Amateur Futurists Check In Here! by Kwicko

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Amateur Futurists Check In Here!

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Friday, June 6, 2008 09:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2401
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, June 1, 2008 8:23 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

We seem to be in general agreement that the US, and probably the world, might be in for some tough times in the next few years. What kind of things do you think are on the horizon? What inventions will spur new industries? What does your future hold?

The amateur futurist in me has a few ideas that have been rolling around in my head, and this seemed like a good time to whip out the ol' crystal ball, just so we don't all get depressed about hard times...

In another post, AuRaptor mentioned Natural Gas as a clean alternative fuel, and that's something I just tend to overlook and forget about, and I shouldn't. I'm a "car guy", so I tend to pay close attention to anything that's going to affect my hobbies and toys. CNG is a pretty good alternative (it does burn clean, but tends to produce less power than gasoline in a given engine setup), but I wonder why no one seems to be trying to mate it to hybrid technology of the sort seen in the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight, among others. It seems a natural fit - CNG and no plug.

Also, I don't tend to like big SUVs, because I think for 99% of the stuff they're used for, they're utterly useless, except as status symbols. Plus, being that my daily driver is a minuscule Honda CRX, I tend to view large trucks as rolling chicanes, roadblocks that do little except block my view of the road ahead... BUT - what if it were the big SUVs and pickups that were getting the hybrid treatment? I've been lobbying for this for a while, and Chevy is the first to market with it, in their Tahoe Hybrid. It seems to me to be a perfect application of the technology. Taking a car like the Honda Civic, which already gets exemplary mileage, and making it more fuel efficient, just won't save as much gasoline as taking a gas-guzzler and cutting its fuel use by half. Plus, electric motors make their peak torque from zero RPM, and stepping off the line in a large truck is definitely where you need peak torque, just to get all that mass rolling. So mate a smaller gas or diesel (or CNG) engine to an electric (or an electric at each wheel, for even better power and traction), and you get the power you want and the fuel savings you now need.

And this could work just as well in the next generation of commercial vehicles, such as 18-wheelers.

How do we wean ourselves off expensive oil?

I don't think there is any one single solution (the "magic bullet") to our oil dependence, but I *DO* think there are dozens of tiny solutions, all of which could consolidate and combine into a larger solution. Say, one or two percent of cars go to biodiesel, one or two percent to CNG, ditto for corn ethanol, many more go for a gas/ethanol mix, a few for hybrid gas/electric, and so on, while at the same time the electric grid starts moving away from coal and more towards wind, sun, and water power, as well as some limited use of nuclear power. Before you know it, the demand for oil is going down, and Big Oil, like any other business, responds to shrinking market share and lessening demand by slashing prices, and by trying to get into the wind, sun, and water game and getting deeply into research and development of alternative fuels, which up to now they have been doing their darnedest to keep out of the marketplace for all these years. I've never understood why businesses will pay so much money in lobbyists, lawsuits, time and effort to defeat new technology, when they could be embracing it and reaping the benefits of it sooner, rather than later.

And I know for a fact that we're about one major breakthrough away from exceedingly cheap solar power. The same way that silicon microprocessors made cheap and fast computers possible, the solar industry is just waiting for that breakthrough in solar cell technology. When that happens, expect to see solar cropping up everywhere. One thing I can't wait to see (and which I'm assured is not out of the realm of possibility by a friend who holds patents in solar cell technology) would be things tying solar power into cars. Not cars running on solar energy, but things like hybrid cars that have rugged, lightweight solar cells imbedded in the roof and hood, for instance, powering things like electric air conditioning and the general computer for the car. So, in theory, you could program your car to, say, start cooling down the interior at 4:00pm if you get off work at 5:00, or start heating it up at 6:00am in the winter. This would be done from the battery, without any need for the car to be running or the keys anywhere near the car.

That's just a tiny application of cheap solar. There will be others. There will be solar cells that are so thin and flexible they'll be stitched into your t-shirt, so your shirt or jacket will become the charging station for your iPod, computer, or cellphone. And LCD/LED screens will be thin and flexible, too. You won't buy a Nike logo t-shirt, you'll buy a t-shirt with a screen sewn into it, and download your logo or message thru iTunes, and you'll pay for the privilege.

