21st Century Energy

Reflections on fusion history, current events, and predictions for the 'fusion powered future.
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

21st Century Energy

Post by 3l »

Hi Folks:

The century has just started and trouble is everywhere.
Energy is high and the powers that be are helpless in the supply department.
The Prez sez that in thirty years it will be all right.
Right! Freeze thirty years in the dark. Sure thing Mr President.
What a dumb yuppy !!!!

What to do?

Give up?....Naw!

A Republican friend lamented that he was just nuts to be sucked in by this posser (Bush) ....so he I and brain stormed a fix to the current mess.

Steam power but in a new upgraded form release 2.0.

Use renewables to make steam to power generators ,hybrid cars , heat water and heat the house.

I know what you are thinking isn't steam horrendously expensive? At appropriate scale it is relatively cheap compared to IC engine generator set at today's gas prices.

Don't steam plants have to be huge to get economy of scale?

Only if you are powering New York City does scale matter due to the quantity of electricity required.

21st century steam technology will differ greatly from 20th century steam technology.

A Small List!

#1 21st century Plants will be small 10 horsepower or less vs 20th century 10 MW or more.

#2 Plants will run on small quantities of renewable fuel like cardboard,wood chips ,concentrated sunlight,shelled corn, charcoal bricketts,alcohol,hydrogen,logs,republicans (shrubs and bushes ...Pun inside), fusion when ready, or fusion
hybrids vs coal and standard nuclear.

#3 Plant costs - 21st century under 3 grand vs the 20th century 2-3 billion for a large scale megaplex.

#4 Plant location - 21st century plant could go in a closet or basement vs 100 to 200 square acres fo a twentieth century
Plant site.

#5 21st century plants have no vunerable transmittion lines (in Katrina all main power lines were destroyed in minutes of storm
winds over 120 mph)

#6 No Security problems like a 20th century nuclear plant.

#7 No middlemen to jack up the prices of the electricity.
(Children's Mercedes are so expensive you know)

#8 You control the horizontal, you control the vertical.... energy at your whim.

#9 21st century steam will be drastically more efficient by using the process heat generated by the Rankine Cycle to heat and cool your house and heat water in a water heater vs the 20th century megaplex that simply discards the excess heat out cooling towers.

#10 The cost of a small steam plant 3,000 dollars vs solar electric panels and windpower is no contest. 6 kw of solar panels @ altenergystore.com is $24,000 dollars ,windpower in the 10 hp range is about 20 thousand bucks.

#11 a local plant of 10 hp could charge the battery of your hot wired hybrid with an overnight load of fire wood.

#12 only small releases of greenhouse gases totally offset by growing you own fuel. (I intend to grow privet hedge shrubs.... fast growing.. low to the ground ....easy to harvest....a weed in Mississippi)

#13 To prevent insane costs of feedback control in the steam equipment 60 cycles is out... >= 400 cycles is in.
Smaller turbines run best at higher RPM .
You could run them at higher RPM ...just rectify the output to DC.
The turbine could be run in shorter periods just long enough to charge the car and house batteries.

#14 Small turbines require smaller boilers..hence you can get away using a shell and monotube boiler. A shell can be as simple as
a cooking stew pot and the tube can be schedule K 3/8" copper tubing. You can view this very setup at Dangerous Labs website in Colorado.
http:\\\\ www.dangerouslaboratories.org
(goto power generation then click on homemade boiler)
Brakeline steel tubing runs a dollar a foot in 25 foot rolls at Autozone in 3/8" size. It should handle the 250 Psi steam.

This is equivelent to an "M" boiler that model steam train enthuseists have used them for years. Check them out at
http:\\\\ www.livesteam.com

#15 Steam plants can be fired up and running in minutes and are not subject to night,rain,cloudy or windless days like other alternates.

#16 When the fusor is ready just wrap the copper or steel tube around the reaction vessel and vola a working energy system.

#16 Alergic to turbines but still want to steam without building totally from scratch.....steam piston kits

Exerpted from Marine Steam Engine Section

The single-cylinder "M" requires a boiler of about 30 square feet of heating surface, and should be able to supply about 250 lbs. of steam per hour--that's about 1/2 gallon of water per minute. The engine produces about 4kw of electricity when connected to a generator.

