Posts
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Electric Vechicles? 2041?
Why 2041? Three places to look.
In a Newsweek article there was mention of batteries improving 8% per year.
In a wiki supercaptior article : "For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg and modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg. In automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg, which operates at 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency giving an effective energy density of 2,400 W·h/kg."
That means we need something about 20 times better than lithium-ion batteries.
At 8% it take about 40 years to get 20 times better.
Using the wiki lithium-ion article Litihium-ion was proposed in the 1970s and the first commercial version was made in 1991.
Adding 40 years to that gives you "miracle battery/capacitor" was proposed in 2010s and the first commercial version was made in 2041.
Things could happen quicker or slower but it represents the leap we have to take to get there. This is where hybrids and smaller vehicles fill the gap.
Also remember when someone is saying replace transport fuels with electric you have to consider what is being replaced. If you replace gasoline with a all electric vehicle run off coal, coal only has to provide 20% of the energy the gasoline did. Adding in electric transmission loss and electric engine loss use about 25%.
In the future where hybrids are the majority the comparison may be 40% tank-to-wheel efficiency which would make the coal need to provide 45% of gasoline. At that point you begin to get into the area where there is more CO2 generated by the coal. Then again cars will never have a on-board method of capturing CO2 where with coal it is possible.
In a Newsweek article there was mention of batteries improving 8% per year.
In a wiki supercaptior article : "For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg and modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg. In automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg, which operates at 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency giving an effective energy density of 2,400 W·h/kg."
That means we need something about 20 times better than lithium-ion batteries.
At 8% it take about 40 years to get 20 times better.
Using the wiki lithium-ion article Litihium-ion was proposed in the 1970s and the first commercial version was made in 1991.
Adding 40 years to that gives you "miracle battery/capacitor" was proposed in 2010s and the first commercial version was made in 2041.
Things could happen quicker or slower but it represents the leap we have to take to get there. This is where hybrids and smaller vehicles fill the gap.
Also remember when someone is saying replace transport fuels with electric you have to consider what is being replaced. If you replace gasoline with a all electric vehicle run off coal, coal only has to provide 20% of the energy the gasoline did. Adding in electric transmission loss and electric engine loss use about 25%.
In the future where hybrids are the majority the comparison may be 40% tank-to-wheel efficiency which would make the coal need to provide 45% of gasoline. At that point you begin to get into the area where there is more CO2 generated by the coal. Then again cars will never have a on-board method of capturing CO2 where with coal it is possible.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Appalachian Coalfields Climate Change Forum
Accc dropped by. Great site to keep informed.
Using Accc was able to find:
Two articles (1, 2)on how Kentucky's coal exporting. The thing that one must be remember in the future that extra mining safety and environmental requirements will no longer be an argument of raising coal prices. Now foreign interests will be getting the benefits of putting Kentucky at risk while raising prices more than safety and environmentalism alone.
An article about our own Duke Energy. After reading this if cap and trade gives out carbon credits to "non-emitters" like nuclear plants Kentucky may want to consider a surtax on tonnes of coal going to any state advantaged by the regulation.
Also Sustainable Kentucky has much orginal material and good set of link. It's worth a visit and a RSS.
Using Accc was able to find:
Two articles (1, 2)on how Kentucky's coal exporting. The thing that one must be remember in the future that extra mining safety and environmental requirements will no longer be an argument of raising coal prices. Now foreign interests will be getting the benefits of putting Kentucky at risk while raising prices more than safety and environmentalism alone.
An article about our own Duke Energy. After reading this if cap and trade gives out carbon credits to "non-emitters" like nuclear plants Kentucky may want to consider a surtax on tonnes of coal going to any state advantaged by the regulation.
Also Sustainable Kentucky has much orginal material and good set of link. It's worth a visit and a RSS.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Coal-to-Gas in Kentucky
In Kentucky's energy plan there is a disconnect between Coal-to-Gas and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC).
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
No to CTL
In Kentucky's energy plan Strategy 4 is "Develop a Coal-to-Liquids Industry in Kentucky to Replace Petroleum-Based Liquids".
