E85 Myths and Misinformation

[Clocker]

Some info that I found which is pretty interesting. E85 is definitely not a perfect fuel but it helps the US have the energy diversity it desperately needs.

Executive Summary of Anti-Ethanol Hot Issues, Myths and Misinformation

1. Food versus Fuel – Using corn for ethanol takes away from those supplies that could be used for human food or animal feed, and increases overall food prices.

Not true. Each year there is an average of 1 billion bushels of surplus carried over and that was certainly true in 2006 and will be for 2007. Ethanol production has many products including ethanol and distillers grain that is used as animal feed. The largest planting of corn is taking place in 2007 and we are already seeing corn prices drop.

2. Net Energy – Ethanol production results in a negative net energy balance (more energy goes in to the production process than what is available for use once it is created.)

False. Argonne National Lab assessed several studies on the net energy balance and determined that U.S. grain-based ethanol production has a positive energy balance and it is improving significantly with bio tech and improved farming techniques. Sugar production has the greatest return and biomass futures will be very positive. Better question to ask is what is the net energy return on gasoline refining? It is negative .87 meaning it takes more energy to produce than it delivers. Corn ethanol is has a net energy of 1.34 meaning you get about 34 percent more energy out than it takes to create.

3. Never enough ethanol – We could not create enough ethanol in the U.S. to significantly offset the use of fossil fuels.

False. Several studies including the DOE and USDA Billion Ton Study suggest that 90 billion gallons of ethanol can be produced without upsetting forest and agriculture lands. Ninety billion gallons needs to be adjusted to 60 billion gallons to be on an energy equivalent basis and that has the potential to offset fossil fuel use by 30% or greater. Timeframe for that level of growth is 2030.

4. Not enough land – There is not enough farmland to support the amount of corn needed to produce significant amounts of ethanol.

There is plenty of acreage. In 2007, approximately 90 million acres of corn was planted for a variety of uses. Important to note that only about 5% of all corn is for human consumption. The rest is for feed, fuel and export. Also, yields double every generation with technology, so our farmers are getting better at growing more on less land every year.

5. Erosion etc… – Increases in the growth of corn will lead to increase soil erosion and water contamination due to increased use of fertilizer and pesticides.

This is a persistent claim with all agriculture efforts. The rate of controlled pesticide use, better land management techniques and bio technologies is improving all aspects of farming. The greatest potential will be realized in the next few years as biomass waste is converted to fuel and other uses.

6. Weeds – Increases in the growth of biomass switch grass will lead to increased weed species and the need for increased herbicide use.

This is an unfounded assumption. Switch grass studies are underway and there will be dense planting that will prevent the growth of substantial weeds.


7. Water Waste – Significant growth in the production of ethanol will stress available water supplies in local/regional municipalities.

This is an issue, but not a job stopper. Ethanol production is water intensive. However, technology is improving. Ethanol production recycles a large part of their water in the ethanol process. Other fuels such as gasoline also are water intensive. Proper permitting will prevent issues from arising in local areas.

8. The development of a robust cellulosic ethanol industry will never be commercially viable.

We’re nearly there already. There are six demonstration plants underway in the United States and each is developing a unique process. Several could have commercial breakthroughs leading to under $2.00 a gallon ethanol. For now, demand on grain-based ethanol is necessary to spur investment into biomass

9. The increased use of E85 ethanol as a motor fuel will lead to increased smog and health effects.

No basis in fact. There was a study published by Stanford that indicated that e85 was no better or worse than gas. The media and writer misinterpreted the study. The actual study inputs have been questioned by a number of key people including the National Resource Defense Council who has asked for a blue ribbon review.

10. The use of E85 ethanol does not reduce CO2 emissions.

The opposite is true. Today’s ethanol reduces GHGs by an average of 20 percent (40 percent in the most modern plants). Cellulosic ethanol production will reduce GHGs by more than 90 percent compared with gasoline.


11. The increased use of corn to produce ethanol in the U.S. has caused increased prices of tortillas in Mexico.

White corn in Mexico is protected with a tariff against U.S. corn. The tortilla crisis was a result of speculation, not real world corn prices.

12. Brazil and Japan claim that cars can run on E15 ethanol and higher.

This is a rumor that cannot be substantiated from the Japanese side. Brazil has always had e20 compatible materials. In the United States, vehicles and small engines are calibrated to e10 and there are OBD II requirements.