As solar gets cheaper and easier, there will be solar paints that you simply paint your house with, or spray on your roof, and they'll start producing electricity. And those giant wind turbines? Yup, their blades will be covered with solar cells, too, so they're generating power even when they're not turning, and generating twice as much power when they ARE turning.

But what about water? There's so little of it, and so many of us?

Like solar power, water desalinization is about one breakthrough from being dirt cheap. Already, there are places like the Mid-East where they're finding it cheaper to desalinate and filter ocean water than to import drinking water from overseas. This will continue to improve, to the point where Los Angeles won't be "stealing" their water from the rest of the state, they'll be piping it back! Arizona and Nevada will be buying water from California, or trading them electricity for it.

All of these are things that are going to happen, and probably quite soon. We tend to get focused on how bad things are in the US for manufacturing and technology, but we still have a few tricks up our sleeve. As "green" technology becomes increasingly common and accepted, even big corporations will start to embrace it and see it not as a hindrance or handicap on their profitability, but as a profit center all its own.

Watch for things like biodegradable plastics to gain traction, too. You haven't seen the last of those plastic bags! Already, I'm phasing out styrofoam packing peanuts at work, and replacing them with biodegradable ones made from corn starch. They're pretty cool - put water on them, and they just dissolve! You can dump 'em in your garden if you want, or use them to thicken gravy. (Any cooks here that got that joke?) :)

In short, while we MAY be in for some rough times, we have to remember that the Chinese pictogram for "Crisis" is also the same as the one that means "Opportunity". The future's bright, if you know where to position yourself.

What are your thoughts? Let's hear 'em!

Mike

PS: If you're looking for investments, I've got one word:

Prosthetics.

Sorry to say it, but the ongoing war is fueling an unprecedented need for prosthetics, and huge progress is being made in form, fit, and functionality of artificial limbs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 12:42 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
CNG is a pretty good alternative (it does burn clean, but tends to produce less power than gasoline in a given engine setup),

Just a quick little side note. Years ago, I want to say a full 10-12 yrs or so, I recall a interview w/ a chemist. I can't even say if it was on T.V. or radio, but I'll never forget what the guy said. Asked why we've not come up w/ an alternative power source , to replace gasoline, the chemist stated simply.... there is nothing else. He went on to explain that there's simply nothing else that we know about , which yields so much power and is so portable as refined petroleum oil. Until we figure out a way to miniaturize a nuclear reactor to fit safely into the confines of an automobile, we might as well get the most out of what we've got. And that's what it really all comes down to. Try as we might, and as much as it annoys some to suggest that....there ARE no other viable answers to replace gasoline. We're simply going to have to accept reality and acknowledge that we're fate's bitch.

That doesn't mean there aren't other sources, which would still work, but to a far lesser degree, to fix our energy needs.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 1:35 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
CNG is a pretty good alternative (it does burn clean, but tends to produce less power than gasoline in a given engine setup),

Just a quick little side note. Years ago, I want to say a full 10-12 yrs or so, I recall a interview w/ a chemist. I can't even say if it was on T.V. or radio, but I'll never forget what the guy said. Asked why we've not come up w/ an alternative power source , to replace gasoline, the chemist stated simply.... there is nothing else. He went on to explain that there's simply nothing else that we know about , which yields so much power and is so portable as refined petroleum oil. Until we figure out a way to miniaturize a nuclear reactor to fit safely into the confines of an automobile, we might as well get the most out of what we've got. And that's what it really all comes down to. Try as we might, and as much as it annoys some to suggest that....there ARE no other viable answers to replace gasoline. We're simply going to have to accept reality and acknowledge that we're fate's bitch.

That doesn't mean there aren't other sources, which would still work, but to a far lesser degree, to fix our energy needs.

That's what they said about coal.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 2:51 PM

ERIC

Engaging tinfoil hat...

