Barack Obama on Energy

[Glenn Millam]

Barack Obama was on CBS the other night talking about energy policy. While he obviously doesn’t know a lot about fusion, and focus fusion in particular, he seems very driven to attack the problems that so many other politicians seem to ignore, or give only lip service.

http://www.barackobama.com/media/americas_oil_addiction_cbs/

Check out the rest of his site for a more extensive view on his ideas about moving now to help stave off the oil crisis. He is very balanced in his thinking, and I think he might be open to newer technologies.

And for some reason, when I look at the guy, I keep thinking “leader of the free world.” He exudes leadership, and from what I can see, he is getting things done in his short tenure in the US Senate.

[Frenetic]

I’ll give the guy credit for pointing out that the energy problem has not gone away just because the price of gasoline has dropped, that is something that needs to be pointed out repeatedly until our fellow Americans come to grips with a rather inconvenient truth. On the other hand, I have to fault him for some of the other things he said in that piece. “Alternative” fuels, particularly ethanol, are unlikely to be a good answer to our transport energy needs. Ethanol is a wonderfully effective mind-altering drug and rocket fuel. As a ground transport fuel it stinks. Bio-diesel is a better option, but will only be truly effective if we have some breakthroughs in the husbandry of lipid producing algae. Otherwise, bio-deisel will never be of much help the area of transport fuels.

Additionally, I do not believe US carmakers are succumbing to foreign competitors because they are building gas-hogs. This is not a redux of the 1970’s. It think what is eating Detroit’s lunch is that their vehicles are hideously overpriced. I never dreamed that I would see the day when a half-ton pickup would sell for $45K. The decline in sales by US auto-makers began well before this latest round of price hikes at the fuel pumps.

The guy sounds good and looks even better, but he relies too much on the brainless blah-blah spouted in various media outlets, none of which seem particular interested in acquiring and relaying actual facts anymore. I’ve learned that it is necessary to double-check, even triple-check everything the news people report now-a-days. I think we have had enough of that kind of leadership in the current administration.

If he were serious about solving these problems, at least in the area of transport fuels, he would be championing a law which obliges us to begin driving plug-in hybrid vehicles during the next five years, preferably plug-in hybrids that use diesel engines. It is well past the time that we should have sent the gasoline engine after Sinclair.

When I hear a politician explain to the American people that we do NOT generate energy and that we are living on a vast and ancient savings account given to us by nature, I will take that politician seriously. For now, all I see and hear among them is more-worser idiocy.

[Transmute]

Well lets all remember that politicians aren

[Frenetic]

Oh, I don’t disagree with you on bio-diesel, just on the ethanol. It’s a loser from the get-go and even more troublesome is what will happen to grocery prices if we allow The Usual Suspects hold sway in Washington on this one.

For starters, the “renewables” foolishness, particularly in the form of ethanol, gives our politicians an excuse to maintain the status quo. It’s a non-solution to a very real problem.

As I see it, we need to do the following:

1) Retire the gasoline engine. Go to an all hybrid automobile/light truck fleet.

2) Build fission plants to replace coal-fired power plants. If and when we get fusion plants, we’ll retire the fission plants with fusion plants. For now, fusion still looks to be a very remote possibility.

3) Clean up the water. Notice I said water and not air. Killing coal fired plant and reducing the use of gasoline as a transport fuel will do enough to solve the air pollution problem. The real problem is water pollution. It is difficult to solve and if we fail to address it, we really will ruin the atmosphere.

Yes, I know. I just started a “discussion”.

[Transmute]

Corn to ethanol, yes I agree that is a joke, but cellulose to ethanol (or butanol) has much greater promise, all agricultural waste could become fuel without harming food production.

1. If we retire the gasoline engine what do we replace it with? Hydrogen has major limitations in storage and fuel cell prices have got to drop a full 10 fold! Batteries could replace short range transport, Metal-air fuel cells have potential, but lets be honest all of this requires massive infrastructure change.
2. I would love to replace coal with fission: pebble bed reactors, maybe even thorium cycle, but the general public will never go for it, their too afraid of the N word (no not the personified N word, the N word erroneously associated with giant mushroom clouds.)
3. Ethanol does not present the same ground water contamination problems, ethanol is very biodegradable.

[Frenetic]

Transmute wrote: Corn to ethanol, yes I agree that is a joke, but cellulose to ethanol (or butanol) has much greater promise, all agricultural waste could become fuel without harming food production.

Yes and no. That “waste” would be put to better and far more cost effective use if it were used to rebuild the soils. Also remember that ethanol is only about two-thirds as efficient as gasoline in an internal combustion engine.

Everyone always brags about how Brazil got by using ethanol. What they invariably overlook or fail to mention is that Brazil bought out the plants that made the old Volkswagon Beetle. Why? Because that type of engine can be pulled and overhauled in a day. Ethanol tears internal combustion engines to pieces in fairly short order.

Transmute wrote: 1. If we retire the gasoline engine what do we replace it with? Hydrogen has major limitations in storage and fuel cell prices have got to drop a full 10 fold! Batteries could replace short range transport, Metal-air fuel cells have potential, but lets be honest all of this requires massive infrastructure change.

We replace the gasoline engine with diesel engines driving hybrid vehicles. The savings in fuel consumption would be huge. First and foremost, the diesel engine is vastly more efficient than the gasoline engine. The modern diesels actually pollute less than gasoline engines, provided they are fed a clean fuel. Additionally, bio-diesel is about 89% as efficient as diesel fuel distilled from crude oil.

This one conservation measure alone would let us put an enemy like Hugo Chavez-Friaz out of business without ever having to fire a single shot.

Transmute wrote: 2. I would love to replace coal with fission: pebble bed reactors, maybe even thorium cycle, but the general public will never go for it, their too afraid of the N word (no not the personified N word, the N word erroneously associated with giant mushroom clouds.)

Granted, there are a number of die-hards still flapping about nuclear power plants and/or anything having to do with anything “atomic”. They are losing credibility as this is being written. Our so-called “news media” are doing an excellent job of self-destructing. This latter point has its good and bad points.

Transmute wrote: 3. Ethanol does not present the same ground water contamination problems, ethanol is very biodegradable.

I don’t disagree here, but point out that ethanol creates a whole other set of pollution issues its advocates neglect to mention. Ask anyone who ever visited Brazil while the Brazilians were still burning ethanol as fuel and you will realize that I am not pulling your leg on this one. Brazil, by the way, no longer burns large quantities of ethanol. They are burning gasoline. American oil companies helped them find their own oil and built refineries there since the 1970’s.

[Transmute]

Ethanol really is not that bad, all that needed to modify an engine for it is to change the fuel air ratio, and replace pieces exposed to the liquid ethanol with stainless steel or plastics. Despite having only 2/3 the energy per mass as gasoline, ethanol burns better then gasoline under compression and engines with very high compression ratios can be used thus increasing the amount of power per engine mass considerably.

Why diesel engines anyway?, why not foil bearing turbines? Turbines can be more efficient (at least in a hybrid platform) and it does not care what fuel it runs on, you could run on any liquid fuel, not to mention that they are smaller and easy to manufacture.

I would like to see how biofuel ethanol is a greater pollutant then gasoline, I

[Frenetic]

Transmute wrote: Ethanol really is not that bad, all that needed to modify an engine for it is to change the fuel air ratio, and replace pieces exposed to the liquid ethanol with stainless steel or plastics. Despite having only 2/3 the energy per mass as gasoline, ethanol burns better then gasoline under compression and engines with very high compression ratios can be used thus increasing the amount of power per engine mass considerably.

Have you priced stainless steel lately? Have you ever had to fabricate anything out of it? All I am saying is that we should get ALL the facts before we leap into something this tricky in such a massive way.

Transmute wrote: Why diesel engines anyway?, why not foil bearing turbines? Turbines can be more efficient (at least in a hybrid platform) and it does not care what fuel it runs on, you could run on any liquid fuel, not to mention that they are smaller and easy to manufacture.

Turbines are only more efficient than diesels when they are kept under a steady load. We tried using them in locomotives for a while and there were numerous problems. A train running across country non-stop would use less fuel per ton-mile than a diesel-electric, but as soon as you had to use that engine in switch yard it turned into a ravening fuel-hog. There is also the problem with very high exhaust temperatures. One turbine driven locomotive set the pavement of an overpass on fire while sitting under the structure at idle. Remember Parnelli Jones? He drove a turbine powered race car in the Indy 500. Know why they outlawed turbines on the race track? The exhaust temps caused troubles with the track and damaged the other cars.

Turbines are very good for airplanes, ships and stationary power plants. They aren’t too terribly good for automobiles, trucks and trains.

Diesel engines are the best choice we have among a group of poor candidates for our transport energy needs. They are not perfect by any means, but they are one whole heck of a lot more reliable and cleaner than the other options we have on hand at the moment.

I would like to see how biofuel ethanol is a greater pollutant then gasoline, I

[Transmute]

Well a plastic lined fuel tank and fuel lines then. Plastic are cheap, heck most of those parts area already made of plastic. Look there already making E85 capable trucks and cars for a few hundred dollars above regular models.
—
That why I said hybrid for turbines, you can run the turbine at a constant load to charge the batteries, even when you consider the efficiency loss of the generator and the batteries a turbine with a recuperator would still be a more efficient, especially if it

[Frenetic]

Transmute wrote: Well a plastic lined fuel tank and fuel lines then. Plastic are cheap, heck most of those parts area already made of plastic. Look there already making E85 capable trucks and cars for a few hundred dollars above regular models.

Ethanol itself is not all that corrosive. It’s the combustion byproducts you get when you burn the stuff in an internal combustion engine that are the problem. That hasn’t changed any as far as I know. I haven’t seen one of these E85 vehicles in operation and have yet to hear what their engine lifetimes are. I’ll believe they are “E85 capable” AFTER I’ve seen the maintenance records.
—

That why I said hybrid for turbines, you can run the turbine at a constant load to charge the batteries, even when you consider the efficiency loss of the generator and the batteries a turbine with a recuperator would still be a more efficient, especially if it

[Transmute]

I have not seen any research suggesting extensive corrosion problems with E85, especially any research that claims ethanol

[Frenetic]

I have not seen any research suggesting extensive corrosion problems with E85, especially any research that claims ethanol

[Transmute]

I already covered the fuel system, just line it with plastic or corrosion resistent metals, it not expensive and they are alreayd doing it.
—
I asked you to look it up, but here are some links:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm
http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/gmshev.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_12_14/ai_72765923
As I mention before there no variable load on the turbine, its more fuel efficient then a diesel or gasoline engine in such a hybrid configuration. The exhaust gas is not a problem for a <40kw turbine, you can run bleed air over the exhaust system if need, turbines already do this to keep cool, or even better with such hot exhaust you can run a thermocouple or steam turbine and increase the fuel efficiency to up to 50% making it as efficient at a fuel cell, but less massive (though more complex) and more fuel variable. They are already working on making combine cycle engines with steam or thermalcouple enhancements, do I need to provide links?
—
I’m already aware of the limitation of biofuels (see fusion oil thread) biodiesel are limited feedstock choices, we can make ethanol (or better yet butanol) on a much wider varity of feedstocks, most importently agriculture waste! How much land is required for soybeans to biodiesel? You want cheap energy to replace oil first things first get all the enregy we waste in our waste (hey that kind of catchy). I’m not against biodiesel, i’m just for what products we can most efficently extract for what we get, biodiesel from soy will have its place, ethanol (or butanol) from cellulose waste will have its, methane from garbage will have its, etc, unless cheap fusion comes around then its everything into oil.

