The New Global Energy Thread - U.S. Per Capita Energy Consumption Plummets

Welcome 137 to the Senate Floor.

The car's fuel comes from water, but it's not water after hydrogen atoms are stripped from the oxygen.

Hydrogen is a fuel that comes from an investment of energy from another source. You can't have a 'hydrogen economy' without first having a stable primary source to produce the hydrogen fuel. The advantages of hydrogen are that it can be stored and quickly recharged like any fuel. The drawbacks are that you invest more into producing the fuel than you get back in the exchange.

 

Stanley Meyer's car produced Hydrogen and Oxygen on demand from a tank of pure water...

the electrolysis process he used created more oxyhydrogen gas (aka brown's gas) than conventional electrolysis using just a 12v car battery...

he was able to create some kind of resonance in the water using pulsed DC current, enabling him to produce far more gas than a science text book will tell you is possible...

therefore no hydrogen tank was needed...

there are people out there replicating his work with some success...

check out 'hho' on youtube, there's a plethora of information out there and it's growing fast

there are other technologies out there too which claim to be over-unity devices and many of them are turning out to be the real-deal... but they have been suppressed and their inventors silenced...

but not anymore, the number of people who now know about this has reached a critical mass and this cannot be kept quiet anymore..

Stanley Meyers was offered 1Billion US dollars by oil companies in the 1970's to cease his research and 'sit-on' the technology, he refused... then 1 day after signing a million dollar deal to develop the technology for the US Military he died from food poisoning...

literally hundreds of inventors who've discovered and tried to publicise new ways to generate power have been paid off or killed, because if you were an evil man and earned billions a year from the sale of gas, what would you do if someone tried to power the world using water...?

what i'm saying here is plain old water can power the world forever and never run out

the process is over-unity, energy is drawn from the zp field to split the water molecules, the end product after combustion is water again, the engine using this technology will run a car and recharge the battery at the same time and it could probably even recycle the water.

i know this is hard to swallow, but i put it forward to you, oh wise Senate for serious consideration
look into it before it's suppressed again, this has to get out into the mainstream...

the people have to be told.

137

 

Then it would seem that the car would have been able to operate on just the 12v battery. Unless the laws of matter and energy suddenly changed. The way I remember is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. Unless this car had a fusion reactor, I could hardly imagine it running off water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9VQxsd77To

This video explicitly declares that the car uses compressed hydrogen. They should have said that is operates on water AND hydrogen gas. The hydrogen isn't taken from the water used in the vehicle. It depends upon a primary source of energy to operate. It's a marketing ploy.

 

Watched a news piece on Honduras, where major glacial melting is causing a water shortage.
They blame the developed nations for doing the damage that has caused their situation.

"Honduras did not cause this, yet we suffer the consequences" said one man.

I am also confused as to why it's being viewed as great that Obama can attend the Climate summit on the last day only. Why does he not attend for the whole thing?
I suppose it's because he doesn't take it seriously....just like those before him.

 

I just took a look at the price of coal in the last two years and noticed how significantly is spiked when the depression hit. Do any people here know why a ton of coal for powerplants would climb from ~$50-$60 to ~$140 within a month and then level off again as it had?

The price of oil had the opposite effect, gasoline having risen to nearly $4 a gallon before plummeting at the same time that coal had skyrocketed. I ask because I'm curious as to how elastic the price of coal can be in the US, given as the spike was caused more by the market than by the supplies.

 

Obama wants to make sure he won't get asked any difficult question, for example about the IPCC's cooked-up climate data...

@Darth_Yuthura: nice link, i hadn't seen that link yet, the car/van is using a water injection system, and yes you're correct hydrogen for fuel...

water injection is a very old technology, it was used in fighters and bomber in ww2 to increase power on take-off, simply by injecting water into your engine during combustion will rapidly turn water to steam and the expansive force gives the engine a big kick...

hydrogen is a great fuel source and can be made cheaply and easily...

storing them in compressed air tanks is one way to store it, but there is another even better way:
link
see ~7 mins in


stanley meyer's car:
link

 

Hydrogen isn't the 'miracle' energy it's made out to be.

It is more like electricity than oil to an economy. Electricity is a form of energy, but it is generated by oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass... anything I missed?

Hydrogen is exactly the same way, as it is generated by any of these. It's what called a secondary source of energy. Like electricity, you get a lot of waste from producing hydrogen. The difference between the two is that hydrogen can store energy, whereas electricity must be used as it's generated. If the US is suffering an energy crisis, then hydrogen would only add to our demand; not ease it.

 

I was pleased to see on the BBC news this evening the various prototype wave & tidal power machines being tested off the UK coast at the moment. A number show great promise for generating electricity efficiently.

However, what the segment did not mention was exactly how much electiricty can be produced from such technology.

 

I've been studying more about alternative energies in the US and found that the US is really directing its energies (no pun intended) much more towards wind than it is to solar. That strikes me as odd that there aren't many solar thermal power installations in the US. Wind turbines are showing up everywhere, but very few solar thermal plants are being planned.

