Optimism for Christmas - A grand Gift

Most of the energy issues that face our world are repairable in proper steps. All it takes is optimism and intelligence. I have been worried for some time because the pessimists have been in charge.

There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, which is called realism. Nothing good results from too much of any of them, even realism. Even a realist needs a little craziness from time to time.

Municipal scale cooperative utilities are my crazy vision of the future. Combining power generation, waste disposal, water treatment and production in efficient co-generation to get the maximum benefit for the community for the buck.

No more NIMBY mentality. Deal with your own shit on your own turf. The technology is available now to start on that path. There are lots of great ideas that have waited for their time. Which ones will win depends on the needs and desires of the community.

So I will be digging through some of the better ones I have and add a few of my own not that it looks like the rough patch is getting shorter.

Happy Holidays and a prosperous future.

What Just Happened? Is Hydrogen Back in the Picture?

The EPA made a politically timed announcement that the Maximum Achievable Clean Technology (MACT) is now in force in the the United States. Under the guise of getting Mercury pollution from nasty coal fired power plants finally under control, the MACT will have impact on about 10 percent of the older coal power plants with 12 percent of the currently operating power plants already meeting the MACT tighter standards. While the Greens strut around proclaiming victory over nasty coal, the MACT seems to endorse clean coal technology, or cleaner coal technology if you prefer.

As usual, the industries that will bear the brunt of the regulation will not be the target mentioned in the media hype. Forestry and pulp products, smaller scale industrial power generation and institutional (university and military) power and thermal plants will have to get out of the power business.

Pulp mills have worked hard the past 20 years to bring emissions under control to meet the demands of encroaching residential property owners that build homes near pulp plants. Hey, the land was cheap for a reason guys.

It is all good, other than the suburban sprawl started the ball rolling. Cleaner emissions generally mean more efficient energy use.

Integrated Gasification combined cycle power generation, the cleaner coal technology, meets the EPA regulations which opens the door to a variety of mixed fuel and synergistic industrial applications. Only problem is, will the small guys feel the boot of big government and be driven out of the picture?

I haven't posted on this blog in quite some time because nothing has happened. MACT may be a big something. With some reasonable assurance that the rules are not going to change for the 50 years or so required to invest in new coal and unconventional fuel technology, the EPA may have unleashed the innovative potential of American entrepreneurs. The tide may have turned!

Sanity in Energy Choices - Has the Time Come?

With the prospect of radical Green Energy only changing, it may be that rational decisions may finally be made. It's the economy, stupid has finally sunk in.

There are plenty of paths on the energy road to take. Affordable is the biggest road block. Natural gas while far from perfect, is affordable and offers plenty of options.

Electrical generation has gotten most of the attention. Coal fire power plants do produce a lot of pollution if not fitted with state of the art scrubbers and filters. Even then they produce more CO2 that other fuel choices. Natural gas combined cycle power plants produce much less pollution and up to 70% less CO2 than existing coal fire power plants.

A new MIT study not only promotes the future of natural gas from shale, but also points in the direction of Liquid To Gas (LTG) synthetic fuel production. Compared to Generation IV nuclear and a combination of "sustainable" energy sources, the technology of efficient natural gas and GTL technologies are a piece of cake.

As I have ranted before, Synfuel is has both economic and political advantages. While the cost of synfuels is higher than average oil based products, the swings in oil prices kill economic growth. Synfuel will help stabilize energy prices which is key to planning for the future.

Also as I have mentioned, synfuel offers a variety of green options for those so inclined. Biomass conversion to liquid fuels is limited both by feed stock and product. Synfuel expands both offering needed flexibility. Food to fuel can return to its intended role as a use for surplus or unsalable stocks instead of diverting, or at least appearing to divert, food from the starving masses.

For hydrogen fans, natural gas is both good and bad. Hydrogen from natural gas is the more cost effective method of producing hydrogen. It doesn't have the Green stamp of approval, but it can be the step needed to move into a more hydrogen based economy, buying time for fuel cells and hydrogen storage to make the next move into affordability.

Fuel cells are very close to affordability. Ballard Power and others have products that with increased production are very affordable. The Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology should improve mainly with new versions of the PEM using less expensive catalysts. The basic design of the components other than the membrane may very well not change. With companies focusing on reliable and reasonable cost maintenance of the fuel cells, a fuel cell purchased now may not be obsolete in a few years. That is the big fear when investing in improving technology, the chance of your investment being replaced with something costing a fraction of the cost.

Storage of hydrogen is a bigger question. Metal hydrates offer a lot of potential but are expensive. High pressure storage can be overly expensive if a reasonable useful life cannot be expected from the expensive composite construction storage tanks. Polymer lined metal cylinders are reliable, but the volume is limited due to pressure limits. Then there are other technologies that may rise in the near future. Once storage issues are resolved, direct conversion of electricity to hydrogen will become much more attractive.

All in all, the natural gas step makes a great deal of sense.