I have a terrible feeling you're going to see more and more regulation about who can own solar technology as it becomes more efficient and necessary. Corpos might start forcing legislation to monopolize access so they can squeeze the proles. After all, you can't threaten to shut off the sun if people don't pay (unless you're Mr. Burns in Springfield), and you certainly can't allow individual energy independence, now can you?

On the other hand, I think low-tech innovation will start popping up. I once read about a clever invention for use in hot desert third world countries involving a container jacketed with a hollow ring open to the air. Sand is poured into the ring then soaked with water. As the water evaporates it cools whatever's inside the inner container, acting as a primitive but effective cold box.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 3:54 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

I worked, for a while, for a company that manufactured CNG fuel cylinders and systems for mostly fleet type vehicles. They sold systems to the Post Office, and their successor company got the contract for fuel tanks for the Los Angeles bus fleet. The weakness of CNG , as you pointed out, is that it is relatively low energy, compared to gasoline. It must be compressed to very high pressure to store enough of it to get reasonable range. Those busses, for example, have the entire roof covered with fuel tanks 18 in. in diameter and 10 feet long, and, fully fueled , are at 3600 psi.
Tanks are either very heavy, if made of steel, or very expensive, if made of composite fibreglass and aluminum. In smaller vehicles, they fill up all of the trunk, or if in a pickup truck, most of the bed.
There are issues with potential explosion or fire, especially in a colission. Elaborate precautions, testing and safety factors are included the manufacturing process to minimize risks. The one catastrophic failure I heard about, occurred in a fueling incident. A tank being deliberately over-pressured to get increased range, failed. The explosion destroyed several similar vehicles at the fueling station, and completely flattened the station itself.
The company then considered CNG to be a stop-gap measure, with a projected life of about 15 years, before hydrogen fuel cell cars were successfully developed, and would replace gasoline and CNG power. Some of its executives went into the hydrogen powered car market, but, the last I heard, that had fallen on hard times, R & D wise, and was not making much progress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 4:18 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
On the other hand, I think low-tech innovation will start popping up. I once read about a clever invention for use in hot desert third world countries involving a container jacketed with a hollow ring open to the air. Sand is poured into the ring then soaked with water. As the water evaporates it cools whatever's inside the inner container, acting as a primitive but effective cold box.

Niiiiiice... I like that idea. I also like the little wind-up radios that are powered by a clockspring and can be wound up again and again. Cheap, effective, no plug or batteries needed.

On the solar thing, you're probably more right than you know. I hope not, but you probably are... :(

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 4:26 PM

KIRKULES

It seems to me that the only energy sources that make sense for the future are hydrogen and solar energy. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used in standard internal combustion engines, fuel cells and turbine engines with zero pollution. Hydrogen is also a good way of storing solar energy for times when the sun isn't out. Technology is already being used that powers remote telecommunication equipment with solar power during the day and hydrogen at night. There is already technology to print solar cells onto a film at half the cost of traditional solar cells and the solar film can be applied to any surface. The cost per/kilowatt of solar power is dropping quickly and in a few more years there will be solar shingles for roofing homes that will generate all your power needs plus some in areas that get enough sunlight(sorry Seattle). The excess energy produced using solar will be used to make hydrogen from water and will power a micro-turbine engine driving a personal power source. Micro-turbines are already available and cost effective for businesses and small communities. This technology will have a lot of appeal to those that like the idea of living off the grid.

Natural gas is the obvious solution for the short term and with new liquefaction technology and more pipelines will be a good clean energy source until solar and hydrogen become more cost effective.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 4:48 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Niiiiiice... I like that idea. I also like the little wind-up radios that are powered by a clockspring and can be wound up again and again. Cheap, effective, no plug or batteries needed.

On the solar thing, you're probably more right than you know. I hope not, but you probably are... :(

Mike

Now that I think about it, it's likely a bit of ancient tribal technology that nobody bothered to patent til now. I have a hand crank flashlight, it's a pain to charge but always dependable!

