Biofuels are a waste of time

[Borgholio]

Yeah superchargers are going up wherever they need to go, based on distance or major crossroads. In our area, Tesla installed stations in Inyokern and Mojave...both of which are tiny shitholes barely deserving of a dot on the map.

[aerius]

Energy density is not the be-all end-all of car propulsion. The best efficiency we can achieve with the internal combustion engine is in the new Prius which achieves 40%, with most gas cars closer to 25%. Electric engines are already in the 90% range, which is to say 7x more efficient (10% waste vs 75%). Granted, this still puts gasoline at 10x the effective density, but that only means that electric cars will be a few hundred lbs heavier, which is nothing close to a deal-breaker.

The math doesn't work that way. If it did a 99% efficient engine would get you 10 times further than one which is 90% efficient because the latter has 10 times more waste. You've got a gallon of gas, at 100% efficiency it'll move you X miles. At 90% you'll go 0.9(X) miles, and at 99% it's 0.99(X) miles. If we did the math your way, 99% would get you 0.9(10)(X), or 9(X) miles, which is clearly impossible and violates the laws of physics in more ways than I can count.

Gasoline engines are in the 20-30% range depending on how you drive, diesels are somewhere around 40%. As for the efficiency of electric cars, while the motors are ~90% efficient, there's still significant losses in the power inverter/control system as well as the battery pack itself. There's a reason that both of them have liquid cooling systems complete with radiators, without a cooling system they'd toast themselves from all the waste heat. Inverters are somewhere in the 96-97% range but who knows how efficient the battery pack is. Individual cells are in the 85-97% range depending on how much power you're sucking out of them, but a battery pack with hundreds of cells is going to be worse because of cell voltage tolerances and mismatches.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Fair enough, but it doesn't change the point I was making. Battery energy density is enough to cover most peoples' needs with today's technology, and that will only grow more true in the future, while gas cars continue to become more efficient and neither requires installing vast amounts of refueling infrastructure, leaving hydrogen-fueled cars as a solution in search of a problem.

[Zeropoint]

I have just discovered that fission reactors can be made FAR smaller than I thought possible. Check out this project from NASA: the SAFE. Smaller than a gas engine, although I suppose that's just the reactor and not the whole power plant. Kind of heavy, though . . . I'll have to beef up the rear suspension if I mount one in a DeLorean.

[Sky Captain]

Biofuels make lot of sense if you are using organic waste to create them. That way you don't tear up pristine land or compete with food production. I don''t know how what fraction of liquid fuel demand if most of the wastes were used up could be met, but certainly that would be better than just letting that shit rot in a landfill. Aircraft, long distance trucks and ships will need hydrocarbon fuels unless some breakthrough happens in supercapacitor or battery technology allowing energy density around 1/3 of hydrocarbon fuels. Current and near future battery technology just aren't up to the task.

I have just discovered that fission reactors can be made FAR smaller than I thought possible. Check out this project from NASA: the SAFE. Smaller than a gas engine, although I suppose that's just the reactor and not the whole power plant. Kind of heavy, though . . . I'll have to beef up the rear suspension if I mount one in a DeLorean.

Only problem such unit would probably cost you several million $$$ even if something like that becomes available to civilian market at some point in the future.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The flip side of this is, the estimated world reserves of uranium are on the order of several million tons.

The estimated world reserves of petroleum are in excess of a trillion barrels, or somewhere upwards of a hundred billion tons.

And that's before we count coal and natural gas, or the potentially nigh-limitless reserves of biofuels, or things like ammonia and hydrogen that can be produced using fully sustainable energy.

Nuclear power is a good idea- but it's not a 'forever solution.'

It isn't no. But it is The Stop-Gap We Need.

We have reached the point (due to political intransigence and greed, frankly) that in order to avoid 4 degrees of warming, we have to start cutting carbon emissions right the fuck now. We cannot wait fifty years until nuclear fusion comes online (if they manage to commercialize either a Tokamak or Stellarator design). Thorium salt reactors will also work, allowing us to extend the time we rely on fission if we absolutely have to.

