On Oil and Taxes

[1369]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

[Wild Cobra]

I have yet to see economical nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is another expensive boondoggle from everything I have seen.

Please list the nuclear power plants worldwide that have been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: it would be a VERY short list)

I tied of you assuming what my unsaid viewpoints are.

I never said nuclear power was cheap. It is our best viable source for future needs. It would be foolish to think it's cheaper, but ignorant to think it isn't price compe ive as demand raises. We can keep building coal power, but at what cost to the ecology? The green weenies are right in some aspects. Although I disagree with the alarmists points on global warming, I wish to see CO2 production decrease. Nuclear power is more expensive than hydro, coal, and natural gas. It may be more expensive that wind, solar, etc. However, it has a limited footprint on the earth and is proven, reliable, and safe with advances in the last couple decades.

I don't know about you, but I love the landscape of the earth in it's natural for. I am a nature lover. I understand the necessity to drill for oil and dig coal, but I wish there was a better way. I see more and more wind mills go up, and I hate them. I understand the necessity, so I tolerate them. I am like that about many things.

I pay something like $0.08 per kWh. I haven't paid attention to it for a while. I expect that with increased energy needs to climb to $0.15 or more in the near future, especially as electric vehicles start being used. If they become 50% of the consumer cars, I would expect electrical prices to rise like gasoline has over these last few years. A forward thinking person would demand we increase our electrical infrastructure before it hurts the economy. We already see that happening with fuel costs. Want to see that in electrical costs too?

[RandomGuy]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

Pretty much right.

A bad wreck with a lot of "alternative" cars would mean some potential for some NASTY environmental damage.

Fuel cells in large buildings would be great from a generating standpoint, because it would allow for widespread storage of power to be used during peaks. One could simply generate an "average" amount of electricity at all times, and not have to "ramp" up during peaks (day) and back off during valleys (night).

This would make wind power and solar much more attractive, as the primary drawbacks of both sources are that they can be intermittant and therefore unreliable as primary power sources.

[Wild Cobra]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

This is the first I heard of it, but it has some merit. The conversion of electricity to hydrogen, then back to electricity, should be pretty efficient in the near future. Large power users can get cut rates during off hours. This could be a perfect system to sore energy during off hours, then supply your own during peak hours. It can save a large customer money and reduce the burden of the electrical grid. It then even provides power during outages!

Now what I don't get is the hazmat team for an accident related to fuel cells? What am I missing besides pressurized hydrogen?

[Wild Cobra]

This would make wind power and solar much more attractive, as the primary drawbacks of both sources are that they can be intermittant and therefore unreliable as primary power sources.

Looks like we had the same notion here. You are right about the wind and solar too. They can effectively be integrated into the system to store their inconsistant power.

[RandomGuy]

I tied of you assuming what my unsaid viewpoints are.

[/QUOTE]



(sighs heavily)
Dude, nowhere in my post did I say or assume anything about what you thought. I stated my opinion on nuclear power. No more, no less.

I have yet to see economical nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is another expensive boondoggle from everything I have seen.

Please list the nuclear power plants worldwide that have been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: it would be a VERY short list)

[ElNono]

Cool. That's gives me a new found respect for the work done here. The car can possible be cost effective once they take it to a low cost vehicle base. What did they use, a Lotus?

For me, to go mass market with such a concept still has limitations doe to shifting form fuel to electricity. So much more electricity is needed. We only use small amounts of electricity in our lives daily. Let's assume 1000 kilo-watt-hours per month. Take a low side average of driving 500 miles per month. At best, that would be about 430 kilo-watt-hours used monthly. As far as I know, most people drive about 15,000 miles a year. With that, we have more than doubled household consumption of electricity. This is fine if electricity can be kept at current prices, but with the increased demand, we will have severely increased pricing.

I like the idea if these electric cars. I just don't see this feasible until we build nuclear energy in abundance. I like these cars better than fuel cell cars. Get contaminated hydrogen once, and the fuel cell would need replaced. I agree people will generally recycle the batteries.

I am also concerned about the nominal 10% loss of storage capacity annually that plague this type of battery. It looks like these cars can be compe ive with internal combustion engines as production increases. What would the cost be to replace the batter pack every three years, or even five?

Battery like and electrical demand. Will this be solved?

Still, until such breakthroughs, we should not block the production of oil in the USA.

I'll tell you what's the story behind the aggressive development of Li-Ion for cars. Back in 2002/03, Toyota actually started selling the RAV4/EV car to the public. The RAV4 used NiMH batteries developed over many years by Panasonic. You can still find RAV4/EV vehicles today, with well over 100,000 miles still running. Quite a testament to how advanced they were on high-power NiMH batteries. There was just one caveat. The patents for high-power NiMH batteries were bought by GM in 1994, who subsequently sold the patents to Texaco (who later on merged with Chevron). Chevron spun off a subsidiary, Cobasys, who held the patent rights. They proceeded to sue Toyota. Toyota settled for 30 Million, and the assurance that Cobasys (Chevron) will supply smaller NiMH batteries for the Prius hybrid.
After that, Toyota pulled the plug on the RAV4/EV, since it could not get batteries for the car. This was 5 years ago. Cobasys refuses to produce or sell large high-power NiMH batteries. The patents expire in 2015.

[1369]

Pretty much right.

A bad wreck with a lot of "alternative" cars would mean some potential for some NASTY environmental damage.

Fuel cells in large buildings would be great from a generating standpoint, because it would allow for widespread storage of power to be used during peaks. One could simply generate an "average" amount of electricity at all times, and not have to "ramp" up during peaks (day) and back off during valleys (night).

This would make wind power and solar much more attractive, as the primary drawbacks of both sources are that they can be intermittant and therefore unreliable as primary power sources.

Well then, I wonder why we don't see any manufatcturers of small units ("Package Boiler" type operations) yet, or calls to retrofit buildings? Is there something in the manufacturing process that makes this cost prohibitive?

And WC, the HAZMAT remark had something to do with all the batteries/types of batteries needed to power a fuel cell auto IIRC.

[ElNono]

For all you smart energy folks in here (I just build the things, not design/justify them), I saw a program on Discovery/Nova/Something a year or so back and they were interviewing a scientist about fuel cell technology and he basically said applying it to autos was a mistake (inefficiencies and whatnot, not to mention that in a wreck you need to call a HAZMAT team to clean the mess), but that a good application would be in large office buildings/apartments to power themselves somewhat.

Anyone else ever heard of this?

The reason it's a mistake is that electric cars are about 20% more efficient, and it would cost about the same to build either type. Then if you add up the infrastructure costs of retrofitting gas stations with hydrogen pumps, the entire ordeal ends up being much more expensive.
Now, there are various different fuel cell types, but in the specific case of hydrogen, my understanding is that as soon as it makes contact with air, it turns into water, so I don't see the HAZMAT issue there. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

For houses it makes more sense, because you can convert gas->hydrogen->electricity with a small generator and provide both heat and electricity for a portion of the cost you would otherwise, plus you end up with less carbon monoxide emissions.

[RandomGuy]

I never said nuclear power was cheap. It is our best viable source for future needs. It would be foolish to think it's cheaper, but ignorant to think it isn't price compe ive as demand raises. We can keep building coal power, but at what cost to the ecology? The green weenies are right in some aspects. Although I disagree with the alarmists points on global warming, I wish to see CO2 production decrease. Nuclear power is more expensive than hydro, coal, and natural gas. It may be more expensive that wind, solar, etc. However, it has a limited footprint on the earth and is proven, reliable, and safe with advances in the last couple decades.

I don't know about you, but I love the landscape of the earth in it's natural for. I am a nature lover. I understand the necessity to drill for oil and dig coal, but I wish there was a better way. I see more and more wind mills go up, and I hate them. I understand the necessity, so I tolerate them. I am like that about many things.

I pay something like $0.08 per kWh. I haven't paid attention to it for a while. I expect that with increased energy needs to climb to $0.15 or more in the near future, especially as electric vehicles start being used. If they become 50% of the consumer cars, I would expect electrical prices to rise like gasoline has over these last few years. A forward thinking person would demand we increase our electrical infrastructure before it hurts the economy. We already see that happening with fuel costs. Want to see that in electrical costs too?

I don't see nuclear as the "best viable" source for future power needs.

Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks and costs that renewables don't. One the primary being the requirement for a LOT of water. Water will be just as scarce in the future as it is now. To get that water will require more energy, and forms of power that require water will have their efficiency diluted in proportion to how much water they use.

There will be a place for nukes, but they will not take anywhere near a predominant place in any future market-based mix.

As for the rest of it:

I agree. We will see a e in prices for electricity, as we have with other forms of energy. We already have, actually.

There will be some rather fundamental shifts in where we get energy, no matter what we choose for future transportation modes.

Time will tell what the mix will look like in 20 years, but I would bet more on renewables than nuclear.

[Wild Cobra]

(sighs heavily)
Dude, nowhere in my post did I say or assume anything about what you thought. I stated my opinion on nuclear power. No more, no less.