The more I read and reread author Frank Herbert's works the more prophetic he seems. 'Hydraulic despotism' and simplistic but genius technology are two of his many recurrent themes. He also lived for a time in an experimental home that was completely energy-independent- back in the seventies! So it's certainly possible, it may just take the political will to make it happen on large scale.

"In America, political will is a renewable resource." - Al Gore

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 6:19 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used in standard internal combustion engines, fuel cells and turbine engines with zero pollution.

A minor quibble here - "zero pollution" and "zero emissions" are false statements. They should be corrected to read "zero TAILPIPE pollution", since the manufacturing of the equipment to use them, and the manufacturing of that manufacturing equipment, and so on, definitely still does produce pollutants.

But I get your point - zero tailpipe emissions is a good start and a laudable goal. It doesn't have to happen overnight, and it doesn't have to mean that every vehicle everywhere is such a vehicle. What it means is that we start to REDUCE the amount of pollution we're putting out, hopefully someday to levels that are less than those of today, and levels that are actually REMOVING pollutants that are already present.

If that sounds crazy, picture this: A few years back, Volvo unveiled one of their new cars that features a unique type of catalytic converter. They unveiled it in a crowded conference room in Houston, Texas (according to Car&Driver Magazine), which at the time had among the worst air quality in the United States. They put pollution "sniffers" on the car, at the air intake and at the exhaust, all while nervous company wonks squirmed in their chairs at the idea of being in a closed room with a running automobile. The air quality results showed that that the gases coming out of the tailpipe actually had FEWER pollutants than the air going into the intake! So, theoretically, with this type of converter, we'd actually be cleaning the air as we drove, not polluting it further.

That's just a small example. Actually, cars are so much more efficient now than they used to be that this isn't even that uncommon. The majority of pollutants in the air around cities now isn't coming from most cars - it's coming from factories, power plants (most are still coal-burning, and not even "clean coal" as it's called), and large diesel trucks. The car gets most of the blame because there's not really a "car lobby" for keeping the government's nose out of our... uhhhh, tailpipes. :) The trucking lobby has resisted cleaner exhaust standards for years, but they're starting to come around, too, because they've realized that for a growing part of the population, "cleaner and greener" is actually a selling point.

As far as pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, I don't think the US is doing enough, but we are doing far, FAR more than places like Eastern Europe and China. Is it enough to help? Well, maybe if we can try to lead by example, it might get them on board.

And solar roof shingles? LOVE that idea!

I don't know how far we are from viable hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for mainstream use. I know Honda has a pilot program in the Los Angeles area that's putting some of their fuel-cell cars in the hands of consumers for testing and feedback. I'd love to get my hands on one.

And for those who don't think hybrids or electrics can be sexy, I'd point to the Tesla Roadster (still out of most of our price range at $100,000), an all-electric sports car with great performance and decent range. And Honda has shown several concept cars using hybrid drivetrains in new configurations. One such version coupled a four-door body with Accord-like interior dimensions with a front-drive V6 and a small electric motor in each rear wheel, which generated performance similar to that of the Acura NSX. Lexus has a hybrid version of their largest sedan that, all told, pumps out over 500 horsepower when all the motors hook up, and still averages over 20mpg - not bad at all for a 5000-pound luxo-barge.

One thing that HASN'T been addressed in any of this, though, is the battery packs, and what to do with them when they're dead and gone. They're considered toxic waste, so where do they all go?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 6:23 PM

KWICKO

Kirk: Don't think for a moment that the "zero emissions" remark was aimed at you. You mentioned something that I thought should be cleared up a bit, but mostly I get mad at the greenies who keep harping on about zero-emission vehicles, and I try to point out to them that there is no such thing. Even if we rely on our feet, there are still "emissions" that have to be considered, and when we use any kind of machine to get us around, there are most definitely going to be emissions at some point along the manufacturing chain.

Just wanted to clear that up, so nobody thought I was piling on or singling out anyone here.