More expensive but more realistic

A 3" x 5" x 4" compound steam engine conservatively rated at 10 h.p. A very robust engine capable of many hours of hard work.

The 3454 is a compound version of the "M" engine. This engine should do a good job in boats from 20' to 30' and would require a boiler of about 30 square feet or one capable of producing 250 lbs. of steam per hour (that's about 1/2 gallon of water per minute).


http://www.tinypower.com

More to come!

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy Part #2

Post by 3l »

Hi Folks:

Originally I used 10 hp as my design goal but even as low as one
HP could greatly supplement a house. The one horse setup used by Dangerous Labs uses easy to get industrial components with no developement headaches. A one Hp setup to be replaced by solar would require 745 watts of panels about 800 dollars of panels and about 600 dollars in lead acid batteries.

Exerpted from Tinypower under Model Steam Engines

A two-cylinder version of the 109, the 110 will produce 50 amps using a 12-volt automotive alternator, making it a good choice for keeping batteries charged for the homesteader.

The base is a heavy aluminum casting, and the main bearings and eccentric straps are cast in bronze. The crosshead guide, cylinder, cylinderheads, piston, steam chest and cover, valve crankdisc and the 8" flywheel are all of cast iron.

The connecting rods are fabricated from steel barstock, while the crankshaft is made of steel and is 5/8" in diameter.

The cranks can be set at 180 degrees, giving good balance and therefore higher RPMs and more power. Several of these engines have been built for charging batteries in remote locations and a least one was used in a small stern-wheel boat, using a chain to drive the paddle.

The #110 will easily produce approximately 1 h.p. It requires 3/8" pipe for steam admission and 1/2" for exhaust. Casting kit comes in two versions, either with plain bearings or with ball bearings (ball bearings not included). Photos above shown with ball bearings. $480.00 for the kit.

I tend to want a cheaper although more involved 10 hp turbine system. I like turbines ability to make more power with less.
Piston style steam engines require loads of oiling (dayly),and periodic maintenence to replace the steam rings (every 2 years) ,bearings (every 5 years or so).

A standard turbine uses high tech super alloy blades,Pressurized bearings, stator windings in the armature with hairy slip rings....for a half million GE will drop it at your doorstep.

A small turbine would use a single turbine set with a rare earth magnetic armature with field coils around but not touching the armature. Magnetic suspension using ring rare earth magnets
would levitate the turbine,axel,and armature (ala Medocino Motor). With this set up only errosion on the turbine blade set would be a cause for maintenance (with proper material selection 20 years or longer).

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:11 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy Part #2

Post by ebeuerle »

Definitely a neat idea!!! Except I heard that steam was dangerous due to potential explosions but I guess at this small scale it wouldn't be too bad. Now all you need is a good supply of burnable fuel. I doubt you could grow hedges quick enough to generate enough fuel to keep a boiler going. Let me know if you end up building/buying a complete system using steam. I would love to see it in operation.
-Eddie B.
AnGuy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:49 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by AnGuy »

>The Prez sez that in thirty years it will be all right.
Right! Freeze thirty years in the dark. Sure thing Mr President.
What a dumb yuppy !!!!

My understanding is the Bush and Cheney are very aware of Peak Oil and that they are concerned about triggling a pre-mature panic. As soon as the US acknowleges PO, there will likely be a global panic to deal with it. Some will go to war to secure, people will hord it, and the Middle East will likely be taken over by Islamic fanatics. What would you have them say: "Dear Americans, The planet is about to run out of energy. Five out of six people will die and suffer starvation and there is nothing we can do about this. The planet is only capable of supporting about a billion people without fossil fuels."

The bottom line is that its way too late to make adjustments. Its just not possible to support 6 billion with out fossil fuels. If the administration tried to start up big program to fix the infrastructure, it wouldn't be too long before the world recognizes PO. "Dear congress, we need to implement a massive national construction project to replace our highways with rail, build fifty new nuclear plants, 100 Coal-to-Liquid plants, and stop all wasteful using of energy. Oh, and we can't tell you why."

>I know what you are thinking isn't steam horrendously expensive? At appropriate scale it is relatively cheap compared to IC engine generator set at today's gas prices.