It is Time to Pull the Trigger on Synfuels!

The economy sucks. Gas prices are insane. Employment has lots of room to rebound. Despite all the less than ideal timing, it is time to start building Synfuel plants.

Waffling environmentalists have proven one thing, they can't lead. Leadership requires action after thought, not just more thought. Like it or not, Synfuels are not only a potentially cleaner option for transportation fuels, they are a political message. If we start building synfuel plants, the oil producing world WILL take notice.

Synfuel plants can be fine tuned with hydrogen enrichment, co-generation and biomass (trash) feed stocks to provide high quality fuels with a smaller carbon foot print and a competitive price. Yes, that's right, a competitive price. The target price per gallon of synfuel is $2.31 a gallon. We have past that with flying colors. Allow fifty percent for overly optimistic estimation and ridiculously over regulation by the "Greens", you still have $3.50 a gallon. There will of course be an oil price drop with any significant Synfuel production, but do you really think that oil prices and construction prices won't go back up again? Planning ahead saves money in the long run. Synfuel processes have been proven and work. Unlike the energies of the future that are still in the future, Synfuels can send a message now.

That is the end of my rant for the day.

More on Synthetic Fuels

Cruising the internet for different Synthetic Fuel (synfuel) projects is not turning up as much as I would have expected. I am not sure if it is double top secret or if no one cares. There are various estimated costs for LNG, COAL or natgas synfuel project and once in a while a biomass combination project is found by Google.

My latest kick is the biomass combo synfuel applications. As I mentioned in America the Saudi Arabia of Trash, the US has a prime time need for biomass conversion into something. Straight biomass conversion is very difficult and not particularly efficient. Maintaining the reactor (that would be a chemical reactor)temperatures with a standard fuel source makes the whole process much easier.

The reasons are numerous for combination biomass/standard fuel processes. The biomass has to be dried to maintain a consistent energy input, biomass has different ash and trash to control than standard fuels. Scrubbers for trash to cash biomass are more difficult without a more constant source temperature.

The estimates for synfuel production to be cost effective hover around $50 US a barrel. That has long since been met, implying to me that there should be more buzz about new plant starts. Then, synfuels are not the holy grail of alternate green fuels.

The trash to cash synfuels should really be given a little better consideration by both sides of the ridiculously polarized supporters of saving the planet or our lifestyle. While not perfect, it reduces more than one problem, waste disposal, carbon emission reduction and less dependence on foreign sources of oil. That is without the hydrogen enrichment which can really boost production and drop GHG emissions.

I suppose the art of compromise is lost in these ridiculously polarized times. One paper I recently found finds that it is the government's failure, which I have to remind everyone, is our failure. Central governments are great at some projects, but really suck at the majority. While there are many that will argue against me, the market is better able to perform most things cost effectively. Regulations are of course needed to protect the environment and public, but let's get real, regulations that are overly conservative strangle creativity in energy options.

For some odd reason, we as a people cannot focus on the overall impact, only the little nits which everyone loves to pick. Zero is a number that applies to a lot of things, but risk is not one of them. Risk versus reward is something that has to be carefully considered in all aspects of life. The risk of things unfamiliar seems to invoke fear instead of curiosity. Why we can't look at risk pragmatically is a puzzle that will lead to our downfall if we don't solve it.

If you can, do a little research on waste as in trash and synfuels. If you have an open mind you can run the numbers or find someone to run the numbers. The numbers will tell you that biomass/standard synfuels is a potential win worthy of some support from both sides of the aisle.

America - The Sudia Arabia of Trash

I like looking at opportunities. One of our country's greatest un-natural resources is trash. We have trash everywhere. Mountains of garbage entombed in landfills all over the country. Treasure troves of not so raw materials and potential energy just waiting for the right time to exploit. How close is that time?

With all the hype related to global warming, energy security, protecting our environment and high energy prices what is being done with the garbage crisis? Not a lot!

Garbage is biomass. That warm and fuzzy buzz word implying our salvation from big everything is waiting in our own back yards. It just might be back there in mount Trashmore.

Incinerators are so 20th century. Much more eloquent designs remove virtually all of the nasty pollutants incinerators were known for in the past. Handling the garbage is the main problem. Sorting and separating often becomes a hands on situation that even illegal immigrants avoid. Nasty job! Mechanical mining and separation of garbage is less distasteful. Machines don't gag when they encounter junior's decade old dirty dity. When this valuable un-natural energy source is combined with other clean combustibles, magic happens. Energy from waste, reduced trash leaching into our ground water and fewer unsightly mount Trashmores. Sounds like a plan right? It is and a better plan than many think.

Not only is there energy in them thar trash mountains, there is biofuel! Yep, chemical engineers not only can convert trash to cash, but trash you can pump into you gas tank. So why aren't we doing this? Stupidity is the only thing that pops into my mind. We have to be careful though, we could run into the great trash shortage in the not too distant future. Damn the bad luck!

Why Waste Heat?

Waste heat is money down the drain. Unfortunately, we cannot help but waste heat. If we could avoid it, we would have perpetual motion machines. No energy problem would exist. In the real world there is energy loss. How much is really a matter of money. This is not some conspiracy, it is thermodynamics versus finance. You make energy decisions every day. You have a ten year old car that gets 20 MPG, but you can drive new hybrid that gets 48 MPG. Is it worth $45,000 to you to more than double your gas mileage? Just like the laws of thermodynamics limit engine efficiency, your financial situation limits your energy efficiency choices.

Some say, "There is so much more we can do to conserve energy". Of course there is, but there are financial and physical limits. You can add insulation to your house of even paint your roof white. You can't live in a thermos bottle. So there is a point were adding more insulation is not cost effective. Painting the roof white is fine, but you have to clean the roof to keep it white.

Is there a conspiracy by big oil and Detroit to keep 100 MPG cars off the road? No, there are real technological, financial and utility limits. You can build something close, but is not very useful. A one seater car with hard rubber tires and no get up and go limits consumer demand. The Chevy volt EV1 was a neat battery powered car. It had a limited consumer base, high maintenance costs and was not worth the money for Chevy support. It was cheaper for them to shred them than keep them on the road. Sad but true. A lot of the new high efficiency ideas require the public putting their cash on the line. There is a bunch of public out there with different needs, wants and financial resources.

A surprisingly large number of the public are second hand buyers. That is not just people buying cars it is also municipalities waiting for proven technology. There is no magic wand that anyone can wave to change things. You have to work with what you got.

As prices for energy grow, the options to save energy increase because they become more affordable. Take the car example, with gas at $1.50 a gallon it would be foolish to invest so much to save so little. With gas at $5.00 a gallon that new hybrid starts to look more attractive. The Chevy Volt would still be on the road with lots of buddies had gas prices stayed high. It is not that bright to artificially inflate gas prices just so you can see more Volts than Volkswagen. Trust me, poverty sucks.

Estimating future energy prices is needed to determine the value of energy options. Now, energy security issues adds to the criterion and potential global warming is in the mix. That all combines to make more energy options viable. Financially, bang for the buck is still a major issue with either your or the peoples money.

Security wise, the Department of Defense will lead the way on transportation fuels. That limits fuels to NATO compatible blends. There is some use of waste heat that can be included in manufacture of alternate energy types of these fuels.

The big uses for waste heat are in industry. The concrete industry can use power plant exhaust heat. Not for the full process, but to preheat materials prior to final processing. They use waste heat now, it will just mean that it worth the money to use more. Lumber kilns can use waste heat even ice making companies can use waste heat.

In the US, some where around 60% of the energy used by power plants is wasted. At the time they were built, technology and finances greatly limited efficiency. In today's world that can be reduced to 50% and with a little extra need even 40%. That will decrease energy use by 20% with only one catch. That improved efficiency will not be just electrical output. It requires joint government/business partnerships to explore waste heat recovery options.

It is all in the Sales Pitch

Getting warm and fuzzy folks to even think about any energy efficient solutions using coal in any form is like getting a 5 year old to eat broccoli. Spinach is easier because you can dig out old Popeye cartoons for the sales pitch. Biomass is like spinach, easy sell.

The Green Car Congress is about as warm and fuzzy as you can get. They like this idea, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/12/liu-20101209.html because it uses "Bio Mass". FutureGen, the prototype coal plant of the future, is broccoli,Blah! If you add 15% to 25% bio mass to FutureGen, that is like covering the broccoli with cheese and bacon bits.

Why you have to play games with the warm and fuzzies is something I am beginning to understand. Actual thinking about real world issues is too far removed from the abstract Utopian vision they share. Compromise is taboo. Why else would activists fall for the Di-Hydrogen Mono-oxide skit? They definitely did not show effective reasoning skills. So we have to sugar coat or cover things with cheese and bacon bits to get them to taste reality.

Our Hydrogen Economy and Synfuels

"Implementing our "Hydrogen Economy" with Synfuels" is an interesting paper. I have not discussed this because I am biased to fuel cell vehicles. Still we have a butt load of internal combustion engines and gas turbines that would go to waste if some liquid fuel is not available. If I were king, I would phase out IC engines, but gear heads would have my head on a platter.

Using coal to produce synthetic fuels has been around for a long time. FutureGen is a prototype coal project intended to maximize the efficiency of coal combining carbon capture and sequestering. Sequestering carbon is not cheap. All those nasty carbon atoms need a useful purpose in life. Augmenting synfuel production with hydrogen from a clean or "green" source gives those poor misunderstood carbon atoms a purpose.

Of course, this "Carbon Recycling" concept is lost on the warm and fuzzy crowd bearing torches and pitch forks. Read the paper. Later we will discuss possibilities. BTW, you can leave comments, you can even call me an idiot if you like. I have a thick skin so I won't cry too long.