So we're good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 6:32 PM

KWICKO

The CNG topic reminds me of the R12/R134 coolant switchover. When R12 became prohibitive because of the CFCs it released into the atmosphere, the switch was made to R134 systems, which is all fine and good, but 134 isn't as effective a coolant as R12 for a given volume. As such, systems that were designed with that in mind function just fine, but if you've ever been in a car that's simply been switched over to R134 in a system designed for R12, you'll find that it never really gets cold enough. I've been in several Hondas that were switched, and in the Texas summers, it gets just cool enough that you start wondering if you'd be better off with the windows down, so you switch off the A/C and roll down the windows... for about five minutes, after which you give up and turn the A/C back on, and the cycle begins again. The system just never cools the air enough, unless it was designed with R134's limitations in mind from the start.

To put that mindset into the CNG debate, I'm wondering if an engine could be "optimized" or designed from the outset to maximize its performance and uitility based around CNG, instead of merely being converted over.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 1, 2008 9:07 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems to me that the only energy sources that make sense for the future are hydrogen and solar energy. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used in standard internal combustion engines, fuel cells and turbine engines with zero pollution.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, but it's not the most abundant element on Earth. As you say, the best way to get Hydrogen on Earth, is to 'crack' it from water, a process which has to require more energy than the resulting hydrogen can release. Though it can also be released by Biomass (depriving algae of sulphur causes it to release Hydrogen rather than Oxygen during photosynthesis), I'm not sure of the efficiencies of that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 2, 2008 7:45 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

To put that mindset into the CNG debate, I'm wondering if an engine could be "optimized" or designed from the outset to maximize its performance and uitility based around CNG, instead of merely being converted over.

Mike

As I understood it ( and , mind ya, I'm a mechanic, not an engineer.) it's an inherent chemical/ atomic limitation of the fuel. The NG/air reaction just doesn't produce enough energy, compared to gasoline/air.

so if ya can settle for less performance, NG works fine. so smaller payload, or less speed, or less range, or bigger tanks that use up more space. A pickup truck used like a car, fer instance-- and, hey, how many of the ones on the street get used like that? Or a one seater with a range of 100 miles? Duh, how many SUVs get used like that every day? Or something with a *T*O*P* speed of 65 mph and marginal acceleration. Sounds like my daily surface street driving, and in fact, my commute to and from work-- 10 miles each way on surface streets, and I can do it in 25 min, vs 10 min on the freeway.

CNG also does burn cleaner, and, hey, here's an advantage we used to whisper to clients, " CNG is the same stuff you use to run your stove, so it's available everywhere, and the state hasn't figured out how to tax it as a motor fuel, so ya can rip off yer state government, save that 18+ cents a gallon tax at the pump."
You shoulda seen their eyes light up when we mantioned that...:<)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 2, 2008 10:51 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems to me that the only energy sources that make sense for the future are hydrogen and solar energy. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used in standard internal combustion engines, fuel cells and turbine engines with zero pollution.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, but it's not the most abundant element on Earth. As you say, the best way to get Hydrogen on Earth, is to 'crack' it from water, a process which has to require more energy than the resulting hydrogen can release. Though it can also be released by Biomass (depriving algae of sulphur causes it to release Hydrogen rather than Oxygen during photosynthesis), I'm not sure of the efficiencies of that.

You are correct about the energy to make hydrogen being more that you get out. The point of using hydrogen is that in the future when solar energy is abundant and cheap, you use a cheap clean energy source to produce another clean but more expensive storable energy source. The problem with fuels like ethanol is that not only does it take more energy to produce ethanol, the fuel used to produce it is more polluting than the ethanol. It makes more sense now with the high cost of solar energy to just put any excess created back on the grid. In the future the grid may become smaller and smaller and eventually only service large businesses that are too energy intensive to produce their own energy. It may be that battery technology will make converting solar to hydrogen unnecessary, but if I had to bet, I would say batteries will never be as clean and efficient as a burnable fuel.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 2, 2008 3:28 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Isn't natural gas a fossil fuel? What are the available natural gas reserves? Or are we projecting a "Bartertown" situation? I'm not sure that would work on a large scale.