13. You can feed a man for a year on one SUV fill-up of E85 ethanol.

If you assume a man could live off of 15.00 worth of corn or five bushels than that is possible. This statistic is wrong and inflammatory. Rick Tollman from the National Corn Growers Association responded to this by indicating that those who say this forget that most corn is for feed and that feed requirements can be met by the distillers grain. Important to note that a lot of U.S. distillers grain is exported to keep the distillers grain price propped up.

14. OPEC has warned that increased investment in biofuels could lead to oil production countries spending less on new oil production, dramatically increasing the price of oil.

This is a strong signal that we might be on to something.

 

[ddrueding]

Not that I think you are a mouthpiece for anyone, but can you cite a source?

 

[jtr1962]

Ninety billion gallons needs to be adjusted to 60 billion gallons to be on an energy equivalent basis and that has the potential to offset fossil fuel use by 30% or greater. Timeframe for that level of growth is 2030.

I'm not debating that biofuels can have some role in reducing the use of imported oil. However, the real kicker is quoted above-they can offset fossil fuel use by perhaps only 30% or so, and even this will take until the year 2030.

9. The increased use of E85 ethanol as a motor fuel will lead to increased smog and health effects.

No basis in fact. There was a study published by Stanford that indicated that e85 was no better or worse than gas.

And even if it's no worse than gas (a point I'm not qualified to argue) it's not like the use of gas is exactly benign. The air smells so bad here in warm weather especially that I can't go out until night. Besides the severe drop in quality of life in cities because of cars, there are 600,000 cancer/asthma/cardiac deaths in the US alone caused by emissions from transportation. This alone is a good reason to go to zero-emissions vehicles immediately without even dragging global warming into the debate. It's far less noxious to have electric cars charged by electricity produced by a combination of remote coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear plants. At least the emissions from the coal plants aren't concentrated in populated areas.

Can you tell me why the auto makers are so tied to the internal combustion engine when with today's new batteries we can get as good range, 5-minute recharge, and far less complex (hence more reliable) vehicles? Not to mention that electric cars greatly reduce the noise problem. E85 may be an answer for the next few years, but long term the internal combustion engine, like the incandescent lamp, is an outmoded technology that deserves to die. Maybe during the last energy crisis in the 1970s we didn't have the battery technology to replace ICEs en masse. That's no longer true. And if GM or Ford doesn't start making decent electric cars soon I have a feeling China will, and then you and your fellow employees will be out of work.

Many people I know are practically begging for electric cars right now because they're sick and tired of paying ridiculous gas prices to get to work. At the 8 to 10 mpg he gets in traffic, my brother's 15 mile each way commute is costing him about $60 a week in gas (taking the subway really wouldn't be an option for him as it would take 2 hours each way). IIRC something like the EV1 could go 150 miles (equal to his weekly commute) on 30 kW-hr, or about $6, or electricity. My sister, who goes about 35 miles each way, could probably save even more with an EV. And in both cases they'll save big-time on repairs. One time my brother accidentally drove into a puddle. His engine hydrolocked. It had to be replaced. Had he been driving an EV, it probably woluld have been OK after drying out.

Relevant to the discussion-Mayor Bloomberg's congestion tax proposal was given a yellow light by the State legislature, meaning that the city can start studying ways to implement it while the legislative kinks are worked out. Long-term (10 years or so) many feel that in addition to congestion pricing becoming the norm in large cities here we'll also start to see zero-emission requirements. In fact, I plan to write just such a letter to the Mayor proposing them. Perhaps at first they will only apply to Manhattan. Eventually I suspect they will be expanded citywide. Will GM or Ford or Chrysler have suitable vehicles by then? It sure doesn't look that way to me.

 

[Bozo]

The one issue that everyone seems to close their eyes and ears to is the batteries.
Have you considered what the minning companies do to the earth and envirnment to get the matterials to make those batteries? And what do you do with the batteries when they are at the their end of life? Throw them in a landfill?
What happens if the electric car is in a severe accident and the batteries leak acid and lord knows what. Gas and oil can be cleaned up, even from water.
Yes, everything looks rosey on the surface, but when you start to really look, it just might be a weed.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Stereodude]

1. Food versus Fuel – Using corn for ethanol takes away from those supplies that could be used for human food or animal feed, and increases overall food prices.

Not true. Each year there is an average of 1 billion bushels of surplus carried over and that was certainly true in 2006 and will be for 2007. Ethanol production has many products including ethanol and distillers grain that is used as animal feed. The largest planting of corn is taking place in 2007 and we are already seeing corn prices drop.

Uh... yeah... right...

That would explain why the price of corn has doubled in the past 18 months as ethanol usage has spiked (to replace MTBE in gas).

I don't have any problems with Ethanol / E85. I have a big problem tampering with the food supply. I would much rather import oil than food. There are far better ways to get Ethanol than from the sugars in corn.

Several of the other points are sketchy too.

 

[jtr1962]

The one issue that everyone seems to close their eyes and ears to is the batteries.

No, not really. I realize there are environmental costs to making those batteries. On balance though, there is far less damage overall than going the current route.

Have you considered what the minning companies do to the earth and envirnment to get the matterials to make those batteries? And what do you do with the batteries when they are at the their end of life? Throw them in a landfill?

OK, and what about the damage caused by drilling for crude oil? Moreover, mining the materials for the batteries is a one-shot deal. Do it once and you're good for the life of the car. Gasoline needs to be provided on a continual basis. And when that gasoline is burned, it's not like it just disappears. The poisonous byproducts are distributed mostly in and around populated areas-about the worst place they can be. At least when the battery is at the end of life it gets recycled (we've been doing this with lead-acid car batteries for many years). Believe me, I know there are costs associated with using batteries. Perhaps if the battery option isn't palatable to envrionmentalists we can go the inductive pickup route where the car gets it's power on the fly, from the grid, just like an electric train. No batteries to worry about then (well, maybe a small one to get you past inevitable dead spots on the highway). Honestly, our modern way of life has a cost with everything associated with it. If we want really low-impact transportation then we could always use bicycles. I'm actually fine with that, but I suspect it wouldn't go over too well with a good portion of the fat-assed US population who can't even walk a few blocks.

What happens if the electric car is in a severe accident and the batteries leak acid and lord knows what. Gas and oil can be cleaned up, even from water.

What happens now? How often do car batteries leak in an accident now? It's a scenario that can be pretty much eliminated by decent vehicle design. For that matter, how many gas tanks explode in accidents these days? If we can make a highly volatile liquid like gasoline relatively safe in accidents, then we can certainly do the same with a battery. I'll also point out that most of the new, advanced batteries don't even have liquid, corrosive electrolyte.

Yes, everything looks rosey on the surface, but when you start to really look, it just might be a weed.

We already have a huge weed right now in the form of air pollution, foreign wars to secure fuel supplies, very volatile prices due to fuel fluctations, less consumer spending due to high fuel prices, etc. An ideal might be an auto powered by a Mr. Fusion©® but I'm trying to think in terms of what we can do now, not maybe do in 50 years.

 

[jtr1962]

Uh... yeah... right...

That would explain why the price of corn has doubled in the past 18 months as ethanol usage has spiked (to replace MTBE in gas).

Yep, I'm with you here. The rise in food prices, especially over the last year, has been ridiculous. I was tracking the price of a 17 oz box of Reese's Puffs cereal (one of my favorites until the price broke $2 a box) over the last year. It went from $4.29 (already too pricey for my budget) about a year ago to $10.29 last I checked. Milk went from $2.79 a gallon a year ago to $4.59 now (cows do get fed corn). 8 oz of Parmesan grating cheese went from $1.99 a year ago to over $6 now. It just goes on and on. All I can afford to eat lately is Ramen soup.

 

[Bozo]

If we want really low-impact transportation then we could always use bicycles. I'm actually fine with that, but I suspect it wouldn't go over too well with a good portion of the fat-assed US population who can't even walk a few blocks.


What happens now? How often do car batteries leak in an accident now? It's a scenario that can be pretty much eliminated by decent vehicle design. For that matter, how many gas tanks explode in accidents these days? If we can make a highly volatile liquid like gasoline relatively safe in accidents, then we can certainly do the same with a battery. I'll also point out that most of the new, advanced batteries don't even have liquid, corrosive electrolyte.

Apparently, you have never seen the devastation that a strip mine does to the earth and water for miles around it. One of the copper mines (for the electric motors) has done that much damage, it can been seen from space.

This fat-assed US guy would ride a bike, but it is 18 miles one way to work. And the terrain is dammed hilly.

We are not talking about one battery. We are talking about a bank of batteries. In the Prius, that bank is about 4' wide by 6' long. And the jell inside is just as bad on the water table as the liquid acid. And dirt absorbs it like a sponge.

I agree, something must be done. But there is 'pie in the sky', then there is the real world.

Bozo :joker:

 

[jtr1962]

Apparently, you have never seen the devastation that a strip mine does to the earth and water for miles around it. One of the copper mines (for the electric motors) has done that much damage, it can been seen from space.

There's actually a good possibility of using carbon-fiber wiring in the not too distant future. The spike in copper prices is driving R&D. I'm not sure if making electric motors for maybe 100 million vehicles would cause all that large of a demand increase for copper. Don't forget how much copper plus other metals we'll salvage via dismantling refineries, supertankers, gas pumps, etc. if we were to go all electric. In fact, while on the topic of environmental destruction does the name Exxon Valdez ring a bell? That one event caused more mess than probably 50 years worth of batteries damaged in accidents. Like I said, everything has a cost. Hopefully as technology evolves those costs we drop.

You'll also be happy to know that supercapacitors, which are far less noxious than chemical batteries, may well be useful in EVs in the not too distant future. I know there some of the problems here you mentioned. I just have faith in technology to solve them as they occur.

BTW, we could solve a good part of the problem now by just decreasing the demand for transportation but nobody's listening. So many jobs these days are amenable to telecommuting but too many employers are stuck in the dark ages. I don't know why someone like my sister has to drive 35 miles to sit at a computer terminal. It really makes no sense other than to satisfy an employer's paranoia.

 

[CougTek]

What I just don't get is that it would be easier to grow and transform vegetation into biodiesel than corn into E85 ethanol...and everybody is pushing ethanol. Diesel engines are ~30% more efficient too. The yield of whatever being growth to make biodiesel can be as much as 16 times better than a corn field.

So, why ethanol?

 

[ddrueding]

So, why ethanol?

Because they grow corn in Iowa, and that is the first primary state.

 

[Bozo]

Because they grow corn in Iowa, and that is the first primary state.

Amen!

And now some polititians want some enterprising soul that uses deep fryer fat to run his diesel car, to pay taxes on the used fat. Amazing

Bozo :joker:

 

[udaman]

Yep, I'm with you here. The rise in food prices, especially over the last year, has been ridiculous. I was tracking the price of a 17 oz box of Reese's Puffs cereal (one of my favorites until the price broke $2 a box) over the last year. It went from $4.29 (already too pricey for my budget) about a year ago to $10.29 last I checked. Milk went from $2.79 a gallon a year ago to $4.59 now (cows do get fed corn). 8 oz of Parmesan grating cheese went from $1.99 a year ago to over $6 now. It just goes on and on. All I can afford to eat lately is Ramen soup.

Something wrong there, non sequitor I believe Reese's Puffs cereal, Geez jtr, that's worse for your body than any cola, you've got to kick the habit, try Post raisin brand or something healthier. Milk prices are manipulated just like other commodities jtr, oil/fuel/electricity. Doesn't always have much to do with actual costs of production. Regular supermarket price for milk is much higher than what you'd pay at Trader Joe's for example, something like double the price. Same goes for cheeses, depends on where you buy them, whether they are a brand name, etc. Find cheaper sources of those regular items and then treat yourself & mother to an occassional dim sum take-out lunch (cause eating in just adds to the cost), reheated in toaster oven for deep-fried items, reheated gentlely in bambo steamer for steamed items, make your own tea.

I'm not debating that biofuels can have some role in reducing the use of imported oil. However, the real kicker is quoted above-they can offset fossil fuel use by perhaps only 30% or so, and even this will take until the year 2030.


And even if it's no worse than gas (a point I'm not qualified to argue) it's not like the use of gas is exactly benign. The air smells so bad here in warm weather especially that I can't go out until night. Besides the severe drop in quality of life in cities because of cars, there are 600,000 cancer/asthma/cardiac deaths in the US alone caused by emissions from transportation. This alone is a good reason to go to zero-emissions vehicles immediately without even dragging global warming into the debate. It's far less noxious to have electric cars charged by electricity produced by a combination of remote coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear plants. At least the emissions from the coal plants aren't concentrated in populated areas.

Can you tell me why the auto makers are so tied to the internal combustion engine when with today's new batteries we can get as good range, 5-minute recharge, and far less complex (hence more reliable) vehicles? Not to mention that electric cars greatly reduce the noise problem. E85 may be an answer for the next few years, but long term the internal combustion engine, like the incandescent lamp, is an outmoded technology that deserves to die. Maybe during the last energy crisis in the 1970s we didn't have the battery technology to replace ICEs en masse. That's no longer true. And if GM or Ford doesn't start making decent electric cars soon I have a feeling China will, and then you and your fellow employees will be out of work.

One time my brother accidentally drove into a puddle. His engine hydrolocked. It had to be replaced. Had he been driving an EV, it probably woluld have been OK after drying out.

Relevant to the discussion-...

Ford, GM, Volvo, all of the major old-school automanufacturers have factories in China jtr. As you saw in the Nova special I linked to a few years ago (think I can find the transcripts still online at the NOVA site) they are working on leep frogging technology to hydrogen/fuel cell technology. Which right now is not practical.

Hydrolocked from a puddle? That doesn't sound right, were the electrical engine managment and associated wiring damaged ? Maybe just a crooked repair facility?

"The air smells so bad here in warm weather especially that I can't go out until night"...hmmm, so that's what you're doing here for a change (j/k, teasing you)

"Can you tell me why the auto makers are so tied to the internal combustion engine when with today's new batteries we can get as good range, 5-minute recharge, and far less complex (hence more reliable) vehicles?"

Yes, price. Right now hybrids or all eletric cost much more to make and Toyota sells those hybrids as loss leaders IIRC. Infrastructure jtr. cart N wheel...Cost, who's going to foot the bill, money doesn't grow on trees and it would take very long term planning and agreement of the states and federal government...you know, just like affordable health care, not happening any time soon, probably not in our lifetime...I'm a cynic

Uh..huh, jtr, do super low quality LED's last 100k hrs, tested in real world (not lab studies) applications? I don't think so. Do those environmentally sound CFL that replace incandescent lights, last anywhere near their stated rated lifespan...not if they're cheap ones made in China. Those are so poorly made/cheap internal ballasts that cannot handle heat, just burnout with regularity ( in 1/4th to 1/2 rated life under best conditions, even less in an enclosed hot fixture where incandescents run just fine for their shorter full rated lifespan) unless in a well ventilated fixture, preferrably and air-conditioned fixture, and damn those A/C CFL's consume huge amounts of current, requiring more nuc plants just to cool & make those $5 so called 10k rated life CFL run that long... [/end sarcastic rant]

Relevant to the discussion is what is happening worldwide, as this is a global economy, more and more. Decisions of others countries will/can affect the entire world. Let me come back tomorrow with a few links to China (well I was going to post some pix of hot Asian babes, but...never mind) as they are planning to have a 2 week ban on most auto driving during the Olympics, because Bejiing promised the Olympic organising commitee that they'd clean up the air of one of the world most dirty cities, now that there has been an explosion of Chinese middle-class car ownership, even shutting down inefficient power generating and steel mills isn't enough to reduce the pollution they have there most of the year.

Because they grow corn in Iowa, and that is the first primary state.

Cynic , the Govenator has moved CA's primary up so now we, unlike Merc, are omnipotent...we will rule the world :twistd:


"Besides the severe drop in quality of life in cities because of cars, there are 600,000 cancer/asthma/cardiac deaths in the US alone caused by emissions from transportation."

Link please jtr, I have a link to estimated deaths in China (where's the outrage FS ...sorry, I couldn't resist; heh, only a few hundred thousand have died in Somolia...why isn't FS & George Cluny & Bono etc & the PC crowd, on TV in China talking about the mass death on a yearly basis from pollution there...damned hypocrites! ;-) )

Now jtr, how do you expect me to reply in equate lenght to refute your claims when you turbo post like this , you know I can't keep up.

 

[ddrueding]

Cynic , the Govenator has moved CA's primary up so now we, unlike Merc, are omnipotent...we will rule the world :twistd:

We are the most populous state and by far the most profitable. This is our natural place


Not to derail, but I think one primary with all candidates (regardless of party) simultaneously nationwide would make a lot of sense. Then we get an election between the top two.

 

[sechs]

So, why ethanol?

It's a drop-in replacement for gasoline. Biodiesel requires diesel engines.

Diesel vehicles are on the come back, so biodiesel will have a place. Certainly, fleet vehicles will take advantage of it.

 

[udaman]

Recent PR material from GM at the LA Auto show about fuel source diversity.

Unfortunately for jtr, he just doesn't comprehend that people want cars, that luxury status symbol of freedom. Riding on trains & subways/other transit systems does not afford that freedom of timely mobility, and therefore absent absolute draconian laws, will never amount to more than minority status as far as numbers in commuting. Even if it were to become the majority, by a small percentage ever increasing worldwide use of cars will mean ever increasing pollution of one form or another. You can't really gernerate electricity far away from populations to avoid polluting a larger population such as NYC (which is typical of jtr's and politicians short-term localized/parochial thinking...NIMBY, not in my backyard...you take it). Power has to be generated somehow (nuclear isn't really an option for the USA, but should be for China as they are building them faster than any other country...at least until there is an accident ).

Greater advances in Li-Ion safety & technology might well help to get electric cars going in the next decade...too soon to tell

http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/08/16/japan.notebook.safety/

On GM's 300mi range experimental advanced alternative fuel vehicle

http://www.westchestercbj.com/archive/052107/0521070004.php

Burns said GM will start commercial production of the Sequel in 2011 or 2012. “We feel we need to get to a scale of a million a year. We think at a million a year, we can have scale of economy with our suppliers and be competitive with the internal combustion engine.”

“I see a very exciting market in China,” which has a largely undeveloped auto manufacturing system, Burns said. “If I were going to prioritize, I’d look at the U.S.; I’d look at China.”

To gauge American consumers’ receptiveness to its fuel cell vehicles, GM this year and next will produce 100 Chevrolet Equinox SUVs, which have an operating range of 230 to 250 miles, Burns said. In a market test called “Project Driveway,” the vehicles will be leased to customers in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and here in the metropolitan New York area.

Hmm, though I think jtr is correct, that while GM is already developing fuel cell technology in China, probably the Chinese national manufacturers will come out with their much cheaper and more efficient versions...while GM does as usual, concentrates on stupid huge SUV's...*shakes head*

On China's pollution problems and other societal ills, Time's China Blog is a good read from those Caucasians either born in Honk Kong, or long time residents of Chinese territories.

Blog entry July 4th

http://time-blog.com/china_blog/200...ut_you_didnt_hear_it_from_the_world_bank.html


banning all cars for the Beijing Olympics, cause they can't do what they promised, get rid of the blight of dangerous smog

http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/07/banning_all_carsthats_the_tick.html

Quality wars heat up

http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/07/the_quality_wars_heat_up.html


Why China's an Environmental Disaster Area--and Why that Won't Change Anytime Soon

Reason, corruption, corruption, corruption...kind of like here in the USA with politics and business as usual
http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/07/why_chinas_an_environmental_di.html


http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/07/

 

[Stereodude]

You've got some good points there. Nuclear power works and it is safe, however the greenies have too many people in the US all emotional about it.

 

[timwhit]

You've got some good points there. Nuclear power works and it is safe, however the greenies have too many people in the US all emotional about it.

This is starting to change.

 

[ddrueding]

You can't really gernerate electricity far away from populations to avoid polluting a larger population such as NYC (which is typical of jtr's and politicians short-term localized/parochial thinking...NIMBY, not in my backyard...you take it). Power has to be generated somehow (nuclear isn't really an option for the USA, but should be for China as they are building them faster than any other country...at least until there is an accident ).

Short-term that is true, but long-term I don't think so. One of the reasons oil is so popular is because you can transport it easily without loss along the way. Oil is also easy and cheap because it is already made; all we have to do is find it and use it.

Switching to a renewable source for fuel is a good idea, but eventually we will need to get to a renewable and clean source. So, a renewable and clean source of energy that can be manufactured in sufficient quantity and transported without loss? That would be hydrogen.

By switching to hydrogen, we separate the power production and power consumption sides of the equation. It doesn't matter what energy source you are using to produce the hydrogen, and the fuel cell doesn't care where the hydrogen came from. It is as easy to transport as oil, it can even use the same infrastructure! It also allows us to generate electricity anywhere and consume it anywhere. Don't want a nuclear power plant in your backyard? Put them all in China, use them there to produce hydrogen, and then ship the hydrogen here. (China as the new middle-east? There is a scary thought).

Oh, new furniture arrived...more later.

 

[Howell]

This is starting to change.

Interestingly, our nuke plants are currently running at partial capacity. Due to the lack of rainfall there is currently not enough water to cool the reactors if they are run at full capacity.

 

[Howell]

FWIW, one of my clients is a global engineering consultancy specializing in the power industry. They basically make some internal modifications to the flue stacks to more completely burn the fuel left in the exhaust gas and squeeze another 10% efficiency out of the plant.

 

[Howell]

Not exactly on topic.

"Clean Coal"
http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm 05/06
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron-WSJ.htm 05/01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm

 

[Handruin]

This is starting to change.

Wow, this quote was a bit staggering, in that I didn't expect it to take this long to build one:

It now costs $4 billion to $5 billion to build a nuclear plant; the last new U.S. plant, which went online in the Tennessee in 1996, cost $7 billion and took 22 years to build.

If it takes that long to build another one, we should have started 15 years ago.

 

[ddrueding]

Nothing has to take 22 years to build. Something can take that long, but only because of bureaucracy and funding issues.

 

[Howell]

The last unit to be complete was Watts Bar Unit 1. They halted work on Unit 2 in the mid 80s. It currently stands at 60% complete and I'm not sure if some of the costs mentioned were not attributable to the Unit 2 work. http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/local.aspx?articleid=18812&zoneid=77

TVA recently approved resuming work on Unit 2. It should take 5 years to complete.
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0131581020070801

This last link is the most interesting.

 

[ddrueding]

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0131581020070801

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's lobby group, has estimated it would take about nine years to develop, permit and build a new reactor.

 

[jtr1962]

Nothing has to take 22 years to build. Something can take that long, but only because of bureaucracy and funding issues.

If you think that's bad look at the Second Avenue subway. It was planned since 1920. Actual construction was finally started in 1925, and halted due to finances. It was restarted in earnest in 1972, and then halted again due to the city's financial crisis in the mid 1970s. Now it looks like a good portion of the line might finally get finished by around 2020. At least this time around the funds are secure. There's also a huge need for it. The other lines in Manhattan will be past capacity in a few years. So much for people prefering cars. Not.

Unfortunately for jtr, he just doesn't comprehend that people want cars, that luxury status symbol of freedom. Riding on trains & subways/other transit systems does not afford that freedom of timely mobility, and therefore absent absolute draconian laws, will never amount to more than minority status as far as numbers in commuting. Even if it were to become the majority, by a small percentage ever increasing worldwide use of cars will mean ever increasing pollution of one form or another.

You might try reading Suburban Nation by Andres Duany. In a nutshell, until the government encouraged the wholesale move to suburbia in the 1950s (IMHO the single worst policy decision by any government) the car was basically a solution in search of a problem. GM et al wanted to sell cars, but unless the populice could be enticed to move where there was no other form of transport they were a hard sell. After all, they were and are fairly costly to own/operate, and you have to actually have to learn to drive them yourself instead of just paying a fare then enjoying the ride. Add in some clever advertising to make cars status symbols. That brings us to today. Now if people make a choice to drive cars and live in suburbs that's fine, but unfortunately cars have spread like a cancer to make cities which don't need them unliveable. And they have caused a dearth in mass transit spending in places that could really use it. Sadly, countries like China are trying to emulate us when they should be sticking to bicycles for city travel, and build rail transit to supplement them. I would think Beijing choking on smog is enough to show that autos are not a good thing in a big city. EVs can solve the smog problem, but you'll still need a ridiculous amount of land for roads compared to rail transit.

As for wanting cars, look how many people voluntarily give them up here, especially Manhattanites. There's no gun to anyone's head. Rather, the subway is the best, fastest way to get around, bar none. Sure, some idiots still insist on driving into midtown (hence Mayor Bloomberg's congestion tax), but they're in the minority even if their decision causes the majority huge problems. Driving into Manhattan is as stupid as it gets. I can literally walk faster. I guess the smog affects these drivers' brains.