Jump to content

Where can the left and right agree--Energy


Cardin Drake
 Share

Recommended Posts





On 8/16/2022 at 2:48 PM, wdefromtx said:

So it's ok for them to think only one or two options solves everything? Got it. 

Who exactly thinks that? :-\

(That's called "begging-the-question" btw, a logical error.)

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do petrochemicals advance renewable energy?

Solar panels—whether they support disaster relief efforts in Puerto Rico, or help power a suburban home—are usually made with the same principle in mind: convert photons from the sun into energy. The photovoltaics, which turn sunlight into energy, are typically sandwiched between layers of copolymers. One of the petrochemical building blocks common to many of the copolymers is ethylene—a petrochemical derived from oil and natural gas.

Solar energy is not alone in its connection to petrochemicals. Wind energy—which makes up a little under 7 percent of U.S. energy consumption—relies on petrochemicals such as propylene and xylene for the production of engine houses and rotor blades.

Fossil fuels, and their derived petrochemicals, are at the core of American energy and enable many renewable technologies commonly discussed in “all-of-the-above” approaches to energy. According to International Energy Agency(IEA) director Dr. Fatih Birol, “Petrochemicals are one of the key blind spots in the global energy debate

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2022 at 10:05 AM, homersapien said:

Who exactly thinks that? :-\

(That's called begging the question btw, a logical error.

Call it what you want, just more of the left way of thinking when they say "That's different."

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-soho-forum-debates/id1485021246?i=1000578984494

This is a fascinating debate from “The Soho Forum Debates”. It’s approximately an hour and a half long but a quick and interesting listen if you have the time. Many interesting points are made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 1:17 PM, jj3jordan said:

We don’t have the production to support even a partial transition to electric cars.  Ironically the power to charge cars is coming from coal and natural gas. I’m all for nuclear power too heck there is a brand new never used plant ready to go in north Alabama. There is simply not enough energy in solar to power our grid. There is in the sun but once it gets here it is not enough when captured in the current manner.  I think natural gas is the way to go for now until we break the code on solar. If you are even serious about 40 million electric cars you have to use coal. Can’t be done any other way. 
 

BTW have you read or seen the amount of earth displaced by strip mining just to make ONE vehicle battery. It’s around 500,000 cubic yards of earth.  Do the math.

No it's not new and it's definitely not ready to go

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear is clearly the most efficient and effective energy source we have going. If you took away the subsidies that wind and solar get or at least would be fair and give it to nuclear as well it really wouldn't even be a discussion.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think obama had solar installed in the white house. i never heard it working good or working bad. i know i read trump came in and had all of it removed. so at the end of the day we threw away a ton of money. and solar is great. one of the biggest cities in texas runs mostly off solar with fantastic results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i think obama had solar installed in the white house. i never heard it working good or working bad. i know i read trump came in and had all of it removed. so at the end of the day we threw away a ton of money. and solar is great. one of the biggest cities in texas runs mostly off solar with fantastic results.

There's no city that runs mostly off of solar that's not how it works. All energy is regulated before it hits the grid and ercot determines how much is needed in a daily basis. They don't regulate let's use this energy here or this energy first.....And here in Texas they almost had a huge energy crisis because of not having enough dependable energy.

Now everybody is going through a more stringent winter readiness protocols in Texas but it's still being highly scrutinized at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 12:10 AM, autigeremt said:

How do petrochemicals advance renewable energy?

Solar panels—whether they support disaster relief efforts in Puerto Rico, or help power a suburban home—are usually made with the same principle in mind: convert photons from the sun into energy. The photovoltaics, which turn sunlight into energy, are typically sandwiched between layers of copolymers. One of the petrochemical building blocks common to many of the copolymers is ethylene—a petrochemical derived from oil and natural gas.

Solar energy is not alone in its connection to petrochemicals. Wind energy—which makes up a little under 7 percent of U.S. energy consumption—relies on petrochemicals such as propylene and xylene for the production of engine houses and rotor blades.

Fossil fuels, and their derived petrochemicals, are at the core of American energy and enable many renewable technologies commonly discussed in “all-of-the-above” approaches to energy. According to International Energy Agency(IEA) director Dr. Fatih Birol, “Petrochemicals are one of the key blind spots in the global energy debate

There's a big difference between using petrochemicals for feedstocks and simply burning them for the energy it produces.

We'll still be using them for chemical/polymer feedstocks long after we stop burning them as fuel.

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i think obama had solar installed in the white house. i never heard it working good or working bad. i know i read trump came in and had all of it removed. so at the end of the day we threw away a ton of money. and solar is great. one of the biggest cities in texas runs mostly off solar with fantastic results.

Not sure about that but, I believe Carter put solar panels on the White House and, Reagan had them removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Not sure about that but, I believe Carter put solar panels on the White House and, Reagan had them removed.

Reagan hated the environment..pro oil spills, anti-tree, ..the aerosol king!..thats why he took the solar panels down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

Reagan hated the environment..pro oil spills, anti-tree, ..the aerosol king!..thats why he took the solar panels down...

😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

Reagan hated the environment..pro oil spills, anti-tree, ..the aerosol king!..thats why he took the solar panels down...

I did not know that.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 10:40 AM, wdefromtx said:

Call it what you want, just more of the left way of thinking when they say "That's different."