Provided there are sufficient reserves of natural gas, why not revisit steam power? Especially for generating electricity at home.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

RE corn ethanol for fuel

One of the mistakes that researchers have made is to calculate the corn energy inputs AS IF the corn was being grown for food rather than fuel. Corn grown for energy could skip the multiple pesticide 'treatments' used to make corn cosmetically perfect, and skip much of the fertilizer and irrigation. I've written to several researchers about this error in their assumptions.

Another source for corn is 'waste corn' - corn that can't be sold as human or animal food due to disease, contamination or other off-spec characteristic. In this case while the corn/fuel transformation wouldn't be energetically efficient, it would be more efficient that simply dumping the corn.

Still, even given all that, breaking down cellulose into sugar so it can be fermented into ethanol is the obvious way to go. That way the wood chip waste from the timber industry, corn stalks and leaves, wheat stalks etc could be converted to ethanol for fuel. There are a few researchers doing work on this who've made excellent gains - what they now need to do is to go on to a demonstration project, But given Herr Bush's lack of funding for these things the projects are in limbo.

But that is all for the future.

There are two major uses for petroleum as fuel - electricity generating and transport. Electricity can be easily generated a variety of ways - solar, wind and tides for example. And transport could be MUCH more efficient - the IC engine is a dinosaur that needs to go away.

As has been shown time and time again, the technology exists TODAY to go off of fossil fuels. 'How' isn’t even an issue.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 2:57 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I bet they could expand this type of ethanol generation to include other forms of "biomass" including most forms of garbage and at the very least yard waste.

As far as generating electricity it's mostly King coal followed by nuclear and then natural gas. Oil is a distant fifth (behind hydropower) at just 3%. So it's not unrealistic to think that we could eliminate the use of oil for production of electricity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:23 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ah - That's right. Coal does generate most of the electricity in the US.

But the idea does remain the same - every fossil fuel we use now - as fuel - coal, oil, gas - can be replaced with something else just with current technology. People say we need a 'Manhattan Project' for energy. But the only thing between here and there, now and an energy independence - is investment. About a trillion dollars worth, or 1/3 the total cost of the Iraq War.

Ahhhh - what we could have gotten for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq War. Instead, we got baby Bush's money pit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008
030702846.html
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 4:12 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:

Provided there are sufficient reserves of natural gas, why not revisit steam power? Especially for generating electricity at home.

Why would you use Natural Gas for steam power?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 4:16 AM

FLETCH2

Saving energy would be a good first move. If you built better insulated houses using low energy lighting and appliances and gave each a thermopile that would be a good start. A thermopile is a type of geothermal unit. You bury it 300FT under your garden and in the summer you use if as a heat sync pumping the heat from your house into it. Since the ground remains relatively cool compared to the air this makes your AC vastly more efficient. In winter you use a heat exchanger to warm the house from the pile because at that point the ground is significantly warmer than the air. Add in solar water heating to help make up the shortfall and most of your heating needs can be met without burning fuel at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 12:12 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Saving energy would be a good first move. If you built better insulated houses using low energy lighting and appliances and gave each a thermopile that would be a good start. A thermopile is a type of geothermal unit. You bury it 300FT under your garden and in the summer you use if as a heat sync pumping the heat from your house into it. Since the ground remains relatively cool compared to the air this makes your AC vastly more efficient. In winter you use a heat exchanger to warm the house from the pile because at that point the ground is significantly warmer than the air. Add in solar water heating to help make up the shortfall and most of your heating needs can be met without burning fuel at all.

Ground source water to air heat pumps are already available now and are super efficient. Every one with a good well or a big enough pond should be using them right now. The initial cost is higher than a standard air to air exchange heat pump, but the cost is quickly recouped. It would probably even be worth drilling a well if you were going to stay in the same house for long enough.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:44 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
citizen wrote:
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 04:12
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided there are sufficient reserves of natural gas, why not revisit steam power? Especially for generating electricity at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would you use Natural Gas for steam power?