That way you don't tear up pristine land or compete with food production. I don''t know how what fraction of liquid fuel demand if most of the wastes were used up could be met, but certainly that would be better than just letting that shit rot in a landfill.

Oh it absolutely is better, because when it rots in a landfill under anaerobic conditions it produces methane, which as a greenhouse gas is 20 times worse than CO2

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on nuclear fission. Unless you can go back to 1979 in a time machine and prevent the Three Mile Island meltdown, there's just no way to restore the public's faith in a technology that has been demonized in fiction for decades and whose torch won't be carried by big businesses because the break-even point for a reactor takes decades in a business climate where CEOs are lionized and crucified on the basis of a few quarterly earnings reports. Without moneyed interests backing an idea in our for-sale political system and media, it's just never going to happen.

If the Western world had continued to invest in nuclear power for the last 4 decades, we might not even be talking about climate change today, but we didn't and now we have to do things the hard way. The good news is that a majority of the public no longer takes climate change denial seriously and the combination of the Paris agreement and China's internal cutbacks have now put us on a path where we can potentially avoid the collapse of human civilization. The bad news is that we're decades past the point of no serious consequences. Unless people come up with a very clever solution that no one has thought of, the only thing that can save us from the myopia of our parents is commercially viable nuclear fusion, which aside from the obvious benefit of clean and abundant energy, could also generate enough power to run the fossil fuel cycle in reverse and create oil by sucking hydrocarbons out of the air.

[jwl]

Probably, but I'd expect not so much that it's wiped out even in part. You're talking about an energy density 1.6 million times greater than gasoline. You can spend 99.9% of the energy gained on processing it, you're still netting a return 1,600 times greater than gasoline (and that's not knowing what it costs in energy to get gasoline).

The flip side of this is, the estimated world reserves of uranium are on the order of several million tons.

The estimated world reserves of petroleum are in excess of a trillion barrels, or somewhere upwards of a hundred billion tons.

And that's before we count coal and natural gas, or the potentially nigh-limitless reserves of biofuels, or things like ammonia and hydrogen that can be produced using fully sustainable energy.

Nuclear power is a good idea- but it's not a 'forever solution.'

Breeder reactors allow you to create enough nuclear fuel that it will last longer than the sun will, so they pretty much are a forever solution.

The main thing is, the purpose of this energy density talk is utility in cars, and a fission reactor in a car is unrealistic. One reason being that a fission reactor that doesn't kill you weighs an awful lot in of itself, but the main is that they are really, really expensive. It's the equvilent of asking to make a car out of solid gold because its ductility might make better crumple zones.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on nuclear fission.

Well then, we are fucked. Excuse me as I wail and gnash my teeth in despair.

Oh wait. You are just fucking wrong. Looming climate change has had a tendency to change people's minds.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/suppo ... nergy.aspx

Peak support was in 2010, it has dropped since then for Fukushima reasons (but still over 50%), and a concerted campaign could change that. Particularly with an emphasis on bringing 3rd and 4th generation power plants (with their improved safety systems) online.

Unless you can go back to 1979 in a time machine and prevent the Three Mile Island meltdown, there's just no way to restore the public's faith in a technology that has been demonized in fiction for decades and whose torch won't be carried by big businesses because the break-even point for a reactor takes decades in a business climate where CEOs are lionized and crucified on the basis of a few quarterly earnings reports. Without moneyed interests backing an idea in our for-sale political system and media, it's just never going to happen.

Well excuse me as I wail and gnash my teeth in despair. Maybe I shall rip my shirt open to chest hair while I weep manly tears.

Oh wait. GE builds modular Gen III reactors (ABWRs). They are practically pre-fabs, have a construction cost around 10-15 billion USD, and produce 1.35 GW of power each. The PRC is practically swarm-building them and similar designs with heavy state investment. Doing this is something we could actually get bipartisan support for. The republicans are all about corporate welfare (and what better way to do corporate welfare than to subsidize construction costs?), the democrats want to tackle climate change. Holy Shit.

