Eco-Supercar
#21
05-26-2007 | 01:16 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 774
From: Canada
RE: Lotus and Tesla
I think it's pretty easy to see that any discussion about energy must be inherently political. In short, I had to debate with myself whether I would make some further contribution to what I beleive this thread is at least somewhat driving at - that somehow, some way, personal automobiles can be "green".
I think that they can, but not by burning ethanol in their engines.
I used to work as a laboratory technician in the fossil and nuclear electric power industry. I'm writing this only to provide a different, but easily understood perspective on a relatively simple subject which has been very purposefully made complex. What is very complex is the politics of energy - ultimately, who is going to "win" and who is going to "lose" in the future of energy.
First, some of the easy stuff about what's happening right now.
All fossil and nuclear power plants waste tremendous amounts of energy when the steam that exits their steam turbines is converted back to water so that it can be pumped back into a boiler to be turned into steam once again.
This conversion to water is done by what is called a water tube condenser. Cold water is pumped through the condeser's thousands of tubes and steam which exits the turbine passes around the tubes where it is converted into an unimaginable "rain storm". This water is collected in a large tank under the condenser, and it is then pumped back into the boiler where it is once again turned into high pressure steam.
The cooling water within the condenser's tubes is heated as it cools the steam. When it exits the condenser it is considerbly warmer than when it entered, and here is where the incredible waste of energy occurs.
The warm water then usually goes to one of three places - 1. back to the river, or ocean, or lake, from where it came; 2. into a cooling tower (Three Mile Island's are the perfect example); or 3, into a large cooling pond.
In short, much of the energy consumed in any power plant ends up heating the atmosphere.
It would be much more energy efficient to have that warm water running through the floors of homes, or removing snow from the roads, or heating large malls or public botanical gardens in the middle of winter, than have it dropping down a cooling tower, or running into a heated lake. To me, heating the atmosphere is like opening the windows in the middle of winter - a complete waste of energy.
It would take a distribution system to move that warm water to where it is needed, but even though such a distribution system would pay for itself many times over in a short period of time, without any public discussion whatsoever, the energy that we all pay for is wasted.
Now to energy alternatives for the future.
Quote from here:
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources.../Stirling.html
"A solar dish farm covering 11 square miles hypothetically could produce as much electricity per year as Hoover Dam, and a farm 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwestern U.S. could provide as much electricity as is needed to power the entire country."
(This link also makes an interesting claim about solar power:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...ower_world.php )
The desert areas of the US are vast. We all know that much more than 100 by 100 miles could be covered by solar panels. There are also vast, windy, mountain and foothills areas that have low human population. These ares could be covered with wind farms whose power could carry much of the load for the no-Sun hours. Theoretically at least, any excess sun or wind power could be used to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen could be used in fuel-cell electric vehicles, or hydrogen directly as fuel in modified internal combustion engines.
Alternative energy sources have their downsides, but who really cares if there's a large solar array in the middle of the cloudless desert areas of the US, and who cares if there are large noisy wind turbines on the tops of mountains or in the foothills areas around them?
Answer: owners and investors in big power and oil companies, that's who. Those who are invested in "old technology" capital equipment and those that design, manufacture, transport, maintain and "feed" it. Together, they have almost unimaginable political power to determine government policy in many areas (foreign policy, for example) but in this case, how tax money is, or is not, spent for energy research, investment, etc.
Their and their political slaves’ mission is to maximize their investment, and to limit public "debate" to only that end. It's easy to see that for any nation to do a complete turn-around in national energy policy would create a tremendous loss on investment that would have to somehow be absorbed by the economy.
Practically speaking, such a thing is a difficult thing to do in a democracy. The powers that be in the "old" energy world want to remain the powers that be in the new, and they will do anything to ensure that they are. This is the true political reality that we individual voters and consumers must understand. We must first know what we want done and then we must vote for representatives that we are certain will carry out our will.
I think that they can, but not by burning ethanol in their engines.
I used to work as a laboratory technician in the fossil and nuclear electric power industry. I'm writing this only to provide a different, but easily understood perspective on a relatively simple subject which has been very purposefully made complex. What is very complex is the politics of energy - ultimately, who is going to "win" and who is going to "lose" in the future of energy.
First, some of the easy stuff about what's happening right now.
All fossil and nuclear power plants waste tremendous amounts of energy when the steam that exits their steam turbines is converted back to water so that it can be pumped back into a boiler to be turned into steam once again.
This conversion to water is done by what is called a water tube condenser. Cold water is pumped through the condeser's thousands of tubes and steam which exits the turbine passes around the tubes where it is converted into an unimaginable "rain storm". This water is collected in a large tank under the condenser, and it is then pumped back into the boiler where it is once again turned into high pressure steam.
The cooling water within the condenser's tubes is heated as it cools the steam. When it exits the condenser it is considerbly warmer than when it entered, and here is where the incredible waste of energy occurs.
The warm water then usually goes to one of three places - 1. back to the river, or ocean, or lake, from where it came; 2. into a cooling tower (Three Mile Island's are the perfect example); or 3, into a large cooling pond.
In short, much of the energy consumed in any power plant ends up heating the atmosphere.
It would be much more energy efficient to have that warm water running through the floors of homes, or removing snow from the roads, or heating large malls or public botanical gardens in the middle of winter, than have it dropping down a cooling tower, or running into a heated lake. To me, heating the atmosphere is like opening the windows in the middle of winter - a complete waste of energy.
It would take a distribution system to move that warm water to where it is needed, but even though such a distribution system would pay for itself many times over in a short period of time, without any public discussion whatsoever, the energy that we all pay for is wasted.
Now to energy alternatives for the future.
Quote from here:
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources.../Stirling.html
"A solar dish farm covering 11 square miles hypothetically could produce as much electricity per year as Hoover Dam, and a farm 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwestern U.S. could provide as much electricity as is needed to power the entire country."
(This link also makes an interesting claim about solar power:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...ower_world.php )
The desert areas of the US are vast. We all know that much more than 100 by 100 miles could be covered by solar panels. There are also vast, windy, mountain and foothills areas that have low human population. These ares could be covered with wind farms whose power could carry much of the load for the no-Sun hours. Theoretically at least, any excess sun or wind power could be used to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen could be used in fuel-cell electric vehicles, or hydrogen directly as fuel in modified internal combustion engines.
Alternative energy sources have their downsides, but who really cares if there's a large solar array in the middle of the cloudless desert areas of the US, and who cares if there are large noisy wind turbines on the tops of mountains or in the foothills areas around them?
Answer: owners and investors in big power and oil companies, that's who. Those who are invested in "old technology" capital equipment and those that design, manufacture, transport, maintain and "feed" it. Together, they have almost unimaginable political power to determine government policy in many areas (foreign policy, for example) but in this case, how tax money is, or is not, spent for energy research, investment, etc.
Their and their political slaves’ mission is to maximize their investment, and to limit public "debate" to only that end. It's easy to see that for any nation to do a complete turn-around in national energy policy would create a tremendous loss on investment that would have to somehow be absorbed by the economy.
Practically speaking, such a thing is a difficult thing to do in a democracy. The powers that be in the "old" energy world want to remain the powers that be in the new, and they will do anything to ensure that they are. This is the true political reality that we individual voters and consumers must understand. We must first know what we want done and then we must vote for representatives that we are certain will carry out our will.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