OK, this time my bad assumption.

Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Well then, I wonder why we don't see any manufatcturers of small units ("Package Boiler" type operations) yet, or calls to retrofit buildings? Is there something in the manufacturing process that makes this cost prohibitive?

And WC, the HAZMAT remark had something to do with all the batteries/types of batteries needed to power a fuel cell auto IIRC.

Well a lot of companies, especially ones that have mission-vital servers, already have battery/generator back ups.

We haven't seen much call for it, because electricity has been fairly cheap, generating sources have been "fossil-fuel" based, and such fuel cells are still a rather new technology.

As that changes, so will the way we build/use large buildings.

A good market-based strategy for this is for utilities to really ramp-up peak power charges, as is already being done in some places. This more closely matches how much it costs to generate the extra "peak" power.

If you can draw less power during peaks by using power that you drew overnight during the non-peak period, then it becomes economically viable to have some sort of storage system.

Economically viable= commercially viable.

I am seriously considering starting a company that does these kinds of retro-fitting and new buildings projects. It would be a LOT of fun, and a good idea to get in on the ground floor with a business in what WILL be a growth industry.

Heh, if I do so then you can bet I will get a uva lot more preachy about it.

[ElNono]

I pay something like $0.08 per kWh. I haven't paid attention to it for a while. I expect that with increased energy needs to climb to $0.15 or more in the near future, especially as electric vehicles start being used. If they become 50% of the consumer cars, I would expect electrical prices to rise like gasoline has over these last few years. A forward thinking person would demand we increase our electrical infrastructure before it hurts the economy. We already see that happening with fuel costs. Want to see that in electrical costs too?

Here's one more thing to consider when and if we make the change to electric cars, and why we can't correlate it 100% to our current gas situation.
Electric engines are 60% to 80% efficient, as opposed to ~20% for gasoline cars. What that means is that we're going to be actually reducing energy demand by a third or even a fourth of what we need now. Obviously, electric demand will go up, but then oil demand will drop considerably, and I bet a good amount of it will be rerouted to produce electricity.

[1369]

So RG, a fuel cell in a building application would be more like a big assed "battery backup" than an active generating source for the building?

And I do think we'll see more of this sooner rather than later. The last few state contractor licensing exams I have taken have started to cover hydrogen and fuel cell applications.

[ElNono]

Well a lot of companies, especially ones that have mission-vital servers, already have battery/generator back ups.

We haven't seen much call for it, because electricity has been fairly cheap, generating sources have been "fossil-fuel" based, and such fuel cells are still a rather new technology.

As that changes, so will the way we build/use large buildings.

A good market-based strategy for this is for utilities to really ramp-up peak power charges, as is already being done in some places. This more closely matches how much it costs to generate the extra "peak" power.

If you can draw less power during peaks by using power that you drew overnight during the non-peak period, then it becomes economically viable to have some sort of storage system.

Economically viable= commercially viable.

I am seriously considering starting a company that does these kinds of retro-fitting and new buildings projects. It would be a LOT of fun, and a good idea to get in on the ground floor with a business in what WILL be a growth industry.

Heh, if I do so then you can bet I will get a uva lot more preachy about it.

Do we get any ownership % for just bringing up the issue?
You could even have WC on the board of directors just for and giggles.

[RandomGuy]

OK, this time my bad assumption.

Sorry.

'Sokay.

[RandomGuy]

So RG, a fuel cell in a building application would be more like a big assed "battery backup" than an active generating source for the building?

And I do think we'll see more of this sooner rather than later. The last few state contractor licensing exams I have taken have started to cover hydrogen and fuel cell applications.

Yes. In essence a fuel cell would be a big battery in this application.

BUT

Given the potential for buildings to generate power using various schemes, varying from simple solar panels or wind turbines on the roof, to complex heat exchangers used to generate electricity, I see a lot of new power generation being done much closer to the source.

The way a hydrogen fuel cell would work, to my understanding, would be to crack hydrogen away from oxygen in water (by running electricity through it), store that hydrogen, then burn it later and use that energy to run a generator. The resulting water (burning=combining with oxygen) would then be re-used for the next round of hydrogen.

Normal chemical batteries rely more on the direct generation of electricity though chemical reactions.

[xrayzebra]

I don't see nuclear as the "best viable" source for future power needs.

Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks and costs that renewables don't. One the primary being the requirement for a LOT of water. Water will be just as scarce in the future as it is now. To get that water will require more energy, and forms of power that require water will have their efficiency diluted in proportion to how much water they use.