Actually I also was looking into Steam. The issue is that it would never work on a national scale. Only for those that have the mechanical sense to operate them. The majority of the population has trouble operating a car. IMHO, hybrids are stupid. they depend of battery technology that sucks. In a couple of more years when all the owners of new hybrids have to replace the battery will also soon understand why they suck.

> Plant location - 21st century plant could go in a closet or basement vs 100 to 200 square acres fo a twentieth century

How about an Apartment and Carbon monoxide?Then there is the issue with transporting all the fuel to operate these everywhere? The average american home has less than a acre and don't forget about land need to grow a garden for food. The reason why centralize coal fired plants may sense is because you can use rail to transport the coal, skilled people operate and servicing the plants 7 by 24 and the exhaust can be scrubbed to remove nasty pollutants. Coal is dirty, Wood doesn't grow fast enought, and Steam is much too dangerous for the average american to use.

>http://www.tinypower.com

Also see Reliable Stream at:
http://www.pioneer.net/~carlich/RSE/RSEhome.html


>The turbine could be run in shorter periods just long enough to charge the car and house batteries.

It takes time for the temperature to get up high enough to run a turbine or piston driven engine. This is why steam was replaced by IC for transportation. Steam works best if you can run for long periods. Batteries are also a weak point in the system. they wear out, and contain toxic stuff. I just think batteries and other replacebles will become non-existant after the petro-collapse. I wouldn't consider any personaly energy system that requires brand new replacements for twenty years. With your steam engine you could stock spare parts and bearings. All you need is the know-how to replace them.


>The cost of a small steam plant 3,000 dollars vs solar electric panels and windpower is no contest. 6 kw of solar panels @ altenergystore.com is $24,000 dollars ,windpower in the 10 hp range is about 20 thousand bucks.

Steam is probably the best option, however it does require access to fuel source and lubercants. Wind will be close second if you include the costs assocated with fuel and maintance for steam.

Another option you might want to consider is using Gasifers which use any carbon based fuel (coal, wood, straw) as a source to generate producer gas to run a IC engine. I still think FT is a way to go. You can use FT fuels to to power any vehicle on the road today. Its unlikely that you will find businesses selling replace parts for hybrids, or for any vehicles in a post-petro civilization. However there will be a virtually unlimited source of abandoned cars to be taken or used for spare parts. All you will need is fuel and charged battery. Got FT?



>Brakeline steel tubing runs a dollar a foot in 25 foot rolls at Autozone in 3/8" size. It should handle the 250 Psi steam.

Probably, But I would consider using High temperature stainless, since its likely to last longer in post petro-collapsed civilization. If nobody's driving cars, there isn't likely going to be auto-zones either. I suppose you could salvage breaklines from abandon cars. Just make sure you have a plan to do that or stock up with replacement tubing.
MARK-HARRISS
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:43 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by MARK-HARRISS »

Anyone have information on that stirling cycle motor that had no moving
parts and was 30% efficient?. It apparently used shockwaves in a gas
across a heat exchanger that looked like steel wool or something. The
plan was to use it on oil wells to compress natural gas into liquid form.

If I recall correctly it looked like a tuned 2 stroke exhaust pipe bent into
an oval ring.

I'd be more inclined to experiment with Stirling motors for power and
cooling food.
MARK-HARRISS
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:43 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by MARK-HARRISS »

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by DaveC »

Interesting link Mark , thanks.

It's two years later. Has anything commercial happened? Seems so simple... not really an issue of exotic fab or mysterious econ, if the principle is valid.

Like a lot of rrrillly, rrrrillly exciting co-generation projects of the 80's and early 90's, that didn't find the pitfalls for a few months/years of operation, I wonder what else we need to know about this?

Regarding low power steam engines, I am sure that for some residential and small commercial applications, in the right climates, (like enough sun, or some other thermal source, etc) there is a case to made for these. As llittle as a kW of electrical output, for some hours a day will make a measurable dent in your electric bill. But.... you have to give your economics a bias, by taking the R&R credit, in order to get a positive result on your project's balance sheet.

Using scrap parts and lots of free labor to get a system assembled, does not constitute a way out of the energy dilemma we are entering. But it could well solve individual problems and that is a good start.