Compared to solar voltaic cells, solar thermal plants achieve a much higher efficiency. Yet the industry for voltaic cells are excelling at a far greater rate than large-scale installations. And compared to wind, solar thermal can achieve a much greater reliability if constructed in the right locations... deserts for instance. And with nearly 10% of Americans living on the west coast, it would make sense to build more and more solar thermal installations where you rarely get cloudy days.

Do any here know why that is?

 

I believe Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman will be unveiling their energy legislation bill soon.

It seems like it will lack cap-and-trade, and they will market it as a jobs and energy independence bill, will climate "coming along for the ride." Which I think is a very intelligent way to sell it, in this political climate.

AP Interview: Kerry: Energy bill more about jobs

Sen. John Kerry, hoping to win over wavering senators, said he is pushing environmental reforms to create jobs and spark energy independence, with climate benefits along "for the ride."

In an interview with The Associated Press, the Massachusetts Democrat said legislation he's crafting with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., will differ from a House-passed bill that embraces a so-called "cap and trade" approach to reduce pollution blamed for global warming.

"It will be a very different mix of a bill from where we were at the end of the House effort," Kerry said. "It will be simpler, and hopefully, capable of attracting support."

By pushing for alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power, the bill could create more than a million jobs while reducing pollution and cleaning up the air, Kerry said in the Thursday interview.

"It's primarily a jobs bill, and an energy independence bill and a pollution reduction-health-clean air bill," Kerry said. "Climate sort of follows. It's on for the ride."


(continued at the link)

This seems more bipartisan and likely to pass than healthcare/financial/immigration reform efforts.

 

Building a competitive alternative energy industry should be considered a priority critical to our national security. Without it, energy growth in this country will have to come from building more coal-fired power plants.

China's approach to energy is basically throw everything at the problem, and that alone given their size and growth rate will make them world leaders in alternative energy technology.

 

One of the problems with promoting alternative energy is that it isn't profitable. There is little gain to be made by spending ~$15,000 on solar panels to save $50 a month. You can find many better uses for such sums of cash. The whole 'cheap energy for the future' promotion is just crap.

At least in the short run...

As coal and natural gas become increasingly more expensive in the future, there will be a point when it makes more sense to buy solar panels. It won't ever be cheap, but they would be far less expensive than what coal and oil-based energy is expected to skyrocket 30 years from now.

 

There are more cost effective ways to use solar energy: passive/active solar water heating built into all new home construction could be very cost effective.

 

This is actually the best way to do it. We are dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a long time. So rather than try and come up with solutions that will serve us very well in two hundred years, like fuel cells, we should be looking to find the best ways to reduce our dependence on oil.

Yes, you can use solar voltaic cells for electricity, which get about %10 efficiency; or use another system which directly takes sunlight without any conversions or transmission losses.

 

Joint Operating Environment

The United States Joint Forces Command's 2010 Joint Operating Environment Report warns of peak oil:

Energy Summary
To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then.

During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.

At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity.

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.

Energy production and distribution infrastructure must see significant new investment if energy demand is to be satisfied at a cost compatible with economic growth and prosperity. Efficient hybrid, electric, and flex-fuel vehicles will likely dominate light-duty vehicle sales by 2035 and much of the growth in gasoline demand may be met through increases in biofuels production. Renewed interest in nuclear power and green energy sources such as solar power, wind, or geothermal may blunt rising prices for fossil fuels should business interest become actual investment. However, capital costs in some power-generation and distribution sectors are also rising, reflecting global demand for alternative energy sources and hindering their ability to compete effectively with relatively cheap fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will very likely remain the predominant energy source going forward.

To me, this is strong evidence that the U.S. government is aware the extent to which the world is about to experience a serious oil export crisis. One by one, every country on earth that exports oil will begin to consume all its production domestically. Saudi Arabia, desperate to feed its population overhang, will be trading oil for grain for several years after all other nations have ceased exporting oil.

Britain is at the beginning of a serious petroleum shock. Their transition from being a net oil exporter to net oil importer is only a few years old, but it is going to be as big a crisis for their government as the 2008 financial and real estate collapse.

The U.S. has only 2 to 5 years to prepare for a global export collapse and price spikes unlike anything we've yet seen.

 

I must say that this really has me concerned. I'd always expected that there would be a day when our lifestyle over the last fifty years would come to an end. As I got older and wiser, I came to accept that every generation had its ultimate crisis and that this future collapse wasn't going to result in the end of the world. It did make sense that the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Great Depression, and both World Wars all filled those people with as much fear; but we got through those. I guess I felt a bit more comfortable thinking that things won't be so bad.

And yet, as I witness events only beginning to unfold... as I watch the world's economy begin to stagnate on the cusp of peak oil... I cannot help fearing that the world is going to change more in the next two decades than anyone dared to contemplate. This is the first time in our entire history when we recognize that we've gone to the ends of the Earth and now realize that there is almost no new oil discoveries left to be found. Now it will become a matter of making due with what we have left.

I can honestly say the event before us will be unlike any other in history.

