One small point about nuclear energy:
Okay, I hate to take issue with my own peeps at National Review and elsewhere, but the latest issue of the magazine perpetuates a basic confusion about energy. The second item of “The Week” in the April 4 issue, discussing the hysteria about Japan's nuclear situation, has everything right until the last sentence, which reads: “The United States should continue to pursue nuclear power as an alternative to Qaddafi oil.”
[. . .]
We could double our nuclear plants overnight, and carpet the nation with windmills and solar panels if you prefer “green” power, and it would do virtually nothing to reduce our oil imports for a simple reason: we do not use oil to generate electricity.
And another reminder from the comments: Oil is a global commodity. Oil produced here is not "ours"; it belongs to the oil companies who buy the drilling rights, and it is sold wherever in the world the companies can get the best price. So "boosting U.S. oil production" to reduce our "dependence on foreign oil" is a fiction.
Comments
Leo:
Have to agree with you there...
We're not (nor will ever become) THAT much of an isolationist (as a nation) that we're "all for us and no one else"...NOT in today's world.
Good call.
Then why the "drill baby drill" mantra?
Because Littlejohn, supply & demand, If we drilled the oil we have available it would...TA DA! Increase supply, so regardless the "worldwide" price the simple fact of having more of it (especially close to home) would lower the prices of all the products oil is used to manufacture.
And we have more oil here than anywhere else.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6933/US-Has-Earths-Largest-Energy-Resources
Actually drilling for oil in the US to increase supply will have little impact on price. The only thing it will do is reduce the trade deficit and keep Dollars in the US. This by far is the largest single impact and is good. The increase in oil production versus the increase in demand cannot be made up for by drilling in the US. Think of it as Gold. If the US produced more gold, the impact would have little affect on the world price.
Electric cars do not use less energy than gasoline powered cars. The coal/natural gas/nuclear fired plant that produce electricity are only about 30% efficient. Coal is cheaper per BTU so producing electricity is cheaper than burning oil to make the car travel the same distance. Natural Gas is a bit more expensive than coal and it has the same problem in terms of efficiency. Nuclear by far is more expensive and actually has a lower efficiency due to operating temperatures being lower than a gas turbine or coal fired boiler. If you want to truly convert a fuel from a renewable source I believe the cleanest and smartest direction to go is to use Wind power. Wind power can be converted to two types of energy sources; hydrogen and electricity. Hydrogen is a denser source of energy than gasoline. This would allow a smaller tank with an equivalent travel distance per tank as with gasoline or diesel. The hydrogen fuel cell is efficient and using an electric motor which is over 95% efficient at low and high speeds makes this the best choice for powering a car.
Separating hydrogen from oxygen (water) is about 60% efficient. It is done using electricity. Batteries have limited life limiting travel distance per charge while a hydrogen fuel cell would be as good if not better than petroleum fuel based energy sources. In addition hydrogen could be pumped into a tank in a matter of minutes while charging a batter takes hours.
A fuel cell in a home could power that home, taking it off the grid. It does not take the wind to blow continuously to make enough hydrogen to power our world. During the night and non peak loads, the wind can still produce electricity and convert it to hydrogen and in this manner store energy.
I have said it many times; it is time to stop burning energy (we done it for thousands of years) to convert it to work. With nuclear we are using a 21st century energy source with a 17th century conversion process. It is time to use technology to our advantage.
Energy comes in many forms. Some are low density (few Btu
Thank you, Tim.
Thank you, Bill.
(well said...by both)
My minivan has a 20-gallon tank. Gasoline has about 20,000 BTU per pound, while hydrogen has about 60,000 BTU per pound.
However, to carry around that much energy with hydrogen, it'd take 6.2 standard compressed gas cylinders (9.25" in diameter, 5' tall) at 10,000 PSI.
Currently, I haul roughly 120 pounds of gasoline in a full tank, and I'd only need 40 pounds of hydrogen, but what's a gas tank weigh? Five pounds? Maybe ten? Those hydrogen cylinders weigh 135 pounds apiece when they're empty, meaning I have to haul around almost a half-ton of extra weight.
Gaseous hydrogen is not the easiest substance to deal with, from an engineering standpoint. The molecules are TERRIBLY small, and so it's almost impossible to prevent the stuff from leaking. Most proposals for hydrogen fuel in cars is looking at handling the fuel as a metal hydride. That goes a long way to solving the leakage problem, but it's slow and difficult to fuel up that way.
I am sorry I posted two versions. When I checked back, I did not see my post and thought I had not submitted, my bad.
Harl, you forgot that a gas engine with coolant, drive train, radiator and battery way more than the cylinders you are speaking about. Hydrogen cylinders do not weigh 135 pounds. I have moved them many times.
Hydrogen gas has 3 times the energy content and will use a eletric motor at over 90% efficient, probably closer to 95%. A gasoline engine is 23 to 27% efficient.
So out of each pound of hydrogen you utilize 57,000 BTU's while gasoline would utilize 5,400 BTU's to do the same work. In simple math, 10% hydrogen does the same work as gasoline. Four electric motors would weigh far less than components of a gas or diesel engine. The size of your tank is far smaller than what you have calculated.
Yes, hydrogen is the smallest atom and due to its size, it leaks through very small holes, cracks, welds. But at the same time, these small leaks are not problematic because they readily bond with air. There is not enough of a leak to cause an explosion.
They are using hydrogen fuel cells in Canada and are testing fuel stations for feasibility.
There are different sizes of cylinders. I was referring to a "K" cylinder, USDOT specification 3AA2400, which has a water capacity of 110 pounds. The Scott catalog lists it as having a nominal tare of 135 pounds.
I've moved them, too - but sure I haven't lifted them by hand. They're about 50% heavier, empty, than a 28-gallon propane tank.
While the conversion from electricity to motive force is about 90% efficient, fuel cells are about 50% efficient in converting the chemical energy of hydrogen to electricity, and you have another 10% parasitic loss in the fuel cells. According to Ulf Bossel of the EFF, "The "power-plant-to-wheel" efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operated on compressed gaseous hydrogen will be in the vicinity of 22%".
A 20 gallon tank of avgas is slightly over 120 pounds, which has the same energy as about 40 pounds of hydrogen. At 10,000 PSI, you can put 1332 grams of hydrogen into 22.4 liters of space. That's 2.93 pounds in 5.9 gallons. That means that while the hydrogen would weigh less, it would take 82 gallons to store it, at 10,000 PSI.
I don't know how to calculate the tank size any smaller. It is what it is. Hydrogen takes a big tank to hold very many pounds, because it's so bleeping lightweight.
My concern about hydrogen leaking was not with explosion. Hydrogen being so small, it flees the "scene of the crime" with great speed. On the other hand, if you have a leaky tank, you'll have to hire a tow truck every time you want to use the motor home, because your tank will be empty.