What the nations of the world need is energy in the QUADs to QUINTS (1E15 ,1E18 BTUs or whatever is your fav unit.)., This is a serious issue, and if one starts too late in addressing it, we will not have the capacity to build energy converters fast enough to avoid shortages. But these could be a good wake up call.

Still, it is one thing to have lots of nuke powered electricty around, and another thing to have something to drive on the highway. The electric vehicle as currently conceived ( batteries and chargers) is as dead as the Dodo. A fuel celled vehicle with only an electric energy supply, is just a battery in disguise... You still need the electricity. One needs to do simple math here and estimate the ratio of total energy consumption to current levels of electricity consumption. That will give an idea of how much the system has to be upgraded.... that is a rather awe inspiring, if not frightening number. I estimate in excess of a 20 fold increase over present all forms of electricity generation. In terms of nuke to total it is over 100 to 1. In other words, nuclear electric generation is now only about 1% of total energy conversion capacity.. all industries, forms and etc.. Converting all of the 99% to modern nuke.. is a formidable task.

Food for thought..

Dave Cooper

Dave Cooper
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by 3l »

Hi Ag:

Nice to hear I'm not paranoid here.
I'm moving to a 10 acre plot to grow fuel.
Yes it takes time to steam but with no oil what else will there be to do?
Your point on batteries is well taken ,I will nurse them along till they drop dead then melt them into shielding.
Yes most folks can't run steam that is pretty much a given.
Model steamers have been running out of their closets and basements for years with proper ventalation... if oil fails apartments will be dark caves
barely more than a cave in a hill.
My experience comes from model railroad steam engines.
BTW we used charcoal to run our trains... less black smoke that way.
I have about 10 years of active steaming behind me in the range of steam power I have talked about.
SS tube of course will be better,I'm trying to widen the apeal of low power steaming. It seems like a natural fit with what we are doing here.
Batteries make for shorter steam runs but when they are gone continious steaming comes next.
The 5 hp Roberts turbine looks like a way to go.
ditch the gear box and tie on a an alternator and you have about the device I'm pursuing.

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by 3l »

Hi Dave:

All valid points .... I posted this low power steam idea because of the current lack of leadership. By Golly ,they had 30 years of warning but the goverment only acts when it's house is on fire!
I'm afraid like Richard Hull it is a lost cause, the ship is sinking...
who gets space on the life boats?
I want to get my stuff together before UPS folds,Walmart closes shop ect. I'm selling the intown house finally and moving out of the city. Mean times are coming. Mad Max may not be just a movie anymore. The big solutions take years and years to develope...I think this president is gonna circle in his jet until chaos breaks out. Convience of living may be gone with the wind. My uncle once told me " Be a pessimist on life that way you won't be dissapointed" . The old coot always had food and creature comforts but little else. Wow I'm headed that way .

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by 3l »

Hi Folks:

Some steam but an interesting website...something completely different.
http://geetel.net/~turbojer/index.htm#where%20to%20go

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by Starfire »

Larry, how about converting a small car engine to steam - 900cc or what ever - would only need the valve cams sorted and an oil recovery system to remove the water. A steam feed hookup to the intake manifold. It will give two working cyclinders - an old engine could be easly sacrificed.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by Richard Hull »

Dave has been "doing his sums again". Something damned few others bother with when they hear of a great new idea that will revolutionize things and transprotation.

Energy is energy regardless. If you do away with 100% of all fossil in all transport then you have to make the hydrogen, or feed the chargers for electric cars somewhere! This is off the already overtaxed grid and thus you need more grid sized power stations. Even millions of idiots with 1 and 2kw solar panels will not save the day. They will only be off the grid and still without transport.

We simply need massive grid back up NOW! Whether it is nuke or coal, (the only two solutions in the U.S.) it will be needed far sooner than later.

In future we may all be like Larry said, just lucky to have a roof and necessities. Bye, bye gravy train days.