The reasoning behind this is:
1) Demand for coal will be reduced as a result of climate change regulation causing a collapse of the Kentucky coal industry. There is no indication that this will occur in the near future. The spot prices for Central Applachchia coal (CAP) went from $40 per short Ton in early 2007 to $140 before the economic collapse of 2008. Asia and India continue import coal from the region during the collapse.
2) It will be economically viable if oil is $50 or $60 a barrel. However, those estimates are based on less than $40 per short ton coal which does not, has not, and will not exist.
3) We need to get away from foreign oil. This is true however efforts should be focused on other alternatives such as biomass and electric.
They did recognize in the report that any CTL facility needs to have total carbon sequestration or move Kentucky in the wrong direction for emission.
The present temporary situation with coal having only fell to $110 and oil below $40 shows how out of line CTL profits could go.
This is not to say research should not be done on CTL however state support of new CTL facilities should not occur until it is clear that the world is using less of our coal. And even then it must be done with some guarantee of the input price of the coal and the output price of the fuel along with total carbon sequestering.
With a report as detailed as this one it would be impossible not to say something negative about it. I am not against the plan just the CTL part of it. I am also not totally against CTL, it is just an option who's time has not come and may not come. We need to refocus onto other things in and out of the plan.
The reasoning behind this is:
1) Demand for coal will be reduced as a result of climate change regulation causing a collapse of the Kentucky coal industry. There is no indication that this will occur in the near future. The spot prices for Central Applachchia coal (CAP) went from $40 per short Ton in early 2007 to $140 before the economic collapse of 2008. Asia and India continue import coal from the region during the collapse.
2) It will be economically viable if oil is $50 or $60 a barrel. However, those estimates are based on less than $40 per short ton coal which does not, has not, and will not exist.
3) We need to get away from foreign oil. This is true however efforts should be focused on other alternatives such as biomass and electric.
They did recognize in the report that any CTL facility needs to have total carbon sequestration or move Kentucky in the wrong direction for emission.
The present temporary situation with coal having only fell to $110 and oil below $40 shows how out of line CTL profits could go.
This is not to say research should not be done on CTL however state support of new CTL facilities should not occur until it is clear that the world is using less of our coal. And even then it must be done with some guarantee of the input price of the coal and the output price of the fuel along with total carbon sequestering.
With a report as detailed as this one it would be impossible not to say something negative about it. I am not against the plan just the CTL part of it. I am also not totally against CTL, it is just an option who's time has not come and may not come. We need to refocus onto other things in and out of the plan.
Kentucky Energy Plan
You can access the plan here or on Kentucky Department for Energy Development and Independence site
Friday, November 14, 2008
S. 1884 Harvesting Energy Act of 2007
A biochar based summary is available here from IBI.
opencongress.org provides the ability to create a widget from any US bill. A widget for S. 1884 is at the bottom this blog now.
opencongress.org provides the ability to create a widget from any US bill. A widget for S. 1884 is at the bottom this blog now.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Kentucky Electric Vechicles
Transportation Secretary signs order to permit registration, titling of alternative electric vehicles
You will be able to get a fully electric vechicle registered soon but "Their operation is restricted to roadways with posted speed limits of no more than 45 mph, of which Kentucky has 3,507 miles."
This is different than hybrids that have been fully street legal nationally and future all electric vechicles that will be nationally street legal from major car companies.
You will be able to get a fully electric vechicle registered soon but "Their operation is restricted to roadways with posted speed limits of no more than 45 mph, of which Kentucky has 3,507 miles."
This is different than hybrids that have been fully street legal nationally and future all electric vechicles that will be nationally street legal from major car companies.
Repower America
www.repoweramerica.org has two intesting features.
You can look to see what people near you are saying. For example
"Using 98% coal here we need to change more quickly than the rest of the nation in order to remain competitive. It's not just the right thing to do, it's survival"
They also have a way to send a letter to your editor of your local newpaper. For example:
"The election has passed and regardless of which canidate was put in place they both proposed cap and trade system for carbon.
Here in Northen Kentucky (and it equally applies to Greater Cincinati) we use over 90% of our electricy is dervied from coal we pay 33% for electricy than the nation on average. The nation is no longer going to allow us to function in this way so cheaply. We need to act and prepare to act quickly.
Duke, environmentalists, and business all agreee conservation is the best, cheapest, and fastest alternative. This does not mean we have to sacrifice. We have to do and think of ways to do things differently.
Duke Energy is considering several things to get us though. One of which is "smart meters" which allow for time of day charges like your mobile phone. In the summer some peak usage is driven by our air conditioners left on while we are at work. Time of day billing will make us more aware and possibly save us money personally by driving personal usage off peak.
Geo-HVAC is a way to save on heating and cooling. It involves putting piping into the ground to use the earth's tempature. There are not many companies that support it locally. What if a local county would cover the cost of the installing the ground oart of the work? This would stimulate more use of the technology. You could call your house Geo-ready. Face it. When do you replace a air conditioner or heater normally? When it breaks. It's much faster to put an regular unit on. Doing the ground work first gets you ready for when you have to switch. Some existing units can be switched over to geo and still be under warranty.
Our area is unique with unique challeges and opportunities including things like biochar.
You can look to see what people near you are saying. For example
"Using 98% coal here we need to change more quickly than the rest of the nation in order to remain competitive. It's not just the right thing to do, it's survival"
They also have a way to send a letter to your editor of your local newpaper. For example:
"The election has passed and regardless of which canidate was put in place they both proposed cap and trade system for carbon.
Here in Northen Kentucky (and it equally applies to Greater Cincinati) we use over 90% of our electricy is dervied from coal we pay 33% for electricy than the nation on average. The nation is no longer going to allow us to function in this way so cheaply. We need to act and prepare to act quickly.
Duke, environmentalists, and business all agreee conservation is the best, cheapest, and fastest alternative. This does not mean we have to sacrifice. We have to do and think of ways to do things differently.
Duke Energy is considering several things to get us though. One of which is "smart meters" which allow for time of day charges like your mobile phone. In the summer some peak usage is driven by our air conditioners left on while we are at work. Time of day billing will make us more aware and possibly save us money personally by driving personal usage off peak.
Geo-HVAC is a way to save on heating and cooling. It involves putting piping into the ground to use the earth's tempature. There are not many companies that support it locally. What if a local county would cover the cost of the installing the ground oart of the work? This would stimulate more use of the technology. You could call your house Geo-ready. Face it. When do you replace a air conditioner or heater normally? When it breaks. It's much faster to put an regular unit on. Doing the ground work first gets you ready for when you have to switch. Some existing units can be switched over to geo and still be under warranty.
Our area is unique with unique challeges and opportunities including things like biochar.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama
I try to keep poltics out of this blog to focus on the issues at hand. If you noticed I mentioned regardless of who wins the presidential election both have mentioned cap and trade systems.
The president elect has a site to give input. I would have given the same input to either victor. Here is my submission:
Troops: Bringing the troops home safely after a successful conclusion to the wars and supporting their needs upon their return in recognition of their ability to endure the challenges they have faced and will face is the highest priority.
Global Finance: The stability of the global financial system along with regulatory adjustments to keep it stable is the next priority.
I don’t have any specific suggestions on those two items other than…
Buy steel: Global steel prices have retreated but they won’t stay low for long. There is a lot of infrastructure work ahead with plans already drawn up. Get the steel for the projects and have the projects store them now. That will save money in the long run. Getting full funding for projects so they can start should be a separate issue. This can be applied to other commodities as well. This saves money in the long run and boosts the economy.
Gasoline Disincentive: High gas prices ($4) are painful but low gas prices ($2) feed our addiction. Gasoline needs an increased tax when it is cheap to allow its replacement. The increase tax should fade when the price increases. Automatically doubling the federal tax when the yearly average is under $3 may be the way to go. It provides new revenue and declares an end to cheap gas that makes alternatives suffer. We saw the real suffer of not having alternatives when the market went over $4.
Biochar: There is some evidence that placing wood based charcoal into the soil increases productivity. The productivity lasts for multiple years and since charcoal is made out of carbon the carbon is sequestered for multiple years. The process of creating biochar produces usable energy, syngas, and other products in varying amounts. Biochar use could provide a combination of agricultural productivity, carbon sequestering, and energy. Every soil and crop in different. Every institution that supports agricultural research should be directed and supported to look into this. It won’t solve anyone problem totally but it’s something that can provide three partial solutions at once.
Northern Kentucky Carbon: We are energy challenged. 98% of our electricity comes from coal. We pay more than 30% less for electric than the national average. Local wind power will not have an impact. Remote wind power will most likely be used to supplant fossil in other places with none left for here. Geothermal will be common on the east coast before it comes here (the earth’s crust is thickest here; geo-hvac is an option though). There is no remaining usable hydro (unless we make the region into a great lake and live in boats upon it). This is also not an ideal place for solar (but out of alternatives solar leads, and solar water heating works well). Considering all that conservation, limited solar, and limited biomass are the only cards we have to get away from coal. When constructing national policy please use us as a case study. The nation needs to change its carbon footprint and we are one of the largest toes. Policies that make sense nationally have the potential to either lean us towards nuclear (which we have negative local memory (Fernald,Zimmer) or it will depopulate the region. Basically we are a region with little local energy, even the coal is barged in from hundreds of miles away.
The president elect has a site to give input. I would have given the same input to either victor. Here is my submission:
Troops: Bringing the troops home safely after a successful conclusion to the wars and supporting their needs upon their return in recognition of their ability to endure the challenges they have faced and will face is the highest priority.
Global Finance: The stability of the global financial system along with regulatory adjustments to keep it stable is the next priority.
I don’t have any specific suggestions on those two items other than…
Buy steel: Global steel prices have retreated but they won’t stay low for long. There is a lot of infrastructure work ahead with plans already drawn up. Get the steel for the projects and have the projects store them now. That will save money in the long run. Getting full funding for projects so they can start should be a separate issue. This can be applied to other commodities as well. This saves money in the long run and boosts the economy.
Gasoline Disincentive: High gas prices ($4) are painful but low gas prices ($2) feed our addiction. Gasoline needs an increased tax when it is cheap to allow its replacement. The increase tax should fade when the price increases. Automatically doubling the federal tax when the yearly average is under $3 may be the way to go. It provides new revenue and declares an end to cheap gas that makes alternatives suffer. We saw the real suffer of not having alternatives when the market went over $4.
Biochar: There is some evidence that placing wood based charcoal into the soil increases productivity. The productivity lasts for multiple years and since charcoal is made out of carbon the carbon is sequestered for multiple years. The process of creating biochar produces usable energy, syngas, and other products in varying amounts. Biochar use could provide a combination of agricultural productivity, carbon sequestering, and energy. Every soil and crop in different. Every institution that supports agricultural research should be directed and supported to look into this. It won’t solve anyone problem totally but it’s something that can provide three partial solutions at once.
Northern Kentucky Carbon: We are energy challenged. 98% of our electricity comes from coal. We pay more than 30% less for electric than the national average. Local wind power will not have an impact. Remote wind power will most likely be used to supplant fossil in other places with none left for here. Geothermal will be common on the east coast before it comes here (the earth’s crust is thickest here; geo-hvac is an option though). There is no remaining usable hydro (unless we make the region into a great lake and live in boats upon it). This is also not an ideal place for solar (but out of alternatives solar leads, and solar water heating works well). Considering all that conservation, limited solar, and limited biomass are the only cards we have to get away from coal. When constructing national policy please use us as a case study. The nation needs to change its carbon footprint and we are one of the largest toes. Policies that make sense nationally have the potential to either lean us towards nuclear (which we have negative local memory (Fernald,Zimmer) or it will depopulate the region. Basically we are a region with little local energy, even the coal is barged in from hundreds of miles away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)