Well, my E85 series has taken a turn. I’m going to skip the middle section and go to the end… energy independence. To sum up the best parts of my ideas, to rely on ethanol from corn is a waste of the energy we want to save by using bio-fuels, as well as having the downside of driving up food costs. High food costs are acceptable to the enviro-terrorists who will propose the government tax users of the bio-fuels to subsidize food prices instead of using the smarter choices available. Sugar is a better method of making ethanol, but too many lobbies have directed the effort to corn. The enviro-terrorists are also looking at “renewable’ sources of energy such as solar, wind and geothermal, which are all acceptable as small scale means of reducing dependence on the energy grid for individual users but wildly inefficient methods of large scale generation of electricity to feed the grid.
E85 can very well help to reduce a small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, but the policy of using corn instead of sugar will make sure that the extra energy needed will come from fossil fuels. All the wind farms and solar arrays will not remove fossil fuels from the corn to ethanol equation.
The main policy change needed to regain some sort of energy independence, which should be for national defense purposes as well as to reduce the national deficit. That policy change, which in the best interest of the United States, is to once again begin building nuclear power plants. The plants should be designed to provide 80% to 90% of the country’s power demand.
Nuclear power plants are most effective when operating at or above 100%. Nuclear power plants need to insert control rods to slow down the power generated, this does not stop the nuclear fuel from degrading, it just absorbs a portion of the radiation. Rather than waste the radiation being absorbed into control rods it can be used in the manufacture of hydrogen. This hydrogen can than be stored and used as an alternate fuel.
Houses and office buildings can help by putting solar panels up to help defray the cost of electricity, but it will never eliminate the need for large generation stations. Solar has its limitations such as positioning of the structure and alignment of the roof, as well as other environmental factors, such as trees or snow. Wind also has limitations, like conventional power plants the electricity cannot be stored, so a strong wind can maximize the peak output, but it cannot be saved for later, easting that excess generation. Wind farms are also loud and eyesores. The on land areas suitable for wind plants are also desirable for farms or grazing. The off shore areas tend to be located close to land to minimize costs so they generally threaten local fishing and marine animal breeding (as well as other issues). Wind and solar are not likely to ever become serious power solutions, but they will maintain a novelty niche.
One area of bio-fuels that takes a backseat to E85 is bio-diesel. Capable of being made from soy (another plant as virulent as corn and wheat) and the mpg is equivalent to petroleum diesel. The major advantage to bio-diesel over E85 is the engines. Standard gas engines cannot burn E85, so Detroit (or Japan) gets to sell us brand new cars. E85 burns hotter and yields less energy than gasoline which may lead to premature engine wear or failure. Diesel engines are a known commodity; reliable and serviceable with a long track history and have the added benefit of being able to use bio-diesel without any modifications.
Bio-diesel (from soy, not the hippie used fryer oil variety) costs more to manufacture than ethanol, but it is environmentally inert. E85, still contains gasoline (petroleum distillates and other additives) and still pollutes the environment, as well as being quite flammable. However, I do not propose making a switch to all bio-diesel engines, I believe both types will be used but the percentage of diesel engines will increase over the current proportion of gasoline/diesel engines.
To wrap this up, anyone serious about energy independence needs to recognize it cannot happen without nuclear power plants. Then we have to make the change to E85 and bio-diesel, whose plants can be fueled on electricity and hydrogen generated at nuclear power plants and supplemented with bio-mass furnaces that generate energy from the unused solids. These steps will not only provide the energy independence needed for national security and for the economy but also help the environment. One nuclear power plant can replace 8 to 10 fossil fuel fired plants and the emissions are the same as one coal plant with less air pollutants being put into the atmosphere.
The enviro-terrorists will never buy any energy plan that includes nuclear power plants. But without it there is no way to achieve energy independence or improve the environment, and of all available options it is the best option out there.
It remains an inconvenient truth that in order to save the environment and achieve energy independence, we must rely on nuclear power.
E85 can very well help to reduce a small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, but the policy of using corn instead of sugar will make sure that the extra energy needed will come from fossil fuels. All the wind farms and solar arrays will not remove fossil fuels from the corn to ethanol equation.
The main policy change needed to regain some sort of energy independence, which should be for national defense purposes as well as to reduce the national deficit. That policy change, which in the best interest of the United States, is to once again begin building nuclear power plants. The plants should be designed to provide 80% to 90% of the country’s power demand.
Nuclear power plants are most effective when operating at or above 100%. Nuclear power plants need to insert control rods to slow down the power generated, this does not stop the nuclear fuel from degrading, it just absorbs a portion of the radiation. Rather than waste the radiation being absorbed into control rods it can be used in the manufacture of hydrogen. This hydrogen can than be stored and used as an alternate fuel.
Houses and office buildings can help by putting solar panels up to help defray the cost of electricity, but it will never eliminate the need for large generation stations. Solar has its limitations such as positioning of the structure and alignment of the roof, as well as other environmental factors, such as trees or snow. Wind also has limitations, like conventional power plants the electricity cannot be stored, so a strong wind can maximize the peak output, but it cannot be saved for later, easting that excess generation. Wind farms are also loud and eyesores. The on land areas suitable for wind plants are also desirable for farms or grazing. The off shore areas tend to be located close to land to minimize costs so they generally threaten local fishing and marine animal breeding (as well as other issues). Wind and solar are not likely to ever become serious power solutions, but they will maintain a novelty niche.
One area of bio-fuels that takes a backseat to E85 is bio-diesel. Capable of being made from soy (another plant as virulent as corn and wheat) and the mpg is equivalent to petroleum diesel. The major advantage to bio-diesel over E85 is the engines. Standard gas engines cannot burn E85, so Detroit (or Japan) gets to sell us brand new cars. E85 burns hotter and yields less energy than gasoline which may lead to premature engine wear or failure. Diesel engines are a known commodity; reliable and serviceable with a long track history and have the added benefit of being able to use bio-diesel without any modifications.
Bio-diesel (from soy, not the hippie used fryer oil variety) costs more to manufacture than ethanol, but it is environmentally inert. E85, still contains gasoline (petroleum distillates and other additives) and still pollutes the environment, as well as being quite flammable. However, I do not propose making a switch to all bio-diesel engines, I believe both types will be used but the percentage of diesel engines will increase over the current proportion of gasoline/diesel engines.
To wrap this up, anyone serious about energy independence needs to recognize it cannot happen without nuclear power plants. Then we have to make the change to E85 and bio-diesel, whose plants can be fueled on electricity and hydrogen generated at nuclear power plants and supplemented with bio-mass furnaces that generate energy from the unused solids. These steps will not only provide the energy independence needed for national security and for the economy but also help the environment. One nuclear power plant can replace 8 to 10 fossil fuel fired plants and the emissions are the same as one coal plant with less air pollutants being put into the atmosphere.
The enviro-terrorists will never buy any energy plan that includes nuclear power plants. But without it there is no way to achieve energy independence or improve the environment, and of all available options it is the best option out there.
It remains an inconvenient truth that in order to save the environment and achieve energy independence, we must rely on nuclear power.
No comments:
Post a Comment