This is actually the reason my socialist ass is voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary instead of Bernie Sanders. He wont do it. She might.

We almost built 2 of these in Texas earlier this decade in a largish public/private partnership, but that involved 18% ownership with TEPCO and Fukushima put the breaks on that for financial reasons. But it is feasible. Hell, start in the fucking red states.

The bad news is that we're decades past the point of no serious consequences. Unless people come up with a very clever solution that no one has thought of, the only thing that can save us from the myopia of our parents is commercially viable nuclear fusion, which aside from the obvious benefit of clean and abundant energy, could also generate enough power to run the fossil fuel cycle in reverse and create oil by sucking hydrocarbons out of the air.

That will be the second half of this century at the earliest, IF ITER works. Not viable for avoiding 4 degrees of warming, while WILL fuck us. It might not end western civ, but it will starve a few billion people and make the Syrian refugee crisis (which... was actually precipitated by climate change, given the reason the civil war happened in the first place) look like the morning commute.

[Zeropoint]

It should be pointed out that the Fukushima incident, the second-worst nuclear power accident in the history of nuclear power, caused exactly zero cases of radiation sickness, and of course also zero fatalities through radiation exposure.

[biostem]

It should be pointed out that the Fukushima incident, the second-worst nuclear power accident in the history of nuclear power, caused exactly zero cases of radiation sickness, and of course also zero fatalities through radiation exposure.

Personally, I think many of the issues with building new powerplants, (whether nuclear, conventional, or some other alternative form of energy), stem from the "not in my backyard" mentality, which hampers any attempt at updating/bolstering the infrastructure...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on nuclear fission.

Well then, we are fucked. Excuse me as I wail and gnash my teeth in despair.

Oh wait. You are just fucking wrong. Looming climate change has had a tendency to change people's minds.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/suppo ... nergy.aspx

Peak support was in 2010, it has dropped since then for Fukushima reasons (but still over 50%), and a concerted campaign could change that. Particularly with an emphasis on bringing 3rd and 4th generation power plants (with their improved safety systems) online.

I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Well excuse me as I wail and gnash my teeth in despair. Maybe I shall rip my shirt open to chest hair while I weep manly tears.

Oh wait. GE builds modular Gen III reactors (ABWRs). They are practically pre-fabs, have a construction cost around 10-15 billion USD, and produce 1.35 GW of power each. The PRC is practically swarm-building them and similar designs with heavy state investment. Doing this is something we could actually get bipartisan support for. The republicans are all about corporate welfare (and what better way to do corporate welfare than to subsidize construction costs?), the democrats want to tackle climate change. Holy Shit.

I can also see it slicing the other way. Republicans attacking it for representing big government and Democrats siding with Greenpeace.

This is actually the reason my socialist ass is voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary instead of Bernie Sanders. He wont do it. She might.

We almost built 2 of these in Texas earlier this decade in a largish public/private partnership, but that involved 18% ownership with TEPCO and Fukushima put the breaks on that for financial reasons. But it is feasible. Hell, start in the fucking red states.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it. The major utilities remember the projects that were blocked by changing political winds after big money had already been sunk in design and acquisition, and they will need to be shown some very compelling reasons to be interested in building nuclear over jizzing out a few more coal or natural gas plants. It requires some firm commitments and vision on the part of utility executives and public figures, and I just don't see enough of those people willing to take the risk.

But like I said, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

That will be the second half of this century at the earliest, IF ITER works. Not viable for avoiding 4 degrees of warming, while WILL fuck us. It might not end western civ, but it will starve a few billion people and make the Syrian refugee crisis (which... was actually precipitated by climate change, given the reason the civil war happened in the first place) look like the morning commute.

4 degrees can still be avoided through efficiency and conservation without mass adoption of nuclear power by anyone other than China. If they don't embrace it we're fucked, but they do seem to be interested. Color me cautiously optimistic. I may not be an old geezer, but I've seen a few supposedly unsolvable doomsday scenarios loom and then pass in my lifetime, namely first-world pollution, nuclear war with the USSR, ozone layer depletion, and peak oil. As a species, we seem to have a penchant for shooting ourselves in the foot, but not in the head.

[madd0ct0r]

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on nuclear fission.

Well then, we are fucked. Excuse me as I wail and gnash my teeth in despair.

Oh wait. You are just fucking wrong. Looming climate change has had a tendency to change people's minds.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/suppo ... nergy.aspx

Peak support was in 2010, it has dropped since then for Fukushima reasons (but still over 50%), and a concerted campaign could change that. Particularly with an emphasis on bringing 3rd and 4th generation power plants (with their improved safety systems) online.

I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Well excuse me as I wail and gnash my teeth in despair. Maybe I shall rip my shirt open to chest hair while I weep manly tears.

Oh wait. GE builds modular Gen III reactors (ABWRs). They are practically pre-fabs, have a construction cost around 10-15 billion USD, and produce 1.35 GW of power each. The PRC is practically swarm-building them and similar designs with heavy state investment. Doing this is something we could actually get bipartisan support for. The republicans are all about corporate welfare (and what better way to do corporate welfare than to subsidize construction costs?), the democrats want to tackle climate change. Holy Shit.

I can also see it slicing the other way. Republicans attacking it for representing big government and Democrats siding with Greenpeace.

This is actually the reason my socialist ass is voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary instead of Bernie Sanders. He wont do it. She might.

We almost built 2 of these in Texas earlier this decade in a largish public/private partnership, but that involved 18% ownership with TEPCO and Fukushima put the breaks on that for financial reasons. But it is feasible. Hell, start in the fucking red states.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it. The major utilities remember the projects that were blocked by changing political winds after big money had already been sunk in design and acquisition, and they will need to be shown some very compelling reasons to be interested in building nuclear over jizzing out a few more coal or natural gas plants. It requires some firm commitments and vision on the part of utility executives and public figures, and I just don't see enough of those people willing to take the risk.

But like I said, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

That will be the second half of this century at the earliest, IF ITER works. Not viable for avoiding 4 degrees of warming, while WILL fuck us. It might not end western civ, but it will starve a few billion people and make the Syrian refugee crisis (which... was actually precipitated by climate change, given the reason the civil war happened in the first place) look like the morning commute.

4 degrees can still be avoided through efficiency and conservation without mass adoption of nuclear power by anyone other than China. If they don't embrace it we're fucked, but they do seem to be interested. Color me cautiously optimistic. I may not be an old geezer, but I've seen a few supposedly unsolvable doomsday scenarios loom and then pass in my lifetime, namely first-world pollution, nuclear war with the USSR, ozone layer depletion, and peak oil. As a species, we seem to have a penchant for shooting ourselves in the foot, but not in the head.

I think you need to seperate the rest of the world and the USA in your head. Nuclear is jogging up to a sprint now in construction worldwide.

[His Divine Shadow]

Speaking of alternative fuels, my small homemade solar air collector in my garage is outputting 16C air right now while it's -10 outside, but the sun shines. Simple things like these en masse could cut electricity use for a lot of people. I know those that use it in their houses for additional heat.

[mr friendly guy]

I think you need to seperate the rest of the world and the USA in your head. Nuclear is jogging up to a sprint now in construction worldwide.

In Europe I get the feeling aside from France and to a lesser extent the UK, nuclear is going backwards. Hopefully I am wrong.