There will be a place for nukes, but they will not take anywhere near a predominant place in any future market-based mix.

I think nuclear power supplies about 90 percent of France electric needs.

RG, how bout we do this. Build a nuclear power plant on the coast, use the excess heat to desalinate the sea water and pipe it up to dear old San Antonio? Or just to heat the water and push it through the reverse osmosis filters, which I understand by heating it improves efficiency. I know our folks to the North doesn't want to participate (Austin) so let the go in the dark and use town lake for their water supply. Just a thought.

[RandomGuy]

Do we get any ownership % [in your energy retrofitting business] for just bringing up the issue?
You could even have WC on the board of directors just for and giggles.

No. Pony up the buckage for ownership percentages. I am, despite what some think, a capitalist.

WC knows some good stuff on chemistry and industrial engineering. He might make a decent consultant on some things.

[RandomGuy]

I think nuclear power supplies about 90 percent of France electric needs.

RG, how bout we do this. Build a nuclear power plant on the coast, use the excess heat to desalinate the sea water and pipe it up to dear old San Antonio? Or just to heat the water and push it through the reverse osmosis filters, which I understand by heating it improves efficiency. I know our folks to the North doesn't want to participate (Austin) so let the go in the dark and use town lake for their water supply. Just a thought.

... and the French government used massive amounts of socialistic subsidies to get that percentage.

I have heard some interesting news reports on a chicago-based company that suggests we can do a lot of interesting things with waste heat. Certainly we can get a lot of gains from being more energy efficient. That will be the easy stuff.

Honestly, I see a lot of rainwater capture systems going up.

(basic wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

(a more technical bit here)
http://www.darcoinc.com/rain-capture.html

Such things would also have some interesting applications in property rights.

If you harvest all the water on your property for storage, and none of that gets to the local aquafer that others draw from in wells, how is that dealt with in terms of water rights?

[RandomGuy]

RG, how bout we do this. Build a nuclear power plant on the coast, use the excess heat to desalinate the sea water and pipe it up to dear old San Antonio? Or just to heat the water and push it through the reverse osmosis filters, which I understand by heating it improves efficiency. I know our folks to the North doesn't want to participate (Austin) so let the go in the dark and use town lake for their water supply. Just a thought.

If you are on the coast where wind power is plentiful, why not just use the wind power?

That is precisely what one of the largest cities in Australia, Perth, does. They get a lot of their water from a desalinization plant that has 100% of it's power supplied by a wind farm built specifically for it. Nice little system.

[xrayzebra]

... and the French government used massive amounts of socialistic subsidies to get that percentage.

I have heard some interesting news reports on a chicago-based company that suggests we can do a lot of interesting things with waste heat. Certainly we can get a lot of gains from being more energy efficient. That will be the easy stuff.

Honestly, I see a lot of rainwater capture systems going up.

(basic wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

(a more technical bit here)
http://www.darcoinc.com/rain-capture.html

Such things would also have some interesting applications in property rights.

If you harvest all the water on your property for storage, and none of that gets to the local aquafer that others draw from in wells, how is that dealt with in terms of water rights?

Water capture is not a new thing in Texas. My Grandfather had one on his place. Only they called it a cistern back in those days. They didn't use it for drinking because all the water was collected from the roof. My Mother, all the women, loved the water from it to wash their hair iin. Very soft water. They had a screen over the opening in the cistern to keep leaves and debris out, also animals. So it is not a new concept. I don't think my HMO would take kindly to me putting a cistern beside the house, the dummies. the new trash cans already have them upset. Like no one has garbage cans. Well you cant let them show. I do. Sue me.

[1369]

If you are on the coast where wind power is plentiful, why not just use the wind power?

That is precisely what one of the largest cities in Australia, Perth, does. They get a lot of their water from a desalinization plant that has 100% of it's power supplied by a wind farm built specifically for it. Nice little system.

The folks along the Kenedy Ranch were going to try that (Wind power, not the desal) and it got shot down.

We were looking to bid/fabricate part of that.

[xrayzebra]

The folks along the Kenedy Ranch were going to try that (Wind power, not the desal) and it got shot down.

We were looking to bid/fabricate part of that.

I thought that was still in the works. What happened. Block someone view?

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly, I see a lot of rainwater capture systems going up.

(basic wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

(a more technical bit here)
http://www.darcoinc.com/rain-capture.html

Such things would also have some interesting applications in property rights.

If you harvest all the water on your property for storage, and none of that gets to the local aquafer that others draw from in wells, how is that dealt with in terms of water rights?

We have a company in Oregon that bottles water called "Oregon Rain."