Public debt coupled with an energy crisis will have many people in the streets, I fear. New Orleans is just a small sample or micro-cosom of what happens when all infrastructure in our ultra-complex society goes away. There will be no Houstons or other cities to absorb the dispossesed and angry. All cities will be equally lost as day to day life devolves either slowly or rapidly depending on which road to the inevitable one chooses.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:11 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by ebeuerle »

Steam does seem to be the way to go. I am a steam newbie. Whats the best way to start out in this regard. Also where can I find more info on Roberts steam turbine(no decent links found via google.) I am planning on moving out of Reston,VA shortly as well so I can have some buffer space and some land to grow food, fuel and anything else I might need.
-Eddie B.
AnGuy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:49 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by AnGuy »

>Public debt coupled with an energy crisis will have many people in the streets, I fear. New Orleans is just a small sample or micro-cosum of what happens when all infrastructure in our ultra complex society goes away. There will be no Houstons or other cities to absorb the dispossesed and angry. All cities will be equally lost as day to day life devolves either slowly or rapidly depending on which road to the inevitable one chooses.

Exactly. I believe the cities are going to the worst place to be. If the bottom of the bucket suddenly falls out (eg. we lose 80% of oil imports), you can bet your bottom dollar all hell will break out in the cities. When the food and other basic necessities dry up, the urbanites will travel into suburbia. The best way to avoid the chaos is simple locate to an area that isn't of interest to them. I don't think some urbanite will walk 60 miles on a rural road in hope of finding food or whatever they are looking for. I think, they'll likely move from one suburb to the next since there is a much higher chance of scoring a meal and shelter.

Oddly enough,Business week had an article about a large exodus of people from suburbia to more rural areas. However they aren't planning for Peak oil, but just looking to get more home for the buck and better schools for thier kids.
AnGuy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:49 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by AnGuy »

>Nice to hear I'm not paranoid here. I'm moving to a 10 acre plot to grow fuel.

I was thinking of purchasing at least 40 acres, with a plot that has both woods and tilable fields, probably in Virigina or Pennsylvania where coal seams aren't too distant.

>Your point on batteries is well taken ,I will nurse them along till they drop dead then melt them into shielding.

One thing that I thought about the other day was if it was possible to rebuild lead-acid batteries after they degraded. I never researched to understand how they degrade. Is that the lead plates deform and break apart? If so perhaps the lead could be recycled (smelted) and rolled back to new plates to be reused over and over.

>I have about 10 years of active steaming behind me in the range of steam power I have talked about.

I don't think you will have any trouble. It was just that your original post seem like that steam could be deployed on a national scale to solve the loss of oil for energy. I just don't see that happening.

>BTW we used charcoal to run our trains... less black smoke that way

I suppose you could simply order a truck load of coal to be delivered to your property. A large pile of coal could probably supply your energy/heat requirements for a decade or more. While oil is still cheap, delivery is probably very affordable.

>SS tube of course will be better,I'm trying to widen the apeal of low power steaming. It seems like a natural fit with what we are doing here.

Once I aquire land and get my new house contruction completed, steam power is on the todo list. I was thinking of constructing a monotube boiler. The technical issues I have yet been able to address is developing a continuous feed for water and fuel. To provide an endless supply of water, I will need a durable high pressure water pump. I though of perhaps using a pressure washer pump, but I am not sure if these will last very long. I have suspicion that they will wear out quickly. Then there is also a feed to add fuel (coal, wood, brush, etc) to to boiler. I was thinking of some sort of auger to move it, but I think any material I use will likely melt. I will have to see if I can find an old steam engine engineering book to see how that did this way back before liquid fuels made their presence. If you come across any suppliers for pumps, feeders, that could be used in steam, please do post them.

>The 5 hp Roberts turbine looks like a way to go.
ditch the gear box and tie on a an alternator and you have about the device I'm pursuing

Isn't this a gas turbine? There is a huge difference between a steam turbine and a gas turbine. IMHO, piston stream engines are the way to go. I've read about companies that ran the same steam engine for 50+ years to power manufacturing plants. Piston power is simple and easy to maintain. If a crack forms in one of the turbine blades, its finished. Unless you go nuts on the steam engine, I bet it can be maintained for almost indefinately. Evently the blades will wear out with the turbine, and it will be difficult to get them repair or replaced. Stick with the simple stuff. Low tech stuff just works.

>Batteries make for shorter steam runs but when they are gone continious steaming comes next.

Another idea, which may or may not be practical is to use water and gravity for energy storage. Perhaps, if your property has a hill you could construct large concrete water tanks (+25K gallons) displaced by a 60 to 100 feet. Use the steam to pump water to the top tank and use water turbine to extract electricity and dump into the lower tank. Now you have a battery that never wears out and probably doesn't require any maintaince. Although, its possible that the water could freeze during the winter.
Water Turbines:
http://www.absak.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/33_89_91
AnGuy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:49 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by AnGuy »

>I am planning on moving out of Reston,VA shortly as well so I can have some buffer space and some land to grow food, fuel and anything else I might need.

I would be interested in what towns you find as possible choices. I am assuming that you planning on staying in Greater Virgina area. Recently, I've been thinking about relocating to western Virginia, but because I am currently located in New England, it makes it difficult to locate some ideal spots. Perferrably I am looking for places that have:

* Local access (25 miles) to Rail
* Access to healthcare (Not to far from a good medical center or hospital)
* Large land plots (40+ acres) on land that has woods and tilable fields, with land prices less than $4K to $5K an acre.
*Not to far from a major highway or interstate.

Thanks.
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by DaveC »

The concept of total energy independence, to use an electrical engineering metaphor, has but both a real and an imaginary component. It is a perfect example of a complex parameter. (pun intended).

The real component, is that it is quite possible for almost anyone to become energy independent, but the imaginary part which contains the cycling energy component, can be quite large and possible intractable.

The feasibility of true energy independence, depends on how much energy you need and over what intervals of time that it needs to be provided. Having a small 12 DC lamp and a portable radio, as your electrical load, means almost any form of thermal to rotational energy conversion will probably do the trick. In the early part of this century, many a farm ran its electrical requirements from a Jacobs Wincharger... wind turbine that made 6 or 12 vDC to keep batteries charged.

The windmill pumped water up into the water tower for running water whenever you needed it. WIth today's solid state electronics, we could easily add a TV, computer and phone to the electrical load along with the compact fluorescents and probably come out okay... if you were careful.

Adding space conditioning in any form besides opening a window, and energy demands start to go up.

For those thinking about growing their own fuel, check some AG Dept books on crop yields for forest, and other things....If you have a 100 yr old forest, then you can probably harvest selectively and not dip into your basic stock of trees.... but it takes a lot of wood to match a barrel of oil. The thermal output of a woodburning stove is impressive when you are up close, but it is not a lot incomparison to a Nat Gas furnace.

Someone was quoting quite unreal numbers about the "efficiency" of modern nat. gas furnaces. The air handler (blower) aside, most modern furnaces push 90% energy efficiency which is simply energy in, energy out. The heat lost up the stack these days is a carefully measured amount, intended to keep the flue assembly ( whatever type) from being corroded by condensate, and.... by leaving enough energy in the flue gas, so that it rises on its own buoyancy and does not have to be pumped away.

At about 1000 BTU /cu ft, you can figure out how efficient a furnace is based on fuel input per hr and heat output per hr.

Home designs are nowhere near an energy optimum, but are usually an economic optimum. Problem is when the economic assumptions are no longer valid, sound designs for one set of economics, can look totally harebrained in another economic climate.

Steam is NOT an efficient energy conversion system. Especially not a piston engine. the high pressure, supercritical boiler powered turbines that the Utilities use, as another matter. They ARE fairly efficient... at least 33% - 42% and the combined cycle systems, can go over 50%, but they are real piles of machinery.

But... if you are looking to use the "pig and the squeal"... make some electricity and use the heat... you can get the equivalent of pretty high efficiency numbers... even though it is a bit of thermodynamic snake oil. Space heating temperatures are fine for warming the bod, but are awful.. with a capital A, for making work happen... like 2% thermal efficiency....

Were we as a nation to rethink the energy paradigm, we could quite possibly find plenty to go around without the draconian measures some envision, being necessary. But there is an enormous infrastructure already in place that at once represents a great investment, and at the same time, a great impediment.

More later, if there's an interest.

Dave Cooper
MARK-HARRISS
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:43 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by MARK-HARRISS »

Anonymous Guy wrote:
> >Your point on batteries is well taken ,I will nurse them along till they drop dead then melt them into shielding.
>
> One thing that I thought about the other day was if it was possible to rebuild lead-acid batteries after they degraded. I never researched to understand how they degrade. Is that the lead plates deform and break apart? If so perhaps the lead could be recycled (smelted) and rolled back to new plates to be reused over and over.


