Will Waste Heat Be Bigger Than Solar?

Will waste heat be bigger than solar?  No.

Ultimately, all these fossil plants will need to be retired (in the next 40 years), but in the mean time, if a plant has 20 years of life left it still pays tremendously, and is essential for reducing GHG emissions to harness as much waste heat as possible.

It will cost money to do so.  I haven’t seen the figures for $/kWh for waste heat generated power on existing plants, but my guess is that it’s very cost effective, especially when compared to solar.  AND it can be base load AND it generated zero new CO2. 

Therefore we absolutely need to aggressively pursue solar, wind, and all viable renewables, but we must also aggressively harvest waste heat generated energy.  The cost of energy will go up.  There is simply no way to add all of the new infrastructure needed for renewables, waste heat, CCS, etc without adding cost.  However there will be tremendous benefits and possibly net savings in other areas.  But get used to it people.  Cheap power is a habit that needs to be broken. 

Looking at the article “Feeding in Renewable Energy Breakthroughs”, waste heat seems to be a good example of how national support of an existing marginal business situation could help use a waste product (an alternative energy) of burning fossil fuels to speed the transition to base load renewable. 

Sean Casten have identified rightly waste heat energy potential which could be solution for Carbon Dioxide emmission today.
I am working on renewable energy projects in India.

Ravi Soparkar
Pune, India
renewableenergy at in.com

Utilizing waste heat in industrial processes is a great idea. But reducing the amount of waste heat generated in the first place should be pursued first.  Electron beams can replace many thermal processes currently used to sterilize sufaces, cure print and coatings, treat polymers, and destroy pollution.  Electron beams can perform the same processes with 80% less energy.  Compact low voltage electron beams have been developed that are easy to integrate into existing manufacturing processes.

Will waste heat be bigger than solar? YES.
The Recovered (free) Energy; the untold solution.

Integrated with: Up to 40% in the fuel mix of Wartsila Reciprocating lien-burn natural gas-fired engines, with 60% Recovered (free) Energy, the Plumes Turbine-Generators that can be of an aggregate nameplate over 2,000MWe per plant.
In Synergy with: Sweater Desalination Plant, that can be over 2,000 l/s, that utilizes up to 90% Recovered (free) Energy, coupled with Ice Production Facility, which also utilizes Recovered (free) Energy source, as well as contribute “back-to-back” cold air for condensation of steam to water and for cooling all other sub-components.
Not limited to, waste heat of being utilized for climate control at the Super Organic Greenhouses and other components, in a super complex.
(Invented technology?s component, except off-the-shelf components, by wwwesecorp.org)

“Approximately 42 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from power plants, said Casten. If power plants are truly only 33 percent efficient, that means that 28 percent of the carbon dioxide output in the U.S. could be eliminated without crimping the national lifestyle.”

Apparently some entrepreneurs have been able to change the laws of thermodynamics and invented a 100% efficient heat engine.  I wish I had invested with them.

“These are semiconductors that, wrapped around a steam pipe, could convert ambient heat to electricity.”

So—instead of insulating the pipe, they will cool the steam in the pipe to generate electricity at incredible cost—and then burn some more coal at the front to get the steam temperature back up to where it needs to be?  Would you install that in your home heating system and buy a bigger furnace?

My question is increasingly: is anyone with a decent, basic science or engineering education involved in making these investment and financing decisions?  Maybe they are, and they clearly see the opportunity to move dollars from your and my pockets to theirs in the name of saving the world.

Instead of buying billions or trillions of dollars’ worth of new equipment to generate more power (which I agree is most interesting to financiers, if the $$ come from taxpayers), let’s focus on where and how energy is ultimately being consumed.  Reductions there can be done with existing technology, have a great multiplier attached, and typically put money INTO our pockets.

