Fuel.....Time For An Update?

speaking of which , amtrak could easily 1/2 its onboard hep power usage i reckon .

Building a significant amount of solar (at about 10 times the cost of conventional generation), wind (at 2 to 4 times more), the extensive transmission network to deliver it, plus the cost of standby generation for when the wind does not blow, and the sun dose not shine, will force conservation as for most, electricity will become unafordable for average folks. True that nuclear is expensive but at least it is reliable as a base load source. With fuel reprocessing, as is done elsewhere in the world, the amount of waste fuel will be minimized. There is no one answer, but reliance on wind and solar for other than a relatively small percentage of generation is misplaced.

Nasadowsk wrote:

ne plus ultra wrote: Feel free to provide a serious intro, rather than rambling on about "the middle ages" and how we'll be forced to use nuclear in order to avoid a return to the stone age.

It's not rambling. The simple fact is, there's no other carbon free method of baseload power generation out there that's available. All the worthwhile hydro's been built already. Wind's capacity factor is low, it's got poor availability, and doesn't generate much power anyway. Photovoltaic solar's at best useful for specific applications, but for baseload power is useless, and solar cells are an environmental nightmare to make. Steam based solar systems might be useful out in the southwest, for some power. Geothermal's got some potential, but is spotty in application. Clean coal, isn't. Electricity demand is growing worldwide. It's growing in the US, Europe, Asia, everywhere. It's going to keep growing, like it or not. If we're going to commit ourselves to carbon free power, that means we need to build nukes, and lots of them, like it or not. There's simply no other form of electric generation out there that'll do it.

Way to clip the entire rest of my post in order to pretend I hadn't outlined how much energy is currently wasted. Like it or not, reduction in power usage in this country is going to happen. Even if we began building 20 nuke plants today, they wouldn't be complete for more than a decade. When the global economy comes back, fuel usage in this country will be constrained by increases in developing countries, which will drive prices higher.

Ken W2KB wrote:True that nuclear is expensive but at least it is reliable as a base load source.

The numbers must be working out, given the applications going into the NRC and the number of contracts signed already....

Looks like Westinghouse beat GE again, too. What few utilities were interested in the ESBWR are now looking elsewhere, because GE's even less interested in it than their customers...

Like it or not, the America we see today is the result of “greed marketing”. Not just marketing, but GREED marketing.

Once upon a time, goods and services were priced at cost plus a reasonable profit. In the past 30-40 years, it has become instead: whatever the market will bear. While, at the same time, the economy of producing goods overseas lowered costs, thereby raising profits. The greed factor at work. Anyone remember the infamous Michael Douglas line in “Wall Street”: “Greed…for lack of a better word…is good”. America truly believes that….at least those with all the bucks believe that.

Primary evidence of the greed marketing mentality is the wild-ride oil prices just last year. Whether it was speculation, market manipulation, of whatever…it was greed at work. Those with the dollars to buy gasoline futures caused the prices to run amok. By creating a ‘demand’, the prices naturally rose.

Spin the clock back 8-9 years….to utility company de-regulation. Remember that? Remember the utility companies bought and sold kilowatts just like barrels of oil? They probably had ‘futures contracts’, and all the other games the oil market has. I live in New England, and the cost of electricity here has more than doubled. But California…if I remember my history, electricity got very, very, very expensive in California just by the manipulations of the utility companies. Electric companies, like oil companies, can control –where- their electricity goes. By short-changing one market area, they can justify the increased prices.

And the reverse logic is true, too…too much merchandise will cause prices to drop. OPEC seeks to control oil prices by controlling available quantity. Unfortunately, the various oil producers don’t always follow OPECs plans, causing prices to drop. Right now, there’s a glut of airline seats available…people have cut back…companies have cut back, but the airlines want to fly empty planes…at ANY price. So $99-to-anywhere pricing is back! How many airlines are going to survive with THAT kind of pricing??? But then, Uncle Sam will come bail them out, too! Just like they (we) bailed out Detroit… What spared the airlines, more or less, the past 10 years or so is labor concessions. Now, they are probably at the ‘end of the line’ for concessions. A couple more will HAVE to go under to make it work.

Which brings me to Detroit and their bailout. Yes, bailing out Detroit was like bailing out Penn Central. “Blind” management believing “they’re too big to fail”. Yea…right! They’re so blind they came to Washington to beg in their private aircraft! That’s like a beggar on the corner wearing a new tuxedo!! The big three is no different than Penn Central 40 years ago!!!

What saved Conrail from becoming merely an bigger version of Penn Central was the realization that money losing lines had to be abandoned, labor costs had to be contained, and other unprofitable activities…eg…commuters…had to go! The Conrail that went public and was later sold off was much, much more efficient and better run (FOR PROFIT!) than when it was formed. As difficult as it was for the Conrail employees that had to be let go, and the towns that lost service from abandoned branch lines, it was a necessary requirement for Conrail to survive at all! Reducing train crew size was also a major factor in the turnaround at Conrail.

Detroit MUST look to the lessons of Conrail. (Product) lines MUST be abandoned. Chrysler abandoned the Plymouth line; General Motors, Oldsmobile; and Ford, I don’t know…do they still make Mercurys? My guess is it’s time for Chrysler to merge Dodge and Chrysler lines into a single name; for GM to dump the Cadillac line and go with Chevy, Pontiac and GMC, and Ford to skinny down to just the Ford line. Already, they’ve started dumping a few models..perhaps they need do more! Yes, the towns with the abandoned car factories will be hurting…so will their workers. And as for reduced labor costs for what remains…I recently saw a program on TV about a (Hyundai, I think) car factory here in America that the first time human hands touch the car is to install the dashboard!! All the sheet metal forming, welding, and even painting, is completely robotic! Has Chrysler, GM and Ford got anything like that??? I doubt it! But unless they DO something like that, they DESERVE to go under!!!!

So how does this all relate to the discussion of fuel and fuel costs? Simple. One of the big reasons the foreign cars sell so well in this country is fuel economy. I don’t think the likes of Toyota or Suburu or any of the other Asian car makers make any automobiles that get less than 25 mpg. Detroit…well…they used to ‘buy off’ Washington to delay or defer their mileage-requirement laws for the past 20 years or more! Well…now they have to pay the piper. Or, is it time for Washington to ‘buy them off’ and send them off to oblivion?

David Benton wrote:speaking of which , amtrak could easily 1/2 its onboard hep power usage i reckon .

How?

I think that means mainly by lighter trains, designed around energy efficiency. As often pointed out that means a completely new set of Regulations, more like those in the rest of the world.

bratkinson wrote:So how does this all relate to the discussion of fuel and fuel costs? Simple. One of the big reasons the foreign cars sell so well in this country is fuel economy.

I think that's a bit of a misconception. Ford, GM, and Chrysler build plenty of fuel efficient vehicles (though they have focused too much on trucks/SUV's).

I don’t think the likes of Toyota or Suburu or any of the other Asian car makers make any automobiles that get less than 25 mpg.

Sure they do. My Subaru Legacy gets about 30 mpg on the highway, but had I gotten the GT model with the turbo, it'd be less. And the Asian carmakers build plenty of trucks, SUV's, and gas guzzling performance cars as well.

GM is dumping/downsizing Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, Hummer. Caddy stays. Those are some of the best cars GM makes as far as I can tell. But that's off topic.

I think the important thing to remember about electricity is that, even with something relatively dirty like coal producing the power, it is still very efficient compared to most forms of transportation (airplane, automobile). Mass-generated electricity is a pretty efficient source of power. For transportation issues (meaning electrification of the train and automobile) I am more willing to see coal capacity filling in the gap, because that is still preferable to all those internal combustion engines. General electricity usage is different, though.

So if we experience some severe economic issues regarding oil and the like, electric rail *could* take up some slack. Of course, to take up any slack it has to exist first. I would hope that conventional rail service could absorb some extra passengers, too. There might be a scramble to add capacity in the works. I wonder if diesel fuel prices will hamper things much.

I'm wondering when oil (gas) prices will start climbing again. I think the price surge over the last year started some things in motion that are not going to fizzle out this time around. Rail ridership is up everywhere. Cars are getting smaller. The times they are a changin'.

ne plus ultra wrote:The path to energy independence will require a rethinking of the 1970's reaction to integration -- the dismantling of public services because white people would be forced to share with black people, and what I call the 'cynicization of the bureacracies', a process in which many government employees stopped doing their jobs because they didn't like the idea of doing their jobs for black people. This led to a hollowing out of urban cores that otherwise would have remained much more viable, and only in the last decade have we finally seen progress -- murder rates in the north are once again below those in the south as police departments have once again begun doing their jobs. Urban school districts in Chicago and New York have seen major progress. As a result, the efficiency of larger, compact cities is once again coming to the fore.

Mr. Ultra, you simply are addressing, and I believe in good faith as your postings here have established you are a wo/man of principle, a societal change too great to accept. While possibly you can accept the Zipcar model of automobile usage, for all too many, myself included, "le voiture c'est moi'.

While I acknowledge that there has been a reverse migration to urban areas during this century, and I have a Niece and two Nephews who reside in 'trendy' (so they tell me) Brooklyn (and have wondered why their bachelor Uncle Gil has never lived within a city), most people, again myself included, want their own stand alone domicile, and no warnings of 'warming' "carbons" "$5ga' are going to reverse that sentiment.

Even though my "Land of the Burlingtons' and diverse? "uh, not exactly", burb is served by the best regional rail service METRA has to offer, the Suburban, ML-550, LX-470, and Escalade seem to be the transport of choice around here (mini-van? "oh so last century'), although I must acknowledge a few X-overs have made the scene of late. Oh and BTW, my Sedan has averaged 24,56mpg since its Mar 05 placement in service.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mr. Ultra, you simply are addressing, and I believe in good faith as your postings here have established you are a wo/man of principle, a societal change too great to accept. While possibly you can accept the Zipcar model of automobile usage, for all too many, myself included, "le voiture c'est moi'.

While I acknowledge that there has been a reverse migration to urban areas during this century, and I have a Niece and two Nephews who reside in 'trendy' (so they tell me) Brooklyn (and have wondered why their bachelor Uncle Gil has never lived within a city), most people, again myself included, want their own stand alone domicile, and no warnings of 'warming' "carbons" "$5ga' are going to reverse that sentiment.

Even though my "Land of the Burlingtons' and diverse? "uh, not exactly", burb is served by the best regional rail service METRA has to offer, the Suburban, ML-550, LX-470, and Escalade seem to be the transport of choice around here (mini-van? "oh so last century'), although I must acknowledge a few X-overs have made the scene of late. Oh and BTW, my Sedan has averaged 24,56mpg since its Mar 05 placement in service.

There is no possibility of an answer to the demand/price ratio in the next decade. As NB points out, wind and solar will not do it. As I pointed out, even if you want to get all squishy and romantic about nuclear, it can't be done in that timeline.

So when the economy grows, global demand for energy will go up, and America will have to deal with the price by using far less. There's simply no question that will happen. Of relevance is the fact that the Indian economy has continued growing during our downturn; the German economy is not harmed the way ours has been; the Chinese have capital reserves that they are starting to turn towards provoking domestic demand. Consumers and producers in these countries will be able to bid the price even higher if need be in order to divert more energy from our economy to theirs.

This is not even a sure-fire prediction; you know, like the predictions that the Illinois trains would last more than a year; that a large expansion in the Amtrak authorization would lead to a large expansion in the Amtrak appropriation, or that a President Obama would deal with Amtrak in a way that a President McCain would not -- all easy predictions to make, that were somehow dismissed by the anti-pax train faction here at rr.net. This is simply a statement of economic fact.

This thread has as much to do with the National Rail Passenger Corporation as what I had for breakfast. (Then again, as I sipped my tea, gazing out the window longing to see the scenery pass at 79 MPH; I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.) There are some basics about electrical generation and distribution which should be discussed. Electricity is one of if not the most inefficient means of energy. Coal burning plants (~50% of generation) and nuclear (~20% of generation) use compound steam cycles: i.e. high pressure turbine, steam reheat, intermediate or low pressure turbines. These plants are designed to maximize the use of heat generated. Even so, the best these plants can do is about 33% efficiency, that is, for every three watts of heat generated in the core or the boiler one watt of electricity is generated. This is no fault of the plant designers or operators. It is simply a thermodynamic reality imposed by the laws of physics. (BTW, if there are any youngsters out there studying physics I throw down the same challenge as was presented to us back then: if you can find a way to generate electricity directly from nuclear flux, your name will become synonymous with Einstein.) On top of all this is the natural resistance of the materials used to distribute electricity through the grid, collectively known as line losses. When these are factored in the efficiency drops to anywhere between 17% and 20%. Again these are the realities of physics. A “smart grid” is not going to change this. Until a high-temperature superconductor is perfected this shall remain a reality. Throwing more of our energy needs on to the electrical grid is NOT the answer. Expending more energy-in to net less energy-out is hardly the answer to an energy crisis.

D.Carleton
Entergy Nuclear Northeast (ret.)

D.Carleton wrote:This thread has as much to do with the National Rail Passenger Corporation as what I had for breakfast. (Then again, as I sipped my tea, gazing out the window longing to see the scenery pass at 79 MPH; I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.) There are some basics about electrical generation and distribution which should be discussed. Electricity is one of if not the most inefficient means of energy. Coal burning plants (~50% of generation) and nuclear (~20% of generation) use compound steam cycles: i.e. high pressure turbine, steam reheat, intermediate or low pressure turbines. These plants are designed to maximize the use of heat generated. Even so, the best these plants can do is about 33% efficiency, that is, for every three watts of heat generated in the core or the boiler one watt of electricity is generated. This is no fault of the plant designers or operators. It is simply a thermodynamic reality imposed by the laws of physics. (BTW, if there are any youngsters out there studying physics I throw down the same challenge as was presented to us back then: if you can find a way to generate electricity directly from nuclear flux, your name will become synonymous with Einstein.) On top of all this is the natural resistance of the materials used to distribute electricity through the grid, collectively known as line losses. When these are factored in the efficiency drops to anywhere between 17% and 20%. Again these are the realities of physics. A “smart grid” is not going to change this. Until a high-temperature superconductor is perfected this shall remain a reality. Throwing more of our energy needs on to the electrical grid is NOT the answer. Expending more energy-in to net less energy-out is hardly the answer to an energy crisis.

D.Carleton
Entergy Nuclear Northeast (ret.)

This is all true, but tell me, what is more efficient than electricity generation as far as powering our lifestyle, both at home and on the move? What is the alternative? My understanding is that individual internal combustion engines (in our cars and trains) are less thermally efficient than the large power cycles found in power plants. Better to burn all the fuel in one place and distribute the resulting electricity with a few percent loss in transmission. And if you diversify electricity production with renewable sources then the balance tips even more in favor of electrified transportation (trying to stay remotely on topic here). So what is your solution? Conservation? I would agree with that wholeheartedly. But for the energy that we still do use even assuming we cut back, how are we going to do any better than electricity?

Finch wrote:My understanding is that individual internal combustion engines (in our cars and trains) are less thermally efficient than the large power cycles found in power plants. Better to burn all the fuel in one place and distribute the resulting electricity with a few percent loss in transmission.

Typical internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of 10% to 50%. A typical car is 25% efficient. So even the average car is more efficient than the electrical grid; this is why we use them and shall continue to use them.

Finch wrote:And if you diversify electricity production with renewable sources then the balance tips even more in favor of electrified transportation (trying to stay remotely on topic here). So what is your solution? Conservation? I would agree with that wholeheartedly. But for the energy that we still do use even assuming we cut back, how are we going to do any better than electricity?

Conservation will come but at the point of the proverbial gun. Here's a down home example: the community I live in is populated with older people who live alone in the houses they built with their now deceased spouses. The energy bill for these large air-conditioned boxes is high; energy use per capita is disproportionately high. But the current property tax laws preclude them from selling the large box in favor of a smaller (more efficient) box. It is only when the cost of energy rises past the benefits of the tax structure that people shall take action. Remember, we are humans; we learn by pain.

Typical internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of 10% to 50%.

Just to be clear, only the largest marine diesel engines (we're talking hundreds of thousands or a million horsepower) have reached 50% thermal efficiency. Automobile and truck and train engines don't get anywhere near that. You may be right that the average car engine is more efficient than mass electricity generation tends to be, but I'm not sure how cut and dry that is. And certainly in terms of emissions, electricity generation comes out far ahead. Once you factor in the additional energy costs associated with distributing liquid fuel to run in these individual engines, I wonder where you come out in terms of net energy.

Remember, we are humans; we learn by pain.

Can't argue with that.

I agree with these views, and would like to add to them. If we can use coal, as well as other "green" sources to make enough electricity domestically, we won't have to rely on islamic extremists to fuel our economy, with fuel that will run out very quickly. Electricity is one of the most adaptable energy sources, and no mode of transportation is even close to being as easy to electrify as railroads. The fixed guideway makes it a snap to hang cantenaries and electrify the lines. Rail is cheaper than roads to maintain. Trains are also worlds more efficient than aircraft and road vehicles. In the future, I see a major resurgance in railroad transportation, from 130 car manifest trains to 250+ mph passenger trains instead of trucks and airplanes, respectively. Even if these railroads were equally, or even less efficient as their wheeled and winged rivals, the ability to be powered by coal, wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear or any other type of energy would make up for it. Judging that current locomotives actually run on electricity, converting diesel locomotives to electricity may be worthwhile. Even if railroads continue to run on diesel, they would still be more efficient in a changing energy landscape than trucks.