[Frenetic]

Transmute wrote: I already covered the fuel system, just line it with plastic or corrosion resistent metals, it not expensive and they are alreayd doing it.
—
I asked you to look it up, but here are some links:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm
http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/gmshev.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_12_14/ai_72765923
As I mention before there no variable load on the turbine, its more fuel efficient then a diesel or gasoline engine in such a hybrid configuration. The exhaust gas is not a problem for a <40kw turbine, you can run bleed air over the exhaust system if need, turbines already do this to keep cool, or even better with such hot exhaust you can run a thermocouple or steam turbine and increase the fuel efficiency to up to 50% making it as efficient at a fuel cell, but less massive (though more complex) and more fuel variable. They are already working on making combine cycle engines with steam or thermalcouple enhancements, do I need to provide links?

All of those units are experimental and no where near the final engineering stage. We could start building diesel engine driven plug-in hybrid units next year if Congress would act. Additionally, all three of the examples you showed me are driven by methane or propane, not ethanol. Both methane and propane are vastly more efficient fuels than ethanol.

I do understand about waste heat recovery systems. I have already built more than one co-generation plant, okay? Jamming all that stuff into an automobile that will not be an out and out threat to your average driver or mechanic is just wee bit down the road from now. We need to do something TODAY. Right now. Preferably we should be doing something yesterday. Yet, here we are, still yakkity yakking about stuff that isn’t ready to be pulled off the blooming drawing boards. Can you show me where find a Seebeck device capable of handling the temperatures coming out of a turbine? I don’t know of one that exists yet and their conversion rate is about fifteen percent, not that different from the better grade of solar cells, rather than fifty percent often claimed for them.

There will ALWAYS be a variable load on any ground vehicle and the turbine driving it, whether it be direct drive or turbine over electric will be required to deal that variation in load. It cannot be avoided. That is the way the physics work. Anyone telling you otherwise has not thought the matter all the way through. Thermodynamic processes are notoriously unforgiving and inflexible.
—

Transmute wrote: I’m already aware of the limitation of biofuels (see fusion oil thread) biodiesel are limited feedstock choices, we can make ethanol (or better yet butanol) on a much wider varity of feedstocks, most importently agriculture waste! How much land is required for soybeans to biodiesel? You want cheap energy to replace oil first things first get all the enregy we waste in our waste (hey that kind of catchy). I’m not against biodiesel, i’m just for what products we can most efficently extract for what we get, biodiesel from soy will have its place, ethanol (or butanol) from cellulose waste will have its, methane from garbage will have its, etc, unless cheap fusion comes around then its everything into oil.

I have not nor will I ever advocate using land in agricultural production for the production of fuels. That rules out the idea of using soy beans for the production of bio-diesel. Down that road lies madness and starvation. Only Archer-Daniels-Midland could favor such a thing.

So let’s talk about cellulose as an important and overlooked resource, shall we? As it happens, I agree with you on this point. However, the chemistry involved in extracting ethanol from those materials is wasteful. A far better approach would be to convert the cellulose into methane. The yield per pound of feedstock is much better in this process and you get a vastly superior fuel. Granted, methane is best used for stationary power, but as it happens, we really do have a need for cleaner stationary power. Better yet, when you convert cellulose to methane you fix a lot of nitrogen in the solids left over from the reaction and that makes an excellent fertilizer. Not only would this greatly improve the economics of the digester, but it would also reduce the amount of fertilizers we would need to make in plants burning hydrocarbons. We get a triple whammy out of “cellulosic” methane that we cannot get out of ethanol.

You do realize that we are fellow travelers, you and I? All we are arguing about here is which route to take.

Your turn.

[Transmute]

I was not trying to suggest diesel engine over a turbine ethanol engine, I was suggesting a turbine engine over a reciprocating engine, the fuel is irrelevant. Would you admit that any serial plug in hybrid is

[Author]

Posts