Not all energy has the same value to do useful work.  For generating electricity using waste heat through a mechanical engine as the drive, the theoretical maximum efficiency in utilizing the energy can be determined using the Carnot cycle efficiency equation which is very simple, efficiency of conversion n = 1 - Heat Sink Temperature/Heat Source Temperature.  Temperature is absolute.  For example if waste heat is available at 100C and the Heat Sink is 50C the maximum efficiency of converting the heat to work would be 14%.  The real problem with waste heat is the cost of the equipment to convert and capture the energy cannot be recovered by selling the electricity produced.

Waste heat recovery is useful for general heating, such as greenhouses, buildings, etc since the heat is not being put into work.

Have you been reading my energy plan??? You’re free to continue -
Jay

This figure

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

is my basis for good energy planning for the US with the overall goals of:

——- Original Message——-
From: Jay
To: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Cc: Cathy McMorris Rodgers ; Bill Gates Sr. ; cavuto FOX ; colmes FOX ; comments FOX ; Dr. Phil ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; greta FOX ; hannity FOX ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Jack Fagan ; Karen Dorn-Steele ; Maria US Senator Cantwell ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Marshall & Joyce Roberts ; orielly FOX ; Patty US Senator Murray ; Bob WA Senator Morton ; Bob WA Rep Sump ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Mad Money Replies ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Jay Birge
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:04 PM
Subject: Chu Energy Meeting Monday, Feb23 with Pickens, et.al.; Natl Clean Energy….Action

Steven Chu - please review and if at all possible discuss with Boone Pickens, Pelosi, Reid, etc. on Monday. 

For all: a simple right-thinking one page plan, see below (MAROON) with ideas I have/have not heard discussed.

My basis is the US Energy Consumption data from Livermore Labs of which you are probably very aware.

Also included below are some notes that expand on some of the elements of the plan, key to:

  Pelosi and Reid (in RED);

  Vilsack (BLUE);

  Salizar (GREEN);

Thanks for listening.

ITEM 1: THE ENERGY PLAN

- We should transition to renewables ASAP/AMAP, which means with “time is of the essence” priorities and that being like we did the Manhattan Project - no holds barred (eg., no roadblocks by naysayers, et.al.).

So here’s the plan and the basis:

This figure

https://eed.llnl.gov/f...

is my basis for good energy planning for the US with the overall goals of:

I) eliminating wasted energy (56 of 97 Quads, or 58% of total US consumption is lost), and

II) leaving natural energy resources stored in the ground until we REALLY need them, while maximizing readily available and free forever solar and wind, and other alternatives (while eliminating trillions of foreign payments).

1. Reduce wasted energy in ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION (26 Quads or 68% of power generation energy is lost).

  1.1. Promote Solar PV and Wind.

  1.2. Promote pumped/stored hydro (and end-use storage technologies to handle the variability of 1.1. generation).

  1.3. Permit steam-to-electricity generation only in combined cycle plants where low pressure steam is utilized (even if thermal solar; AND nuclear[?]. Nuclear is dense enough and safe enough to promote block heating in cities as in Europe, or process industrialized areas?)

  1.4. Stop burning coal (and the networked supporting industries from mining, transportation, pollution, reclamation, maintenance, etc., without causing a depression - like, put them to work building solar and wind farms, and the new interstate power grid and ferries of 1.7 below; same for the oil, gas and auto guys, etc.). Do 1.1. and 1.7.

  1.5. Stop burning natural gas. Do 1.1. and 1.2.

  1.6. Don’t even think about processing any tar sands, oil shale, or coal gasification and liquefaction methods which are ultimately burned for POWER GENERATION or TRANSPORTATION after adding cost (not to mention all the networked industry complexities as mentioned above for coal). Consider these only “when there is no other way” situations: like we run out of crude oil and need plastics.

  1.7. Construct the new upgraded electric power grid in, above, below, or alongside the existing interstate highway right-of-ways which lead to major cities (where energy is used while passing thru the hinterlands within 50-100 miles of future solar and wind power farms).

      1.7.1. Integrate within these same interstate right-of-ways ELECTRIFIED FERRIES for cargo, vehicles and people, both two-way high speed interstate express and two-way local intrastate travel.

2. Reduce wasted energy in TRANSPORTATION (21 Quads or 80% of transportation energy is WASTED):

  2.1. Do 1.7. and 1.7.1. for intra- and interstate travel.

  2.2. Promote local transit systems within congested urban beltways, linked to the interstate highway system of 1.7.

  2.3. Promote hybrid and electric vehicles for personal commuting, local fleet service and commercial delivery.

  2.4 Promote biofuels for hybrids, ground, air and water transportation.

Much of the above is currently valid for developing countries which are repeating the mistakes the US made which hopefully can be redirected - be it because of air pollution [China, India], government edict, new alternatives, etc.).

Much of the above already exists in Europe, Japan, and some even in China, so it can be done.

It may take a permanent energy tax on crude oil, coal, and nat. gas to fund the above; and as wasted energy is reduced, the tax goes away. A wonder we’ve not seen.

ITEM 2: Pertinent notes:

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

The issue is appropriately identifying a purposeful need, seeding it’s BEST ultimate solution(s) with endorsement and support until it functions on its own, providing opportunity for TRUE, PURE competition, if competition is called for.

Welfare is welfare; gifts are gifts: no competition called for (other than for the welfare or gift).

Where one starts determines where he ends up; the start is very critical.

naked: your approach will simply continue addiction to foreign oil and continue to pump 19 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere for each of the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline the US burns every day.

naked: that was alot of work, i hope you have cut & paste! however, i strongly disagree with your policy of “stop burning natural gas”. to do so means America will stay addicted to oil and keep polluting at 19lbs of CO2 to the gallon of gasoline. bad, bad policy. we need natural gas badly as a bridge to mature fully electric vehicle and green energy electric generation infrastructure. that is going to take at least a decade. in the meantime, let’s be smart and switch to nat gas and start reducing foreign oil imports and emission immediately. no offense intended, but i was thinking of you when i wrote about some folks not being realistic about the challenges of wind/solar/and EVs.

naked: ok, well, i would “start” with a priority on electric/nat gas hybrid vehicles and a priority on nat gas refueling stations on the interstate highway system and a priority on an affordable appliance for nat gas refueling at home. all are available today and all mature and economic technologies.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

- big oil has rightfully reduced domestic oil production from north of 10 mbd to 6 mdb while consumption increased to 19 mbd.

Right thinking reduced the production and burning of our own more and more difficult to produce oil (it has not bubbled-up at the surface for 100 years - shortly after Drake started digging).

Dumb thinking (greed is dumb thinking) increased consumption to 19 mbd.

Now you want to repeat history with natural gas.

Right thinking would say let’s use the easy stuff (like lumber was cut until the hills were bare; picking coal from hillside outcroppings; scooping oil from bubbling pools at the surface; capturing the natural gas that was causing the bubbles in the oil pools; cutting whale blubber oil where appropriate; Dutch windmills; early US farmers/ranchers windmills; cow pies!!; Neanderthal solar…......). Do the easy smart thing (even if it takes an energy tax, like Europe, etc., to lock-in persuasion with good LEADERSHIP for and by the people).

The easiest switch for automobiles and commercial trucks and all the ones Fitz mentioned is to go to biofuel (cellulosic) and biodiesel hybrids.

Renewable feedstock crops we can currently grow on the surface using existing resources of equipment and trained labor on the farms. The processing equipment may have to be modified a little but the complete distribution system infrastructure exists (even along the existing interstates, if need be).

First, with biofuel/biodiesel hybrids economy we automatically need 1/2 to 1/3 of the gasoline consumption Fitz keeps talking about. Even less again if we put more interstate cargo on electrified rails, and beltway people on electrified transit systems, and the high speed trains along the east and west coast or NY-Chicago, etc., INSTEAD OF LAS VEGAS TO LA - there must be enough cactus along that route to play the Velcro stick-em game to hang the politicians and friends that put that expenditure into the spending bill!!).

Secondly, we have 34 million acres of idle land (7%) in the US, which we pay farmers $3,000,000,000, yes 3 billion, every year to NOT FARM IT. That $3 billion is just a part of the $13 Billion we pay farmers every year in subsidies. Over the past 12 years the Govt has given nearly $100 Billion of subsidies to farmers (and too much of it to do NOTHING, and the most to do CORN! right-thinking says go cellulosic!!).

So let’s give the farmers/producers some of those subsides to work the land and grow cellulosic biofuel and biodiesel for hybrids, ships, trains, planes, trucks and off-road construction equipment, including farm equipment (which is approaching perpetual motion). Hey, farmwork even puts real shovels to work.

Now, if we also stop subsidizing other “Neanderthal” ideas and focus just on the BEST, like the rest of my above “cut and paste” plan indicates (yes, sometimes repeated messages begin to be accepted as truth - only repeating history!!!).

Anyhow, can you imagine how much we could subsidize the right things if we stopped spending money on oil shale, tar sands, coal liquefaction and gasification, deep drilling exploration and production methods, for oil, gas and coal?

And then, if we actually made the switch of asset and resource utilization from industry and government (well, actually, my dollars, both!) to the BEST plan (again, like mine, above), we’d be independent and energy free forever within a decade.

Right-thinking required!!

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

Oh Fitz- I forgot. The existing rail trains are already electrified hybrids - they just use diesel fuel which could easily be biodiesel (if not pure electric).

And if you’ve been staying current, airplanes are about to become hybrids.

naked: you don’t want to use readily available US produced natural gas for which vehicle technology has existed for decades, yet you propose we used cellulosic and biodiesel hybrids? with all due respect, this kind of “right thinking” is reminds me of the hydrogen or fully electric promises: they simply keep us addicted to foreign oil and spewing CO2 into the air.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

Fitz - either your definition of “alternative” is flawed or your mission is flawed.

You want to be half pregnant, and it doesn’t work (unless, of course, you really don’t want to be pregnant; and it that’s the case, then you have to change your mission).

Right-thinking requires much consistency.

And by the way, I don’t really care about the “spewing out of CO2”. I’m not a greenie, global warming advocate; I’m a real, honest, truth-believing, free-enterprising, capitalistic scientist.

And, yes, I’m for not polluting good clean air AMAP - for which the US has done more than enough (more or less) vis-a-vis what it should now teach to developing nations.

I do care about our addiction(s) only in that it is to oil, gas and coal; I’d rather be addicted to solar, wind and biofuels, and of course the electric economy AMAP, and ASAP.

There must be consistency in that right-thinking also, of which I have never, ever lost sight. Well, I’m not perfectly flawless - but in this case more right than wrong.

And furthermore, let me help out one of your misconceptions: when one says STOP!, the ASAP and AMAP must also be considered; with technical feasibility being utmost (DUH!), and economic feasibility less so, and profitability further down the list; that is how most fundamental major change takes place.

Not unlike starting with pregnancy, babes, children, maturity, and finally (hopefully) independent productive citizens, with right-thinking well-embedded; and not a bunch of dependent, leaching, bloodsucking, parasitic, whining, socialistic, communistic, free-lunch, slothful, wrong-is-right, rights-advocating bums.

Peace, and carry on.

naked: i don’t think i did describe “alternative” and so i don’t know where you are coming from with that comment. however, my mission is clear:

i am sorry to see you are not concerned with the CO2 emissions. i am also sorry to see all the name calling which does not add to the quality of your post.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

Hey Fitz - there was no name-calling; only descriptions and definitions. This I probably shouldn’t say, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

And as far as not caring about CO2 emissions; their reduction is an unintended consequence of solar and wind generation and natural consequence of burning less oil, coal and gas (FOSSIL, by definition), even as biofuel (RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVE, by definition) burning incorporating 80% heat recovery hybrids remains to produce 1/5 the CO2 directly produced today, not to mention the additional indirect reduction due no longer participating in the complete exploration, mining, drilling, processing, transportation, reclamation industries associated with oil, gas and coal; and we have not yet begun to talk about the reduced CO2 when we are doing electric transportation—- so no, I don’t worry about CO2 production. It becomes what it should be, an inconsequential unintended consequence of the “why-worry” ilk.

Nearly non-existent with right-thinking.

————————————————————————————————————————

Have you been reading my energy plan??? You’re free to continue -
Jay

This figure

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

is my basis for good energy planning for the US with the overall goals of:

——- Original Message——-
From: Jay
To: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Cc: Cathy McMorris Rodgers ; Bill Gates Sr. ; cavuto FOX ; colmes FOX ; comments FOX ; Dr. Phil ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; greta FOX ; hannity FOX ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Jack Fagan ; Karen Dorn-Steele ; Maria US Senator Cantwell ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Marshall & Joyce Roberts ; orielly FOX ; Patty US Senator Murray ; Bob WA Senator Morton ; Bob WA Rep Sump ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Mad Money Replies ; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ; Jay Birge
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:04 PM
Subject: Chu Energy Meeting Monday, Feb23 with Pickens, et.al.; Natl Clean Energy….Action

Steven Chu - please review and if at all possible discuss with Boone Pickens, Pelosi, Reid, etc. on Monday. 

For all: a simple right-thinking one page plan, see below (MAROON) with ideas I have/have not heard discussed.

My basis is the US Energy Consumption data from Livermore Labs of which you are probably very aware.

Also included below are some notes that expand on some of the elements of the plan, key to:

  Pelosi and Reid (in RED);

  Vilsack (BLUE);

  Salizar (GREEN);

Thanks for listening.

ITEM 1: THE ENERGY PLAN

- We should transition to renewables ASAP/AMAP, which means with “time is of the essence” priorities and that being like we did the Manhattan Project - no holds barred (eg., no roadblocks by naysayers, et.al.).

So here’s the plan and the basis:

This figure

https://eed.llnl.gov/f...

is my basis for good energy planning for the US with the overall goals of:

I) eliminating wasted energy (56 of 97 Quads, or 58% of total US consumption is lost), and

II) leaving natural energy resources stored in the ground until we REALLY need them, while maximizing readily available and free forever solar and wind, and other alternatives (while eliminating trillions of foreign payments).

1. Reduce wasted energy in ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION (26 Quads or 68% of power generation energy is lost).

  1.1. Promote Solar PV and Wind.

  1.2. Promote pumped/stored hydro (and end-use storage technologies to handle the variability of 1.1. generation).

  1.3. Permit steam-to-electricity generation only in combined cycle plants where low pressure steam is utilized (even if thermal solar; AND nuclear[?]. Nuclear is dense enough and safe enough to promote block heating in cities as in Europe, or process industrialized areas?)

  1.4. Stop burning coal (and the networked supporting industries from mining, transportation, pollution, reclamation, maintenance, etc., without causing a depression - like, put them to work building solar and wind farms, and the new interstate power grid and ferries of 1.7 below; same for the oil, gas and auto guys, etc.). Do 1.1. and 1.7.

  1.5. Stop burning natural gas. Do 1.1. and 1.2.

  1.6. Don’t even think about processing any tar sands, oil shale, or coal gasification and liquefaction methods which are ultimately burned for POWER GENERATION or TRANSPORTATION after adding cost (not to mention all the networked industry complexities as mentioned above for coal). Consider these only “when there is no other way” situations: like we run out of crude oil and need plastics.

  1.7. Construct the new upgraded electric power grid in, above, below, or alongside the existing interstate highway right-of-ways which lead to major cities (where energy is used while passing thru the hinterlands within 50-100 miles of future solar and wind power farms).

      1.7.1. Integrate within these same interstate right-of-ways ELECTRIFIED FERRIES for cargo, vehicles and people, both two-way high speed interstate express and two-way local intrastate travel.

2. Reduce wasted energy in TRANSPORTATION (21 Quads or 80% of transportation energy is WASTED):

  2.1. Do 1.7. and 1.7.1. for intra- and interstate travel.

  2.2. Promote local transit systems within congested urban beltways, linked to the interstate highway system of 1.7.

  2.3. Promote hybrid and electric vehicles for personal commuting, local fleet service and commercial delivery.

  2.4 Promote biofuels for hybrids, ground, air and water transportation.

Much of the above is currently valid for developing countries which are repeating the mistakes the US made which hopefully can be redirected - be it because of air pollution [China, India], government edict, new alternatives, etc.).

Much of the above already exists in Europe, Japan, and some even in China, so it can be done.

It may take a permanent energy tax on crude oil, coal, and nat. gas to fund the above; and as wasted energy is reduced, the tax goes away. A wonder we’ve not seen.

ITEM 2: Pertinent notes:

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

The issue is appropriately identifying a purposeful need, seeding it’s BEST ultimate solution(s) with endorsement and support until it functions on its own, providing opportunity for TRUE, PURE competition, if competition is called for.

Welfare is welfare; gifts are gifts: no competition called for (other than for the welfare or gift).

Where one starts determines where he ends up; the start is very critical.

naked: your approach will simply continue addiction to foreign oil and continue to pump 19 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere for each of the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline the US burns every day.

naked: that was alot of work, i hope you have cut & paste! however, i strongly disagree with your policy of “stop burning natural gas”. to do so means America will stay addicted to oil and keep polluting at 19lbs of CO2 to the gallon of gasoline. bad, bad policy. we need natural gas badly as a bridge to mature fully electric vehicle and green energy electric generation infrastructure. that is going to take at least a decade. in the meantime, let’s be smart and switch to nat gas and start reducing foreign oil imports and emission immediately. no offense intended, but i was thinking of you when i wrote about some folks not being realistic about the challenges of wind/solar/and EVs.

naked: ok, well, i would “start” with a priority on electric/nat gas hybrid vehicles and a priority on nat gas refueling stations on the interstate highway system and a priority on an affordable appliance for nat gas refueling at home. all are available today and all mature and economic technologies.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

- big oil has rightfully reduced domestic oil production from north of 10 mbd to 6 mdb while consumption increased to 19 mbd.

Right thinking reduced the production and burning of our own more and more difficult to produce oil (it has not bubbled-up at the surface for 100 years - shortly after Drake started digging).

Dumb thinking (greed is dumb thinking) increased consumption to 19 mbd.

Now you want to repeat history with natural gas.

Right thinking would say let’s use the easy stuff (like lumber was cut until the hills were bare; picking coal from hillside outcroppings; scooping oil from bubbling pools at the surface; capturing the natural gas that was causing the bubbles in the oil pools; cutting whale blubber oil where appropriate; Dutch windmills; early US farmers/ranchers windmills; cow pies!!; Neanderthal solar…......). Do the easy smart thing (even if it takes an energy tax, like Europe, etc., to lock-in persuasion with good LEADERSHIP for and by the people).

The easiest switch for automobiles and commercial trucks and all the ones Fitz mentioned is to go to biofuel (cellulosic) and biodiesel hybrids.

Renewable feedstock crops we can currently grow on the surface using existing resources of equipment and trained labor on the farms. The processing equipment may have to be modified a little but the complete distribution system infrastructure exists (even along the existing interstates, if need be).

First, with biofuel/biodiesel hybrids economy we automatically need 1/2 to 1/3 of the gasoline consumption Fitz keeps talking about. Even less again if we put more interstate cargo on electrified rails, and beltway people on electrified transit systems, and the high speed trains along the east and west coast or NY-Chicago, etc., INSTEAD OF LAS VEGAS TO LA - there must be enough cactus along that route to play the Velcro stick-em game to hang the politicians and friends that put that expenditure into the spending bill!!).

Secondly, we have 34 million acres of idle land (7%) in the US, which we pay farmers $3,000,000,000, yes 3 billion, every year to NOT FARM IT. That $3 billion is just a part of the $13 Billion we pay farmers every year in subsidies. Over the past 12 years the Govt has given nearly $100 Billion of subsidies to farmers (and too much of it to do NOTHING, and the most to do CORN! right-thinking says go cellulosic!!).

So let’s give the farmers/producers some of those subsides to work the land and grow cellulosic biofuel and biodiesel for hybrids, ships, trains, planes, trucks and off-road construction equipment, including farm equipment (which is approaching perpetual motion). Hey, farmwork even puts real shovels to work.

Now, if we also stop subsidizing other “Neanderthal” ideas and focus just on the BEST, like the rest of my above “cut and paste” plan indicates (yes, sometimes repeated messages begin to be accepted as truth - only repeating history!!!).

Anyhow, can you imagine how much we could subsidize the right things if we stopped spending money on oil shale, tar sands, coal liquefaction and gasification, deep drilling exploration and production methods, for oil, gas and coal?

And then, if we actually made the switch of asset and resource utilization from industry and government (well, actually, my dollars, both!) to the BEST plan (again, like mine, above), we’d be independent and energy free forever within a decade.

Right-thinking required!!

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

Oh Fitz- I forgot. The existing rail trains are already electrified hybrids - they just use diesel fuel which could easily be biodiesel (if not pure electric).

And if you’ve been staying current, airplanes are about to become hybrids.

naked: you don’t want to use readily available US produced natural gas for which vehicle technology has existed for decades, yet you propose we used cellulosic and biodiesel hybrids? with all due respect, this kind of “right thinking” is reminds me of the hydrogen or fully electric promises: they simply keep us addicted to foreign oil and spewing CO2 into the air.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

Fitz - either your definition of “alternative” is flawed or your mission is flawed.

You want to be half pregnant, and it doesn’t work (unless, of course, you really don’t want to be pregnant; and it that’s the case, then you have to change your mission).

Right-thinking requires much consistency.

And by the way, I don’t really care about the “spewing out of CO2”. I’m not a greenie, global warming advocate; I’m a real, honest, truth-believing, free-enterprising, capitalistic scientist.

And, yes, I’m for not polluting good clean air AMAP - for which the US has done more than enough (more or less) vis-a-vis what it should now teach to developing nations.

I do care about our addiction(s) only in that it is to oil, gas and coal; I’d rather be addicted to solar, wind and biofuels, and of course the electric economy AMAP, and ASAP.

There must be consistency in that right-thinking also, of which I have never, ever lost sight. Well, I’m not perfectly flawless - but in this case more right than wrong.

And furthermore, let me help out one of your misconceptions: when one says STOP!, the ASAP and AMAP must also be considered; with technical feasibility being utmost (DUH!), and economic feasibility less so, and profitability further down the list; that is how most fundamental major change takes place.

Not unlike starting with pregnancy, babes, children, maturity, and finally (hopefully) independent productive citizens, with right-thinking well-embedded; and not a bunch of dependent, leaching, bloodsucking, parasitic, whining, socialistic, communistic, free-lunch, slothful, wrong-is-right, rights-advocating bums.

Peace, and carry on.

naked: i don’t think i did describe “alternative” and so i don’t know where you are coming from with that comment. however, my mission is clear:

i am sorry to see you are not concerned with the CO2 emissions. i am also sorry to see all the name calling which does not add to the quality of your post.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

Hey Fitz - there was no name-calling; only descriptions and definitions. This I probably shouldn’t say, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

nakedjaybird
509 Comments

And as far as not caring about CO2 emissions; their reduction is an unintended consequence of solar and wind generation and natural consequence of burning less oil, coal and gas (FOSSIL, by definition), even as biofuel (RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVE, by definition) burning incorporating 80% heat recovery hybrids remains to produce 1/5 the CO2 directly produced today, not to mention the additional indirect reduction due no longer participating in the complete exploration, mining, drilling, processing, transportation, reclamation industries associated with oil, gas and coal; and we have not yet begun to talk about the reduced CO2 when we are doing electric transportation—- so no, I don’t worry about CO2 production. It becomes what it should be, an inconsequential unintended consequence of the “why-worry” ilk.

Nearly non-existent with right-thinking.

————————————————————————————————————————