However the world's biggest carbon emitter and biggest energy user China is going full steam ahead with nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... power.aspx

They also look like they will have commercially viable pebble bed reactors up and running in late 2017.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6007 ... next-year/

[His Divine Shadow]

We're still building OL3 reactor in Finland and the massive delays have made nuclear something of a joke. I have no idea how it turned out this fucking shitty but it was a disaster for nuclears future. They still wanna build another reactor further north using a russian design and that project is basically hated by everyone based on what I've seen. But the government pushed it through.

[salm]

In Europe I get the feeling aside from France and to a lesser extent the UK, nuclear is going backwards. Hopefully I am wrong.

The last thing I heard about France is that they want to reduce their nuclear power plants to 50 or so percent within the next years in favour of renewables.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... enewables/

Home charging eliminates 13 wasted hours every year assuming a person fuels up their gas car once per week and it only takes 15 minutes to drive to the station, fuel, and drive back.

In my perception most people don´t drive to the filling station and back but simply fill up en route which takes like 5 minutes.
Are there statistics regarding this?

[Broomstick]

It should be pointed out that the Fukushima incident, the second-worst nuclear power accident in the history of nuclear power, caused exactly zero cases of radiation sickness, and of course also zero fatalities through radiation exposure.

There actually were a couple cases of radiation injuries, but they were minor. Basically the equivalent of a first degree sunburn on workers' legs from walking through contaminated water. Which, granted, were not the dramatic vomiting-and-hair-loss one normally thinks of for "radiation sickness".

Basically, people getting radiation treatment for cancer wind up with worse effects.

[Zixinus]

Going back to the OP point about hydrogen, isn't the problem right now is that at room temperature it's a gas? One that is highly flammable and much, much lighter than air, difficult to contain? I recall seeing several hydrogen powered cars and even reading that they made refueling stations for fuel cells, but still hearing that this is a problem. I also understand that hydrogen would be basically a battery: we need electricity to make it from water and afterwards it would be water again.

So, building up a reserve of this would essentially put all the energy currently burned by oil to move cars to be shifted unto power plants. How viable would it be to start that shifting now?

[Borgholio]

In my perception most people don´t drive to the filling station and back but simply fill up en route which takes like 5 minutes.
Are there statistics regarding this?

Just speaking from our own experience, since we aim to save money on gasoline we frequently go to Costco on the way home from work or while running errands. The lines typically cause a 15 - 20 minute wait. It's worth it due to the price but it still (for us anyways) adds an additional hour a week give or take, since we fill up about 3 times a week. If we went to a normal gas station with no lines, it would take us down to about 10 minutes per fill-up, which still works out to half an hour per week. We don't usually run out specifically to get gas but when we do, that adds another 20-30 minutes (distance to go to Costco). Being able to plug in overnight and let it charge while I'm sleeping would save a noticeable amount of time in either case.

[jwl]

On hydrogen: right now the cheapest way of making hydrogen is to extract it from fossil fuels. To that, someone commercially minded might say, "what's the point, why not just burn the fossil fuels as they are"?

[Ziggy Stardust]

If we went to a normal gas station with no lines, it would take us down to about 10 minutes per fill-up, which still works out to half an hour per week.

Wait, do you mean 10 minutes including the time it takes to get to the gas station? Because it does not take 10 full minutes to gas up a car if there's no wait.

[Borgholio]

If we went to a normal gas station with no lines, it would take us down to about 10 minutes per fill-up, which still works out to half an hour per week.

Wait, do you mean 10 minutes including the time it takes to get to the gas station? Because it does not take 10 full minutes to gas up a car if there's no wait.

That was a guesstimate. I never actually timed myself, but I do know it's easily more than 5 minutes (which is the magic number often claimed by people in various Gas vs EV forums). The point is that even if it was somewhere in the order of 6 or 7 minutes per fill-up, that adds up to over an hour per month in wasted time.

[Broomstick]

Not necessarily - I only gas up once a week. So... at 7 minutes that around a half an hour a month.

[Borgholio]

Not necessarily - I only gas up once a week. So... at 7 minutes that around a half an hour a month.

Yeah you're lucky you have a short commute.