid in 2020 was 21 Euro cents per kWh.
Your assertions about electricity rates of 20 Euro cents being associated with nuclear power don't withstand cursory scrutiny, given that a number of the European countries on the lists in the link below have never operated a nuclear reactor:
Electricity Prices in Europe – Who Pays the Most?
There's no way to conceal the fact that Germany has the highest percentage of solar and the highest electricity rates in Europe, nor the fact that Germany's CO2 emissions are the same or worse than they were before Germans apparently forgot how to count when they started using wind and photovoltaics. As Germany's percentage of wind and solar goes up, Germany's CO2 emissions track upwards. Germany's 2019 CO2 emissions were 810Mt, BTW. France's CO2 emissions tracked upwards as they started deploying more wind and photovoltaics, yet their CO2 emissions remain lower to this day specifically because they still mostly use nuclear power.
Maybe the green energy evangelists think that nobody else can count since they ignore all numbers that disagree with their ideology, but for people who can count, we know that doing more and more of the same, expecting a different result, is the dictionary definition of insanity. This runs directly against the precautionary principle you claim to support, as it pertains to CO2 emissions.
When ArcelorMittal purchases electricity to mine iron ore and make steel, they don't pay 2 Euro cents by using photovoltaics because NOBODY in Germany pays a rate that low, period.
Nobody purchasing electricity in Europe has paid 2 Euro cents per kWh for the past 20+ years, so this utter nonsense about photovoltaics providing "cheap electricity" is patently false. The only person you could possibly fool is yourself. Everyone else knows how much they had to pay for electricity.
Offline
Louis, €0.2/kWh is the average EU electricity rate right now. Not what it will be in 10 years time. The UK is at the high end at €0.22/kWh.
https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/
It keeps going up, not down. The average UK rate of €0.22/kWh is $US0.3/kWh. Surely you pay electricity bills? If you pay $0.02/kWh, then I am envious. My electricity bill is £1000/year. The UK has some of the best wind power resources in the world. And $0.3/kWh is what we pay for this bountiful gift.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-23 15:28:30)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
At some point the infrastructure you have will need replacing and power levels upgrades and the companies will be passing the cost back to the consumer as they are the one's which want that ever increasing level of power.
Offline
Tim Morgan has posted a primer for anyone wishing to learn more about surplus energy economics.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpres … economics/
The latest article from Tim Watkins provides a UK perspective on declining surplus energy.
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2021 … tatistics/
Sober reading, to be sure. The majority of people that hold onto hope that the future will be better than the past, prefer to believe that the crisis is not real. Suffice to say, that unless we collectively face up to this problem and start looking for real solutions, it is unlikely that we will be colonising Mars. In the not too distant future, large parts of humanity will struggle to meet the most mundane physical needs, like getting enough to eat and drink.
As living standards decline, political oppression will increase, as popular dissatisfaction mounts. Britain already looks a lot like a communist state, in terms of its general lack of intellectual freedom, absence of any freedom of speech, state endorsed ideology, etc. This sort of thing will get worse and more widespread, as ruling classes attempt to cut off any challenges to their authority. Loss of intellectual freedom will stifle attempts to constructively mitigate the problems resulting from Peak Energy.
Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-24 07:50:23)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
For Calliban re #323
Thanks for this post ... I'm right in the middle of something, so do not have time (or am not willing to take the time) to read the links you provided might be more accurate ... but what I ** can ** do is to invite you (again? can't remember) to consider the proposal I've offered to collect energy from the cylinder of space between (about) 100 miles (162 km) and 1000 miles (1620 km) using the DawnDusk polar orbit. The concept has received a conditional endorsement from kbd512, but I would appreciate your assistance if you can afford the time and are willing to look into it.
I am guessing that the band contains enough flowing energy to meet all the present energy needs of the human population, ** and ** to provide enough extra to deliver fresh water to where it is needed on the surface of the Earth instead of relying upon the whims of Nature as we are presently doing.
Such a system would require buy-in by the entire population, because the satellites in the band would pass overhead twice a day, and energy collection rectenna installations would be everywhere they can be constructed, including at sea where that is feasible.
A key concept I'd like to re-introduce is that a massive undertaking like that needs to be organized as a simple stock company, with shares owned by every living citizen on the planet.
When I say "re-introduce" .... this is not a new idea, but (to my knowledge) it has never been raised above the level of theoretical speculation by creative writers.
In the case of a project of the magnitude of the dawn/dusk energy band, it would be a minimum requirement for acceptance.
(th)
Offline
The all-steel Ford Anglia E04A coupe of the 1940s weighed around 1,640lbs, a 10hp engine, and a top speed of around 55mph. The space saved in the engine bay by using an air-cooled V-twin engine can be used to beef up the passenger compartment for sake of crash-worthiness. The shorter / slightly wider / lower height Korean-made Chevy Spark weighs 2,200lbs to 2,300lbs for comparison purposes. Weight is largely related to design choices. A common air-cooled Harley-Davidson V-twin can produce about 67hp, which is more than enough for a 75mph top speed. While air-cooled engines require more maintenance than water-cooled engines, it's cheaper to produce (time and energy) and maintenance doesn't require lots of expensive specialty tools and diagnostics equipment. 150 pounds for a V-twin vs 216 pounds for the Chevy Spark's Inline-4 (minus the radiator and other accessories). Anything faster than about 75mph is illegal, no matter where you go in the US, as well as all places in Europe not named "Autobahn".
A sheet steel 4 seat chassis with Aluminum air-cooled engine, Aluminum manual transmission, and Aluminum wheels would minimize the weight and number of superfluous moving parts. The use of manual steering / transmission / windows / mirrors would reduce the weight of materials and energy cost associated with manufacturing. The Chevy Spark already does this to a degree, but the decision to use a much heavier liquid-cooled engine, automatic transmission, and to load up the interior with a bunch of electrical and electronic toys necessitated other design choices that substantially increased the weight of the Spark over the Anglia E04A, by about 600 pounds or so. 600 pounds is the weight of a complete motorcycle, and not a small one at that.
All models would have EFI / EI engine control, just as all new-built Harley motorcycles already do, an oil-to-water cabin heater would be provided to both cool the engine oil and provide heat during winter months. Luxury models would also include an AC unit. Wealthier owners could plug in their iPad on the dash for infotainment capabilities, but this would not be part of the vehicle, since it greatly increases energy consumption and therefore cost.
2,300 pounds to 1,600 pounds is a drastic weight reduction, so far less power is actually required to move the vehicle. We could potentially use a much smaller displacement 20hp generator engine that would still double the power-to-weight ratio of the old Anglia E04A.
Offline