I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Feb 23, 2005 Posts: 242 Location: Kingston, ON, Canada
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:41 am Post subject:
Heh, the National Post can hardly be counted on for unbiased reporting. These are the people who gave two-page spreads to McIntyre and McKitrick for their criticism of Mann's climate-change work, just because they were so desperate to print any scientific work that speaks against global warming.
That paper will be the last to admit that it's our lifestyle that's the problem. They'll admit that oil is declining, but they'll treat it like it's some external fact that can't be stopped. They're like the Canadian version of Cheney's "our lifestyle is non-negotiable".
I thought GM is dead broke. (16 billion in assets and hundreds of billions in debt) Aren't they supposed to go down worse than Enron, worldcom, and Tyco combined?
Great article. It shows very well that despite peak oil is well known nowadays, companies and government behave in an irresponsible way. I take this information as one more clue prooving that we must prepare for a hard landing.
Precision: for hydrogen conversion, we would need roughly double the electricity we have now. There is no way that could happen in a short time, whatever energy source we are thinking about!
Hrm... is that taking into consideration that night time usage and peak usage during the day is a lot different?
Also, annual peaks are different than normal usage?
Instead of wasting power during those times, we harnest it in H or other fuel cells/battery and simply have current facilities at full power through the night. Will we need to double it? Or just increase by like 10-20%?
But that is the point that I was trying to make. It is one thing to be on vacation and use alternative transportation devices. Try carting back a weeks worth of groceries from Costco in some tiny machine like that. Or try commuting week in and week out like that. It has not and is not going to happen.
I am not against a little hardship and creativity at all. I walk to work. It's just that in no way will gas-guzzling americans ever stand for that. They would sooner go to war than live with the inconvenience.
Ah... I see.
Well, I think if we don't give them a choice, they will be quiet. Just like high gas prices in US- no public demonstrations. But, in third world countries where they subsidize gas prices, you see violent protests.
Joined: Aug 13, 2004 Posts: 435 Location: Hiding from the All-Seeing Eye
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:23 pm Post subject:
Note to self, "don't invest any money into any company working on 'hydrogen cars'". Sounds like the classic pyramid scam to me. Just another thing to distract the masses. _________________ "Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko." - John Loeffler
Precision: for hydrogen conversion, we would need roughly double the electricity we have now. There is no way that could happen in a short time, whatever energy source we are thinking about!
Hrm... is that taking into consideration that night time usage and peak usage during the day is a lot different?
Also, annual peaks are different than normal usage?
Instead of wasting power during those times, we harnest it in H or other fuel cells/battery and simply have current facilities at full power through the night. Will we need to double it? Or just increase by like 10-20%?
That's a very complex question as we are getting into the realms of grid security, maintenance, plant, switching, bulk transfer and so on. The actual grid is in most countries available most of the time. Here's the info for Britain, including grid diagrams, power stations, bulk transfer etc link grid
The actual requirements are as follows:
Typical winter: Highest demand 50 GW, lowest 35GW, just 15GW difference.
Typical summer: Highest demand 36GW, lowest 23GW, just 13GW difference
The graphs are here:
graphs
You have to have a certain amount of plant margin (usually 20-30%) for peaks in demand, say during TV ad breaks when people switch their kettles on.
Also plants need maintenance and run down and are not available 100% of the time.
So it looks like there is very little give in the current grid.
Bearing in mind the run down of natural gas, we can discount any capacity in the current network and probably require more power stations for home heating alone: wind
Therefore for transport alone you would need to install 100 new nuclear stations or 100,000 wind turbines at CURRENT use of course all forms of transport are requiring more energy each year.
With the nuclear option building 5 stations at once, taking a time of ten years each (5 in ten years) it would take 200 years. Of course the whole world demands hydrogen in the next 20 years and there is a limit to tech and construction resources. In short, there isn't a cat in hells chance.