 

The issue really is simple. How quickly can coal and other alternatives be ramped up to fuel the electrification of our transportation network, and how affordable will that comprehensive infrastructure transformation be in a period of successive oil shocks? I don't really believe that our coal supplies will last us one hundred years if they not only have to provide the backbone of our current electricity needs but also mitigate peak oil as a bridge fuel for our transportation needs.

And, if we do decide to throw all available coal resources at the problem as quickly as we can dig or scrape or blast it out of the ground, what are the environmental and climate consequences.

The first, and most immediate consequence of an oil export crisis is that all efforts at global C02 emissions limits and controls will come to a sudden and permanent end. The industrial age will end the way it started, by burning as much coal as we can get our hands on, as quickly as we can get our hands on it. Welcome to the 19th century.

 

Well at the rate we're converting to electric cars, I wouldn't put much faith in that idea.

The US really needs to rethink the way we get around and realize that the best overall solution is sheer reduction. No, that's not a word Americans ever use, but it'll be essential if we don't want to consider paying half our salaries into fueling our cars. We need greater population density for two purposes - to bring us and our destinations much closer to each other, and to make light rail a feasible transportation option. That uses electricity, so improving battery capacity/lowering costs won't be a hinderance.

Reduction is genuinely the best option because it has the longest-lasting benefits of any solution we will have available to us in the future.

 

I'd agree with that too. The age of automobiles is coming to an end. Decent public transportation solves all sorts of problems, but the U.S. devoted the better part of a century to building precisely the wrong kinds of communities. Ten years from now that will become a serious competitive disadvantage for our economy as a whole relative to Europe and parts of Asia.

 

Mockery: Oh no, we can still keep our automobiles. Ever heard of hydrogen? It's just as cheap as gasoline for the mileage you get on a kilo of hydrogen. And the greatest part is that we'll never run out. If that fails, we can always use biofuels or ethanol. We can make all that here in the US.

Seriously: I also am very concerned over the recent shutting down of Yucca Mountain and its impact on nuclear energy. All US nuclear reactors are reaching the end of their life span and there is still a huge pile of the waste spent fuel with nowhere to go. I am deeply concerned over the continued delays in providing new nuclear reactors. Because we're going to first have to replace all of those we had come to depend on for 33% (Now about 15%) of our electricity. As demand grows as well and other sources become scarcer, I seriously fear that this second nuclear revolution won't be implemented in time to save us. If energy prices go through the roof, I have little doubt that the US economy will go into complete meltdown.

 

That's why there's going to be a coal stampede. Coal plants can be built much faster than nuclear reactors, with fewer regulatory hoops and less public outcry. Also, I think there are serious reasons to be concerned about sourcing enough fissionable uranium to support a global nuclear boom.

 

Offshore energy has two significant stories from the past few days.

One is the approval of America's first offshore wind farm:

US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar yesterday gave the go ahead for the country?s first offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts.

The $1 billion Cape Wind project has spent nearly a decade in the consultation and review stage thanks to strong opposition from influential residents including the Kennedys and local Native American tribes.

The other is a new estimate that in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, oil from the ocean floor is spilling directly into the Gulf perhaps at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day as opposed to earlier estimates of 1,000/day. If true, the spill may well surpass the Exon Valdez disaster before the well can be closed off.

Drill baby drill indeed.

This accident gives us a clear look at the challenges of trying to access the hard-to-reach oil at the extreme edges of our technological capabilities. Equipment operating at the extreme pressures resulting from having a mile of water overhead may have led directly or indirectly to the initial explosion and loss of the drilling platform. "A mile down" tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the difficulties of closing off the well.

 

To lose all that oil... what a waste.

Seriously: This disaster very likely won't kill additional offshore drilling, but Florida very likely won't change their minds about it anytime soon. This ironically is one of the best places for an oil spill to happen, given as the runoff from the Mississippi has already left its impact on that area. Although I hope this doesn't happen again, this has the potential to be far more serious than Exon Valdez. Unlike a tanker with a very finite amount of oil, this well has a volume far greater than anything a single tanker could release.

We need to figure out a way to seal the breech and be prepared to implement it again for any future drilling.

 

Yes, and that may take 2-3 months or longer. They may literally have to build a big dome capable of withstanding all that pressure and lower it over the wellhead to trap the oil.

What's going to happen as a result of this mess is that oil companies are going to have to undertake a serious review of deepwater exploration tech, there will inevitably be new federal regulations. It will slow further deepwater efforts dramatically. We need the oil, and this is the price we're going to be paying for it. As always, the question is going to be at what point does preventing environmental disasters make cutting edge, Deepwater Horizon-level exploration, drilling and production too expensive?

Every oil exploration project that does not take place today is going to be a supply shortfall 7-8 years from now.

 

I'm trying to understand the physics in this leak.

This isn't just some tube that's simply allowing oil to escape, from what I've gathered. Is the rate of oil discharge increased as a result of ocean pressure upon the well?

I'm just having difficulty with understanding the physics of ocean drilling, so any details would be appreciated.