Apart from sulphation (white deposits) every lead acid cell I've autopsied had the brown (+?) plate grid convert from metal to the brown plate material itself. I've heard about 2% silver in the grid material drastically increases the service life of a lead acid battery. One claim that I haven't verified was 20+ years for an old caterpillar battery in a tractor which had the silver alloy plates. The grey plates seem unaffected and so would not need silver added.

This won't prevent sulphation so you still have to keep them regularly charged and maintained, although there was some kind of cadmium concoction to add to the electrolyte to prevent sulphation.
Richard Hester
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by Richard Hester »

I'm surprised no one has mentioned methane generators. If one is going to be self sufficient, it's probably a good idea not to assume the city will take care of manure. If you "keep it in the family", it can be used to generate methane, then provide sludge fertilizer for crops.
MARK-HARRISS
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:43 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by MARK-HARRISS »

I was thinking of just that this afternoon, if you have the space to set up the tanks in the backyard. I'd seen a setup on tv once with a rubber-like membrane on the top that expanded to keep the gas under pressure.

Far easier than having a hydrogen storage system. Assuming ready supplies of poop, You could have energy to spare.
AnGuy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:49 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by AnGuy »

> surprised no one has mentioned methane generators. If one is going to be self sufficient, it's probably a good idea not to assume the city will take care of manure.

I looked into Bioreactors. The issue is low yield, unless you maintain a steady temperature (about 90 F) and you must maintain a precise PH level or the microbes become poisoned and stop producing methane. Very tricky to turn into a productive operation unless you have tons and tons of waste. In addition most of the gas produced is CO2, which needs to be filtered from the methane.

When it comes to energy, there is no free lunch.
Richard Hester
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by Richard Hester »

Low efficiency may not be a real issue if the starting materials are free and a nuisance anyway. After all, its to power one's household, not light the world. People used to get along fine with producer gas, manufactured from coke and air - it was a mix of CO and nitrogen, and still burned just fine. The temperature issue may be a problem, but I'm willing to bet someone is looking into genetically engineered bugs to optimize methane production. The process works pretty well in a cow's stomach after all....
TBenson
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 1:57 am
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by TBenson »

My 2 cents on this issue...

After years of working in Solar, renewables, etc. I've essentially given up. What's happened is I've finally really begun to appreciate the enormous difficulty of making wholesale changes to social infrastructure. It's all very nice to talk about building 300 million tiny steam engines, but it would take a war and death of millions to accomplish it. I'm not kidding about that.

The reality is, we'll never do that. Never. We'll burn gigatons of coal and destroy the ecology of the planet first. And the Chinese and the Indians, who will be demanding VASTLY greater energy growth than we will, are even less likely to try tinkering with steam engines.

Not to critique your idea Larry but I'm just getting cynical about the potential for change in the world.

Therefore, I've become almost totally converted to nuclear. We can build a couple thousand nuclear reactors, starting with classic light-water reactors, and transition to fast reactors in 20 -30 years, which will then serve to burn down all the used fuel from the LWRs. The remaining waste will be quite compact and easy to inject deep into the geostrata of the earth. There we have an energy system for the human race that will last a good couple hundred years for a 10 billion+ advanced human civilization. After that is not my problem.

Just my opinion. That's where I'm placing my bets.
longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by longstreet »

I agree that fission nuclear technology still has great merrit. Nuclear energy is nuclear energy.
Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
Real name:

Re: 21st Century Energy

Post by Goldenspark »

I agree with you Tom. The new Westinghouse design apparently produces less than 10% of the high level waste (cheap decommissioning) and is much cheaper and simpler to build They are about 1GW capacity I think.
There is no other option.

On the point of cars, steam is a good route to go. Modern flash steam boilers of about 50kW capacity could be designed to start up not much slower than a diesel. The prime fuel should be hydrogen from nuclear ideally, even though the energy density is low.
I understand the major car manufacturers are working on steam as a stop-gap for fuel cells, mainly because fuel cells are coming too slowly.
Oh, and steam cars with piston technology would require no gearbox, no clutch and give 100% torque at zero speed so can be controlled a bit like an electric car (smooth hill starts).
This done by PWM of steam pressure by the valves.
Post Reply

Return to “Fusion --- Past, Present, and Future”