That’s a very complex question as we are getting into the realms of grid security, maintenance, plant, switching, bulk transfer and so on. The actual grid is in most countries available most of the time. Here’s the info for Britain, including grid diagrams, power stations, bulk transfer etc
Yes, it is a bunch of complex questions with lots of variables.
Quote:
The actual requirements are as follows:
Typical winter: Highest demand 50 GW, lowest 35GW, just 15GW difference.
Typical summer: Highest demand 36GW, lowest 23GW, just 13GW difference
Okay, this is seasonal. How about night and day?
In California, it is like double: link
Quote:
You have to have a certain amount of plant margin (usually 20-30%) for peaks in demand, say during TV ad breaks when people switch their kettles on.
20-30%?
I think California just maintains a 7-10%
handout
... I think an emergency is called at 7% and then 5% is voluntary reductions and 3% is rotating outages.
Quote:
Also plants need maintenance and run down and are not available 100% of the time.
Yes this is correct. Facilities need to be down like 1-2 months a year for normal maintenance on avg, I think.
Quote:
So it looks like there is very little give in the current grid.
Well, I have no idea where the double the energy needed figure comes from, but for arguments sake let's say it is true.
50gw for peak driving season.
Considering UK numbers are similar to California numbers- we should get around 15gw of extra at night.
Plus, your seasonal difference of 13-15 gw.
Still short, but only need to add a few mega power plants.
Quote:
Baring in mind the run down of natural gas, we can discount any capacity in the current network and probably require more power stations for home heating alone.
pstarr, I like your scenarios, but I disagree. I think those people are wimps. I went on vacations to snow cover places and they travel by skiing or snowmobile and are always exposed to the elements. They just need to be tough, I guess.
But that is the point that I was trying to make. It is one thing to be on vacation and use alternative transportation devices. Try carting back a weeks worth of groceries from Costco in some tiny machine like that. Or try commuting week in and week out like that. It has not and is not going to happen.
I am not against a little hardship and creativity at all. I walk to work. It's just that in no way will gas-guzzling americans ever stand for that. They would sooner go to war than live with the inconvenience.
I don't see any reason why a scooter couldn't be developed with a whole wind/rain bubble that would make it enclosed like a car, do you? I guess it would increase the wind resistance and make it a little less efficient, but maybe the bubble portion could detach for dry/warm days. Even then it wouldn't be that fun for trips past a certain length - and wouldn't even be able to handle all that long of a trip. But hopefully we'll start moving towards less sprawl and shorter commutes - this driving an hour each way stuff is madness. A scooter or one-seater electric car could suffice for short commutes during the week, and the old gas car would still be around for hauling, passangers, and longer weekend trips. We Americans will finally start to sit up and pay attention once gas gets in the $4-5 range, I'm guessing. _________________ What a horrible night to have a curse.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject:
lorenzo wrote:
I think hydrogen will *never* be the ticket. Because when there's a cheap way of creating electricity, you can just as well build pure electric cars; battery technology is advancing rapidly.
No need to carry that dangerous, inefficient, energy losing hydrogen on board. No need to build an expensive new hydrogen infrastructure, when you can just plug in your car in the grid.
Hydrogen is hype. Nothing more.
Read up on pebble bed reactors again...
Quote:
Coming to terms with nuclear energy is only a first step. To power a billion cars, there's no practical alternative to hydrogen. But it will take huge quantities of energy to extract hydrogen from water and hydrocarbons, and the best ways scientists have found to do that require high temperatures, up to 1,000 degrees Celsius. In other words, there's another way of looking at INET's high-temperature reactor and its potential offspring: They're hydrogen machines.
_________________ "Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. "
Read up on pebble bed reactors again...
Coming to terms with nuclear energy is only a first step. To power a billion cars, there's no practical alternative to hydrogen. But it will take huge quantities of energy to extract hydrogen from water and hydrocarbons, and the best ways scientists have found to do that require high temperatures, up to 1,000 degrees Celsius. In other words, there's another way of looking at INET's high-temperature reactor and its potential offspring: They're hydrogen machines.