Well I was responding to the complaint that direct burn of CH4 in an internal combustion engine doesn't produce near as much power as gasoline. You can get a lot of power from steam. Stanely Steamer build a roadster in 1906 that could do 127 mph. Problems are, safety, weight reduction, and warm up times. But I've read some articles regarding new generation steam engines using ceramics and a flash compression system (sort of like a diesel)that eliminate the weight and warm up time issues. VW even had a startup company which was looking into it. Either they hit a dead end or got road blocked because you can't find much on it. Here's a paragraph on it from Wikipedia (so I can't completely vouch for it's accuracy as anyone can edit an article)...

"[edit] Enginion Steamcell
From 1996, a R&D subsidiary of the Volkswagen group called Enginion AG was developing a system called ZEE (Zero Emissions Engine). It produced steam almost instantly without an open flame, and took 30 seconds to reach maximum power from a cold start. Their third prototype, EZEE03, was a three-cylinder unit meant to fit in a Skoda Fabia automobile. The EZEE03 was described as having a "two-stroke" (i.e. single-acting) engine of 1000 cc (164 cubic inch) displacement, producing up to 220 hp (500 N·m or 369 ft·lbf).[7] Exhaust emissions were said to be far below the SULEV standard. It had an "oilless" engine with ceramic cylinder linings using steam instead of oil as a lubricant. However, Enginion found that the market was not ready for steam cars, so they opted instead to develop the "Steamcell" power generator/heating system based on similar technology"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:55 PM

KWICKO

It'd be interesting to see that in action. Being a two-stroke would be a big plus - twice as many power strokes per revolution. The problem with two-stroke gas engines is that they tend to use the gas as part of the lubricating system, which means mixing oil in the gas, which means WAAAAAYYY too many pollutants out the tailpipe. But a two-stroke steamer completely gets around that problem...

Hell, even a more efficient internal combustion engine would help. Rotaries still have some issues, but for their size and weight, they make fantastic amounts of power. Their fuel consumption tends to leave something to be desired, though.

Diesels are coming along, in terms of power, reliability, clean emissions, and even noise. I've been wondering why no one has done a diesel-electric hybrid. Well, no one but the railroads... ;P

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:55 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
....But the idea does remain the same - every fossil fuel we use now - as fuel - coal, oil, gas - can be replaced with something else just with current technology. People say we need a 'Manhattan Project' for energy. But the only thing between here and there, now and an energy independence - is investment. About a trillion dollars worth, or 1/3 the total cost of the Iraq War.

Ahhhh - what we could have gotten for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq War.....

Yeah it's a shame. But as long as there's big money in oil and no bid government reconstruction projects it's unlikely to change.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:59 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

It says they were going to into home electricty generation. I wonder if it will ever get to market.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 7:08 PM

FLETCH2

There's a submarket in Europe called combined heat and power, basically you generate electricity locally using natural gas of methane then use the waste heat and cooling heat from the generators engine for water and space heating. Some systems use modified diesel engines for the generator others use things like steam or stirling engines.

On the thermopile technology this firm makes something close to what I was talking about, it's a ground to air system, not a ground water to air one, ie a direct transfer sealed loop system.

http://www.earthtoair.com/installation-techniques.php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 5, 2008 5:30 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Hey Fletch2,

Good link. Here's another https://energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=2199

I've also heard of a variation where a homeowner uses his own influent water pipe for a heat pump. One things for sure, there's a lot of options out there and geothermal is one that can provide a lot of help. Unfortunately, unless you've got a lot of hot springs (like Iceland) it can only provide assistance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 6, 2008 9:18 AM

FLETCH2

I think they need a different name for the average back yard geothermal unit. It's not really geothermal in the way that the hot vents in places like Iceland are... in essence we are really using the Earth more for it's heat inertia than for the actual heating effect. The thermopiles use the fact that 300 ft down the ground stays at a more or less constant temperature, warmer than the air in winter and cooler in summer.

Living in the south my biggest energy cost is cooling. Now AC's have to work hard to transfer heat to already hot outside air, that takes a lot of electrical power. By contrast transfering that same heat to the much cooler ground takes less power. That's where more than half the savings will come from... cooling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE