I wrote the following, think that I am around 80% ready and like some response from the group. Originally I included taxation and vehicle standards for developing countries, but it was too much and it will be separate articles.
Hakan http://energy.saving.nu/resources/scamartists.shtml The choices of fuel economies, an introduction. by Hakan Falk, http://energysavingnow.com It is two fairy tales that are famous and very telling. The first is "the Emperor's new cloths" and the second one is "how to make soup on a nail". The relevance that those fairy tales have to the current energy development, efficiency, planning and politics are immense. They are representative for the current traditional energy interests, who are leading the politicians and populations in a circular ghost chase. Keep them occupied and dreaming, seems to be the aim and to make as much money as possible from current energy situation the goal. By delaying any real movement towards "ready for use" diversified solutions, they are buying them self time to maintain status quo and to get in dominating positions on "new technologies". The reality is that almost all the technologies are 70 to 120 years old and this delaying games have gone on for a century now, all to protect the traditional energy interests. In the following I am keeping to liquid and gaseous fuels and will handle the solid fuels at a later time. I will make educational descriptions of the situation and at the same time shed some light on the current energy situation. The US "Natural Gas" crises, a public rehearsal of the coming oil crises. Today, June 2003, it is suddenly obvious that US find itself in an emerging "Natural Gas" crisis. Only a few month ago, I had discussions with people who still believed that it was an abundance of "Natural Gas" and that this was the way forward. When I pointed to the R/P values (Reserves/Production) for "Natural Gas" and the fact that they are lower than for oil, I was met with disbelief. The last couple of month the situation has changed. The US "Victory" over Iraq and the stabilizing of oil prices, have done nothing for the spiraling "Natural Gas" prices. Greenspan and a number of other economists had to announce the presence of an energy demand crisis. Already now, it is not enough "Natural Gas" in US for the usage and the R/P values are considerable less than 10 years. Possible actions are, á Try to rise the import from Canada and Mexico. It is already large and the transport systems need upgrades. It is also a short term solution that need follow up with other possibilities. á Expand transport and terminal capacities for importation. á Rapidly expand production of City Gas (Hydrogen) from coal. Not being a signature of Kyoto will be a positive in this scenario. Wonder if somebody knew that in beforehand? á Rapidly open up earlier "reserved areas" for exploration. Have we heard that before? How could so many opt for "Natural Gas" solutions and get into the current situation? The R/P values for "Natural Gas" has been recorded for quite a while, the situation cannot be surprising. Was it some influence from the "Hydrogen hype"? It has been sold as a solution where the next step would be the Hydrogen economy, with an abundance of renewable energy from water. How many know that they are manipulated into a "Coal economy"? Nothing is said about this most plausible course of remedy for the problem. A typical example of "the traditional energy interests at work". It is hard to tell if the "new situation" is created by design or ignorance. But it is a little bit suspicious that an "ignorant foreigner" like me has been aware of the situation for quite a while and the US "experts" are taken by surprise. Maybe the serious US scientists, at least the ones I know of, also are victims of "the traditional energy interests at work". The 1930's the most active decade in energy research. If we look at the most discussed energy solutions discussed today, they are all 70 to 120 years old. The only exception is PV cells for electricity generation. In Germany during the 1930's, it was a feverish search and development of energy solutions, most of the results and documentation transported to US after WWII. Results was achieved on Hydrogen (City gas) and synthetic fuels from coal. Since the German activities was a threat to the backbone of the American economy, the documentation moved to US was buried in the archives. Germany was doing a lot on energy, because of its energy dependence and its coal, but lack of own oil resources. Hydrogen (city gas) from coal and fuel cells was mainly interesting for the submarines, a lot of efforts went into coal research. Will be very handy for US now. Biofuels, renewable and sustainable. Both the first Ford and Diesel engines was demonstrated with biofuels. Both Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel was strong proponents of biofuels, Ford Ethanol and Diesel vegetable oils. These men had a well documented belief in the future of biofuels. If the production and use of Hydrogen is 100 years, the use of biofuels are thousands of years. The ancient use in lamps is sample of a long and well described history. Biofuels are mostly alcohols or oils. Ethanol, vegetable oils and biodiesel are examples of liquid fuels. Fermentation in bio digesters, waste treatment plant or waste dumps are example on gaseous fuels, together with gasification processes of plants and trees. The most common and direct replacement of fossil fuels would be Ethanol as replacement of gasoline and biodiesel/veg. oils for diesel and heating oil. Biofuel and biofuel mixes are standardized with the a letter and a number representing the mix. 10% Ethanol in a mix with 90% gasoline would be represented as E10 and pure Ethanol as E100. 20% Biodiesel mixed with 80% fossil diesel would be B10 and pure Biodiesel B100. I will use this representations in this article. Brazil is unique in the experiences on using Biofuels in large nation wide scale, for around 20 years they had their Ethanol program. Recently a number of qualified studies have been made and resulted in a renewal and a strong commitment to the biofuel economy. Here are some interesting information, á Brazil basic fuels are E28 and E100 and E28 mix is expected to increase to higher E value. á The price at the pump is today lower for E100 than for E28. á The basic source for Ethanol is sugar cane and residues are used as fuel for the distilling. á The program have contributed to large employment opportunities for both un-skilled and skilled labor. á Large positive impact on the growth and national economy. á Positive environmental effects have been recorded. á Through their large hydroelectric power and biofuel economy, they now have more than half of their energy coming from renewable resources. á They went through the engine adoption process without major upheaval. It also spurred some new and valuable development, like the new VW flex fuel engine for economy class cars, that run on any mixes from pure Gasoline to pure Ethanol. á As major country with large population, they have proven the viability of a biofuel economy and are committed to a continuation. EU is moving rapidly towards a biofuel economy with special weight on Biodiesel. Suggestions and financial support for developing towards a hydrogen economy has been capped, with the motivation that the development stage and needs of hydrogen does not call for massive grants. On Biofuels the EU commitment spurred activities like, á Tax incentive and grant programs have been suggested and implemented by several member states. á Implementation goals have been agreed and some member states have local higher goals. á Vehicles produced in EU have been prepared for biofuel mixes since 1996. á Introduction of E10 as octane enhancer and B20 as lubrication enhancer for ULS diesel. á Several countries like Germany, France, Austria, etc. have already a wide distribution of B20. á High fuel economy and biofuel compatibility for vehicles. VW 3L diesel engine, support any mix from pure fossil diesel to B100 and is one sample of the direction of vehicle development. á Biodiesel compatible burners for heating boilers. Biofuels represent a diversified alternative, with the possibility to create small and flexible production units. This is not necessarily in the interest of "the traditional energy interests at work" and create sometimes some non-understandable political maneuvering. It is however the only reasonable route for developing countries, that want independent local energy supply, for the necessary energy resources to develop. Many developing countries either have started with biofuel programs or are investigating. For anyone interested, I recommend the web site "Journey to Forever" and its biofuel discussion list. The discussion list not only covers the nitty gritty of producing biofuels, but is also very active in discussing energy politics and related issues. You will also find other members from around 100 countries. Depletion of Fossil oil, "Natural" gas and Coal. Something that most of the politicians and some of their "experts" do not officially want to recognize, is the rapid depletion of the world's fossil energy resources. This numbers are well known and distributed on a regular basis. You often hear of information distributed on "a need to know basis", but in this case you can talk about information received on a "do not want to know basis". I have published information about the depletion issues at, http://energy.saving.nu/biofuels/oildependencies.shtml http://energy.saving.nu/resources/oilreserves.shtml and http://energy.saving.nu/resources/energyrisk.shtml As shown in earlier, "The US "Natural Gas" crises, a public rehearsal of the coming oil crises.", it is issues to take seriously and the depletion figures are not scare mongering phantasies. It has been a campaign to paint US as fulfilling some sort of "World policeman", a picture that could well be painted by "the traditional energy interests at work". The truth is that if US is a policeman of the world, it must lead to suspicions of police corruption. Most of the conflicts that this policeman have been involved with, are issues of energy resources, energy transport and political support for financial groups with specific agendas. Also officially, the US policies are to defend US interests abroad and one of those interests is to secure the availability of energy resources. Without this, US would be in the same situation on oil as it is on natural gas. As a side note, we have to expect that US now has a larger understanding of the motives behind Japan's attack on Perl Harbor, after US inflicted a painful oil blockade on Japan. It was not an attempt to "liberate" Hawaii, who has no oil resources, but rather to try to scare US to lift the blockade. It was a major stupid mistake, to even contemplate that US could be intimidated this way, but the misjudgment was done. For the sake of future generations, we have to face realities. The sooner the worlds energy needs and dependencies are solved by renewable sources, the faster we can give our children and grandchildren a hope for a better future. The absolutely senseless and irresponsible waste of our fossil resources must stop. The pillage and plundering with accompanying politics must also stop, otherwise all the prospects of a peaceful world remains unachievable dreams. The Hydrogen hype, "the traditional energy interests at work". As mentioned, it is around 80 years old technologies and have been used in submarine technologies for a long time. It is often talked about as the energy solution for the future. The most common source of hydrogen, is gasification of coal and it has been used as City gas (also called Town gas, Producer gas, Gengas, etc.) for a century. It can be produced by electrolysis of water, but the electricity needed is very close to the energy gained. If the electricity is produced by hydrogen also, it becomes negative. The future value of hydrogen is not really as an energy resource, when not produced from fossil fuels, but more as a conversion and energy storage method. Only in a situation of large coal reserves and/or large electricity surplus production, hydrogen would be valuable as fuel. In short term the large electricity production could come from nuclear and other traditional sources and on very long term Solar and Wind production could come into play. Hydrogen is like the fairy tales. To make 10 kW of Hydrogen from renewable source like electrolysis of water, you need 9-11 kW of electricity. Where is that electricity coming from? You do not need much knowledge to see that it is not enough hydrogen in this process, to produce more Hydrogen. To produce electricity from Hydrogen in fuel cells it is up to 50% efficiency, the same or less as a NG or diesel electricity plants. So if you put your 10 kW of Hydrogen in a fuel cell, you have 3 to 5 kW to use. Where will the original 9-11 kW come from and how much pollution will that be? I suspect that the talk about Hydrogen as a clean fuel, does not include the production of it. I think that "the traditional energy interests at work" have some basic (nucleus) plans for this. Hydrogen was very much in use 50 years ago and is still common in the former Soviet Union. It is called "City Gas" and produced from gasification of coal. The major known reserves of coal are in US, Russia and EU. The use of coal have gone down and with the current use of coal, the known reserves will last around 200 years (R/P value). For US the R/P value is 235 years, but in a Hydrogen economy the R/P values will rapidly go down to double digits. It is a worrying attitude, sold by "the traditional energy interests at work". They want you to believe that coal is a salvation, even if the usage goes up 3-4 times and that US still would have coal for 235 years. It might come as a surprise for many, but it does not work that way. The more you use of a finite resource, the faster it will be finished. For me it is logical, how about you? A comment from David T., a participant from the Journey to Forever biofuels discussion list ( http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html ) who remember: "Your perspective on hydrogen is probably right and needs saying in public. You make comparisons with gas from coal. I remember in the days before methane was discovered in the North Sea (known as 'North Sea' gas rather than 'Natural' gas here in Britain by the way), and most towns & cities had their gasworks sited near the railway, canal or navigable river bringing in the coal. In Britain, the Commonwealth and elsewhere the product was known as 'Town Gas' rather than 'City Gas'. The carbon monoxide content made it more toxic than methane. Apart from the points you made, these old gasworks are among the most polluted sites in the land, with naphtha, phenols, tars & sulphur compounds still in the soil, long after the bad egg smells have gone away. The same would apply to gas from biomass (or turkey guts), though with modern pollution abatement methods I suppose it can be kept under control. An interesting side note was that tar from the gasworks was used to surface roads at bus stops because it does not soften in the oil dripping from bus engines. At a meeting a couple of years ago, a delegate suggested that the best policy for global warming would be to burn all the world's trapped methane before it escaped into the atmosphere. Then there is the issue of methane hydrate on the sea bed.............." His memories are the same as I have from Gasverket i Vartahamnen, Stockholm, Sweden. During WWII, it was more than a million cars that was driven on so called "Producer Gas" or more commonly "Gengas". A much faster and aggressive program than the ones that the Bush administration and certain President candidates are suggesting. As an other participant from the biofuels list ( http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html ), Gabarlis, pointed out, "Gengas from wood" is a mixture of Nitrogen, Carbon monoxide, Carbon dioxide, Hydrogen and Methane. Finally, I have read a lot from people who actually worked with Hydrogen and they are all agreeing that renewable Hydrogen is not a "ready for use" technology and even if some ideas might be promising, it will need a lot of work. Almost all of them are pointing to risk scenarios in handling of Hydrogen and also the almost inevitable leakage of Hydrogen in the atmosphere, have seen estimates on up to 15 to 20%. Wondered about the inevitable leakage until an other valuable member of the Journey to Forever biofuels list, Michael Allen, took the time to explain it to me and pointed out that it was an old problem connected with "City gas" also, "This is not, as is commonly supposed, just caused by poorly maintained pipes: The hydrogen molecule is so very small that it can pass through atomic sized gaps. As a consequence, some pretty sophisticated equipment is required for its compression, storage and distribution. Even stainless steel pipes can lose hydrogen molecules! When I was working with the stuff, I was warned of the severe explosion risk caused by hydrogen lines, particularly in ducts, due to its very wide flammability range and its ability to find the smallest hole to escape through. I also remember that I was on no account to put my finger over a leaking hydrogen jet because the small molecule would pass through my skin and cause an embolism. In fact the only advantage of hydrogen storage and transportation that I ever discovered was that it doesn't hang around when it leaks: It heads straight up and tries to leave this planet. For this reason, hydrogen carrying pipes were/are always brought around the outside of buildings. It is true that NASA has made some truly remarkable advances in the safe handling of hydrogen. But somehow I can't see my local filling station being able to match NASA even though they have considerable experience in handling compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) as transport fuels. Hydrogen is in an entirely different league. And then, of course, there is hydrogen embrittlement." Michael's insights impressed me as usual and introduced some for me unexpected consequences. The current "Natural gas" implementations have often been described as a stepping stone into the Hydrogen economy, probably by "the traditional energy interests at work". We now have to question if those installations are up to the task and if the upgrade to Hydrogen might be so substantial, that it disqualifies the stepping stone argument. I have also worked many years with the installation community and are looking forward to the education quality improvements that are needed for the Hydrogen economy, it will be very easy for those "new" engineers to assimilate the knowledge that we are trying to promote at http://energysavingnow.com . It is also quite obvious that Hydrogen, regardless of source, represent a highly centralistic alternative. The need of large production facilities, the tight security demands and the centralistic control that is needed for distribution and use, need large resources. We are already seeing a rift in philosophies on how to solve the energy equation. US is quite alone in promoting a future hydrogen economy solution, which in its initial phases must be based on the large US coal reserves. EU is aggressively pursuing a biofuel economy and the rest of the world are showing more interest in biofuels than hydrogen. The European and Japanese car manufacturers are already producing biofuel compatible vehicles. If US will be isolated in its hydrogen economy, it will be difficult for its domestic auto industry to compete internationally (even if most of them have owner interests in the European auto industry). Nuclear energy. Before we get into a discussion and evaluation of nuclear energy, I like to make my own position clear on this. I am against nuclear power. Not because any technical reason, but because I do not belive that any Nation can be trusted regarding nuclear weapons. When I say any, I mean any and without exceptions. This is not because I learned more about nuclear technology, but because I learned more about humanity. The only Nation that used nuclear bombs, have with the DU munition already proven that they could not refrain from using it in weapon technology again. The EU tried to do a cost evaluation of different energy sources, including the social costs of pollution etc. This cost exercise did not include accident costs since this would be a very elaborate and almost impossible calculation. A very interesting exercise that clearly show a very high cost for fossil oil products and nuclear end up to be a cheap fossil electricity source. Solar, wind and biofuels also come out as very economical , due to its lower social costs. We have somewhat more experiences than others of nuclear power plants. In the beginning of the 1970's, Theodore Rosenthal (co founder of Energy Saving Now web site) and I had the task to provide and manage an engineering group who did the piping stress control calculations on the two last built nuclear power plants in Sweden. It has been generally regarded as safe, from weapon point of view, to allow one stage nuclear power plants, although this idea have been challenged lately. If everybody was using only one stage power plants, the R/P value for nuclear resources is around 60 years. I can therefore see the commercial temptations of having two classes of users of nuclear power plants. The first being the one stage group and the second the "trusted" multistage and fuel reprocessing group. The second one would then have an abundance of energy resources in what the first group consider as a nuclear waste problem. They would even be willing to pay to get it solved. Using multi stage and fuel reprocessing technology will of course extend the R/P value with several multiples. If we want to be joking in a cynical way (black humor), we could see the DU munition as a disposal system, whereby the first group get back their final nuclear waste. The geographical problem of fossil energy resources. I heard a very telling joke a while ago and it was an American comedian who said, "the real problem with the Middle East region is that they are sitting on top of our oil". This leads us to another and more serious problem, US administration and law makers have no humor, they seriously believe it. To describe the geographical dependencies, I will take the US situation as an example. Since US is the largest energy user in the world, with its 4% of world population that are using 25% of the world energy resources, their situation also have global repercussions. To develop and secure deliveries of energy and other resources, the industrial countries have developed a complicated web of foreign policies, control and interference in other countries sovereignty. The cost of diplomacy, "financial aid" and military, are not mirrored in the price of imported energy, since it is a part of the National budget. US is in a peculiar situation with R/P values less than 10 years for both oil and "natural gas", but for coal and nuclear they are very much higher. This means that US is totally dependent on import of oil and "natural gas". It also means that US is dependent on "willing" providers, production capacity, transport capacity, terminal capacity and storage capacity. Being the only superpower with considerable military capacity, the problem of "willing" providers can always be arranged on fairly short time frames, as we have seen in recent events. The capacity problems are more difficult and miscalculations will lead to crises, as exemplified by the current "natural gas" crises in US. If we look at the geographical spread of resources and large users, it show large anomalies for oil and "natural gas", but correlation for coal and nuclear. In between, we have very large and populated parts of the developing world, that do not have resources and due to poverty cannot afford the fossil energy resources to advance their development. It is almost crystal clear that the developing countries (and some developed) only chance is renewable and locally produced energy, like from biofuels, solar and wind. Every day that passes without actions in the latter group is a day of lost opportunity. Potential for energy savings and conservation. The way that energy is used today, leaves very large potentials for energy savings and a more responsible use of energy. If they were to be combined with a move to more use of renewable energy, it could change the situation significantly in short time frames. On one gallon of fuel, four VW Lupo 3L goes the same distance as one ordinary SUV. If you look at fuel cost, five VW Lupo 3L would go the same distance as one gasoline SUV. Each SUV would occupy the same road space as 2 VW Lupo and considering the large amount of 1-2 occupants commuters, it make a large difference on the build up of cues. I personally think that the L-classification (liter per 100 km) is a very good initiative from VW. With this a typical American SUV would be a 14L vehicle. We would also find a large choice of German and Japanese vehicles that fit in the 5L to 7L range and even some that are in 3L to 5L range. There are also concept cars in the 1L to 2L range. A very promising development. In the construction sector are equally large gains possible, but on other time scales. The potential to improve the energy use in industrial processes are large, but nowhere as large as transport and building construction. Taken together, it is just about feasible to freeze the current use of fossil energy to todays level up to year 2020 and lower it beyond. This with reasonable energy planning and improvements in energy use and a gradual growth in use of renewable energy resources. With more aggressive energy planning, we can even do net reductions in the use of fossil energy resources. It is also clear that the developing countries have no future with fossil fuels and the best plans for them, must be based on sustainable and renewable energy, combined with energy efficiency. The time when industrialized can dump last years energy inefficient products in the developing countries should come to an end now. "Ready for use" technologies. "Ready for use" technologies and products are key for rapid relief of energy use and depletion. I will briefly go through the cycles. The cycle for making a new car model is 6 to 8 years from decision to have the first cars rolling out of the production line. Any major change like change of engine and drive train in existing model, is a question of 3 to 4 years. Growth of sales and production is a start period of 2 to 3 years. First after 10 years after decision, it can be expected that a steady state is reached, were the production and demand can be balanced and the success of the model can begin to be clear. The replacement cycle for cars is around 10 to 12 years. This is the cycle were the cars are expected to be on average replaced by new cars. This means that a decision now about a new car model, will not have a full impact until 20 years. This is the environment that the auto industries are living in. It is very small chances to improve on this, because the industry have always tried to optimize this formula, it is very large money to be done if it can only be shortened with days or weeks. In light of the above constraints, we can measure the promises made by US politicians. They all seems to accept the large hydrogen development handouts and promise to put minimum one million cars on the road 2010. It is quite simple mathematics to see that it must be true or deliberate ignorance and it can for sure not be the vehicles for which development money are granted. We must suspect that "the traditional energy interests at work" have been active again and planted some misconceptions. The true fact is that any improvements on energy use by 2010 have to be done with "ready for use" technologies and vehicles that are on the road today. Unfortunately it is unlikely that any Hydrogen technology will make a major impact to 2010, but vehicle fuel economy, diesel technology, Electric vehicles, Hybrid vehicles, Ethanol, Biodiesel and vegetable oils could give results in that time frame. The technologies are there and the vehicles are ready for delivery. One other big advantage is that to a large extent, existing vehicles can be converted and kits for this are already on the market. The second largest energy consumption is HVAC in offices and homes. The largest consumption is based on electricity, "Natural gas" and oil. Indirect the electricity also uses large amount of "Natural gas" and oil. The buildings replacement cycle is 1% to 2% a year, so it takes 50 to 100 years to renew the stock of buildings. This mean that any improvements in construction techniques and building codes for new buildings, will be hard to measure by 2010. The only possible faster actions on this side is direct improvements of construction, improvements when redecorating or renovations, higher efficiency of equipment, improvements in control equipment and policies. It is however possibilities to introduce energy saving measures and more efficient energy use. It is much to do with improvements and changes of habits, any government in industrial countries have plans for this. Mostly it is plans for improvements in insulation and air tightness. It can also be encouragements of hot water production with solar panels. Other plans that are not specific, are interest free loans for any proven energy saving improvements. Quite useful and effective, often with some frame work attached that ensures fulfillment of the goals. The energy loans can also be used for changing HVAC systems etc. We at "Energy Saving Now" worked successfully with simulations and methods to incorporate storage/emission design and construction of buildings. Experiences from our work the last 35 years, show that more adequate control equipment and control policies, that incorporate the buildings storage, can give equal or bigger savings as "weatherize". This is especially true in office, commercial and industrial buildings. Other important findings, resulted in calculations and measurements that not only considered air temperature, but also the effect of emission/radiation on comfort in buildings. Around these findings, it is possible to introduce a new set of energy programs that can save energy on short time frames. Hakan Falk © EnergySavingNow.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/sOykFB/k9VGAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