But why do you need pebble reactors for hydrogen when you can create more electricity cheaper, and use it in more cars, cheaper and in a safer way?
If you want fuel cell powered cars, you still need to carry hydrogen on board, create an entirely new infrastructure (from gas stations to tankers and pipelines), while with pure-electric cars, we basically have everything in place today (the grid).
Pebble reactors don't get rid of the problems associated with the use of hydrogen in cars.
I have no problem with nuclear energy as such. I do have a problem with wasting vast amounts of money on building an entirely new infrastructure from scratch, which deals with a dangerous ultra-explosive gas. _________________ The Beginning is Near!
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:44 am Post subject:
lorenzo wrote:
But why do you need pebble reactors for hydrogen when you can create more electricity cheaper, and use it in more cars, cheaper and in a safer way?
Because it's not cheaper, there are tremendous losses of energy associated with the grid. Something around 50% iirc.
Quote:
If you want fuel cell powered cars, you still need to carry hydrogen on board, create an entirely new infrastructure (from gas stations to tankers and pipelines), while with pure-electric cars, we basically have everything in place today (the grid).
You realize that with minimal effort you can retrofit existing gasoline engines to run on hydrogen (kinda like ng powered vehicles), and yes, we have the grid in place, but it's not in the shape it needs to be to support the nations transit, and chances are the hydrogen economy is cheaper than upgrading it to handle that. Nuclear power is most likely that cheap and that safe...
Quote:
I have no problem with nuclear energy as such. I do have a problem with wasting vast amounts of money on building an entirely new infrastructure from scratch, which deals with a dangerous ultra-explosive gas.
Uh... it's not ultra-explosive, whatever that means? And as for danger, sure, it's as dangerous as ng or petroleum. The newer storage mediums I've seen are focusing around metal-hydride storage systems which I believe are much safer than your own gas tank. _________________ "Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. "
Why is it going to take them so damn long to build 40 freakin fuel cell cars?
RC now we know why GM is (almost?) broke.
They would better spend the money on coal dust deisel engines...that may have an (ugly) future. How much of that 88 million is tax deductible anyways?
And why is the cost now TWO million per vehicle? i thought it would be only ONE million...inflation or is someone hiding some other losses for some kind of loophole deduction?
Ah GM, we hardly knew ye! _________________ With Love to all, and Malice to none.
"A people is conquered not when they lose a war, but when they adopt the song and customs of the enemy"
-Chacham S
But why do you need pebble reactors for hydrogen when you can create more electricity cheaper, and use it in more cars, cheaper and in a safer way?
Because it's not cheaper, there are tremendous losses of energy associated with the grid. Something around 50% iirc.
Quote:
If you want fuel cell powered cars, you still need to carry hydrogen on board, create an entirely new infrastructure (from gas stations to tankers and pipelines), while with pure-electric cars, we basically have everything in place today (the grid).
You realize that with minimal effort you can retrofit existing gasoline engines to run on hydrogen (kinda like ng powered vehicles), and yes, we have the grid in place, but it's not in the shape it needs to be to support the nations transit, and chances are the hydrogen economy is cheaper than upgrading it to handle that. Nuclear power is most likely that cheap and that safe...
Quote:
I have no problem with nuclear energy as such. I do have a problem with wasting vast amounts of money on building an entirely new infrastructure from scratch, which deals with a dangerous ultra-explosive gas.
Uh... it's not ultra-explosive, whatever that means? And as for danger, sure, it's as dangerous as ng or petroleum. The newer storage mediums I've seen are focusing around metal-hydride storage systems whi
ch I believe are much safer than your own gas tank.
Grid loss is 4% not 50%, the other part of the equation is thermal efficiency of power stations (Av 35% loss)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
