|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2012 14:13:16 GMT
glenn: We don't even need a subsidy for that. Right now there is a company that is converting large diesel engines to run on natural gas. It is still a very small company, but plans are to convert not only over the road vehicles, but large farm vehicles as well.
NDSU is still working on a hydrogen/diesel engine. Prob right now is the metal fatigue that hydrogen introduces. Premature valve failure/head cracking etc.
What we envision is using wind to produce H on farms. This one still has a ways to go as storage etc are a problem as shown at the research site in Minot. Using carbon fiber tanks etc does eliminate the storage problem, but those tanks are reallllllly expensive.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 18, 2012 18:43:38 GMT
The problem is not the technology to convert or manufacture engines to use Bio/CNG/LNG/H (or electric for that matter). The problem is building out the infrastructure to support 200 million+ users.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2012 18:50:20 GMT
curious: H is prob the most viable replacement energy source as you can produce it "on site".
What NDSU is working on right now is to find the correct metalurgy that will withstand the chemical reactions with H. Catapillar is one of the co-funders of this study.
So far, they have gotten up to approx 3500 work hours before the engine starts showing fatigue. I thought this would be simple to solve, but it seems it isn't. I do think it will be solved tho. As diesel keeps rising in price, alternatives keep looking more attractive.
IF President Obama had any balls, that is where the funding would be. But then, in cities etc, one would use a lot of elec, and we can't have coal fired power plants. So damn stupid it is unbelieveable.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2012 18:51:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 18, 2012 22:22:42 GMT
The ancient Romans and Greeks tried something similar for when the wind don't blow. Called galley slaves. They were initially volunteers also. All these alternatives have problems that are related to energy density, and/or containment, etc.. as you noted with H. CNG is big and bulky taking up valuable cargo space; LNG requires cryogenic storage and constant venting (difficult in a vehicle - think a few hundred or thousand of them in a underground garage - BOOM!! ); Bio (including algae) uses up enormous land area/water, etc. The list goes on. Plain fact is, there is no equivalent (or even partially satisfactory) substitute for the fossil fuel that Mother Nature busted her fine ass for 100million years to create for us. We owe it to her to use what she so generously provided. PS: I read the other day that a couple of large East Coast refineries were shutting down for financial reasons - oil is too expensive for them to make a profit. Yet we have in this country, something like 1.2trillion barrels of oil waiting to be extracted. And that doesn't count a couple quads of NG, and mountains of coal. Stupidity doesn't begin to describe this administrations energy policy. - oh wait! I forgot. They don't have an energy policy.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 19, 2012 1:03:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 20, 2012 2:46:19 GMT
Mr. Green will say anything to be re elected. "President no longer worried about CO2: focus on alternative energy is economic says Obama, no mention of climate" But Wait Now he is into claiming he is for cheap energy. Really? "Everyone knows about the big anti-oil moves from Obama and the Democrats, like rejecting the Keystone pipeline and continuing to block drilling in ANWR, but if you want a picture of how systematic and extreme their anti-fossil-energy policies have been, take a look at the list compiled by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings. As soon as they got in the Obamatons started revoking all the permits that were in the pipeline: for exploration, for mining, for drilling, for building power plants. Everything was shut down to almost nothing, and that is the way it has stayed." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/president-no-longer-worried-about-co2-focus-on-alternative-energy-is-economic-says-obama-no-mention-of-climate/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 22, 2012 3:38:35 GMT
Mr. Green speaks from the pulpit of science. Heels click. Arm reaches skyward. Chin juts out as the oratory begins. "Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe" "Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar. If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave." blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Mar 22, 2012 7:54:38 GMT
So true, so if the physical world doesn't bend your way, bend the minds instead.
George Orwell was THE prophet of the 20th Century, hands up those who thought it would never happen !
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Mar 22, 2012 8:13:43 GMT
Re hydrogen:- www.economist.com/node/15981031pretty good summary of the way things are with hydrogen cars, junked, and lots of work still to do on electrical generation.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 22, 2012 17:35:24 GMT
Mr. Green speaks from the pulpit of science. Heels click. Arm reaches skyward. Chin juts out as the oratory begins. "Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe" "Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar. If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave." blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/Let's see. What is normally the end point of 'social engineering'? Large scale war and bloodletting, if human history is a guide. Been there done that, got the scars. Such a guy.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 22, 2012 19:34:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2012 0:23:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 23, 2012 1:23:34 GMT
That's a rhetorical question, right?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2012 2:35:52 GMT
That's a rhetorical question, right? In President Obama's case, yep.....it would seem to be.... ;D
|
|