 

If that's your point, then you'd be better served by presenting an actual example instead of essentially lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 9:14 AM, Cardin Drake said:

In an attempt to get past the usual partisan bickering, where do you think the left and right can agree on energy?   I want three things

1) Energy independence

2)Cheap energy

3) A stable grid

I'm excited about electric cars. I see that as an important factor in both 1 & 2.  Reduce the demand for oil and you make it cheaper and it is easier for us to get out from underneath the thumb of the middle east. Electric cars mean a big expansion in electricity production however.  For a stable grid, I think we have to go nuclear.  I'm fine with coal; we have an abundant supply and it's cheap but I think that is a non-starter with the left.  What say you?

I think part of energy independence is having diversity of sources and utilization.  I never understood the far right sentiment against electric.  Unless you live in an underdeveloped, communist state that can’t pump out enough electricity for its citizens 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Australia’s first hydrogen car comes to market, complete with charging stations in just 5 minutes. The car travels 900 kilometers with the tank full and purifies the air as it moves forward. For the first time, hydrogen fuel cell technology is being applied serialized in a commercial car and, above all, it allows for such important autonomy, with very reduced charging times. This is Hyundai Nexo, a small-cylinder car that beats all car manufacturers in the world and sets a sustainability record, with a charge of 6.27 kilograms of hydrogen that purifies 449,100 liters of air during e The journey (as much as the consumption of breathing of 33 people for a whole day) and it only emits water down your exhaust pipe. This car produces no CO2 or other polluting emissions; just think that an equivalent vehicle, with a traditional combustion engine, emits about 126 kg of CO2 at the same distance. The hydrogen engine thus enters the automobile market and intends to join the electric one among the sustainable mobility solutions the world is adopting. Hyundai thus becomes the first automaker in the world to produce a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for the market. The car is equipped with a hydrogen fuel cell system that, to generate electricity, passes the gas through a membrane structure where it meets the air taken from the external environment, a process that feeds an electric motor. The excess electricity generated, including energy stored during braking, is stored in a lithium-ion battery. Reposting the next takes 5 min. The first country to put the car on sale was Australia, where the first gas stations were also built. A true vision of a sustainable future.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Australia’s first hydrogen car comes to market, complete with charging stations in just 5 minutes. The car travels 900 kilometers with the tank full and purifies the air as it moves forward. For the first time, hydrogen fuel cell technology is being applied serialized in a commercial car and, above all, it allows for such important autonomy, with very reduced charging times. This is Hyundai Nexo, a small-cylinder car that beats all car manufacturers in the world and sets a sustainability record, with a charge of 6.27 kilograms of hydrogen that purifies 449,100 liters of air during e The journey (as much as the consumption of breathing of 33 people for a whole day) and it only emits water down your exhaust pipe. This car produces no CO2 or other polluting emissions; just think that an equivalent vehicle, with a traditional combustion engine, emits about 126 kg of CO2 at the same distance. The hydrogen engine thus enters the automobile market and intends to join the electric one among the sustainable mobility solutions the world is adopting. Hyundai thus becomes the first automaker in the world to produce a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for the market. The car is equipped with a hydrogen fuel cell system that, to generate electricity, passes the gas through a membrane structure where it meets the air taken from the external environment, a process that feeds an electric motor. The excess electricity generated, including energy stored during braking, is stored in a lithium-ion battery. Reposting the next takes 5 min. The first country to put the car on sale was Australia, where the first gas stations were also built. A true vision of a sustainable future.

Interesting

While generally familiar with the technology(s), I don't understand the claim it "purifies" the air.  

The fuel cell process combines hydrogen with oxygen (in the fuel cell) to produce electricity.  It seems to me there would need to be a secondary process to remove and sequester pollutants for it to "purify" the air. And typically, fuel cells run off of pure hydrogen and pure oxygen (not "air").

Also, simply burning hydrogen as the fuel in an internal combustion engine is well known. (The product of combustion is water.) 

A fuel cell is a different technology although it's by product is also water.

So, it's hard to tell from this article it they are talking about fuel cells or simply burning hydrogen, or some sort of hybrid combination.

The idea of adding a fuel cell to a battery powered electric car as a supplement to increase range is an intriguing idea.  A fuel cell could theoretically be refueled with hydrogen and oxygen very quickly.  Charging a battery, not so much.

 

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Interesting

While generally familiar with the technology(s), I don't understand the claim it "purifies" the air.  

The fuel cell process combines hydrogen with oxygen (in the fuel cell) to produce electricity.  It seems to me there would need to be a secondary process to remove and sequester pollutants for it to "purify" the air. And typically, fuel cells run off of pure hydrogen and pure oxygen (not "air").

Also, simply burning hydrogen as the fuel in an internal combustion engine is well known. (The product of combustion is water.) 

A fuel cell is a different technology although it's by product is also water.

So, it's hard to tell from this article it they are talking about fuel cells or simply burning hydrogen, or some sort of hybrid combination.

The idea of adding a fuel cell to a battery powered electric car as a supplement to increase range is an intriguing idea.  A fuel cell could theoretically be refueled with hydrogen and oxygen very quickly.  Charging a battery, no so much.

 

Unless the car is fitted with a generator of some sort to internally charge the battery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a quick search, it seems the oxygen required by the fuel cell is obtained from the ambient air while the hydrogen comes from the refueling station.

I didn't realize fuel cells could function using air instead of pure oxygen, so that's new (at least to me).

The hydrogen is not being used in an internal combustion engine, only in the fuel cell.  The only motors are electric.  So basically, this is an electric/battery car using a fuel cell for the electricity.  (Presumably the batteries can also be topped up with conventional re-charging?)

The beauty of hydrogen is that it can be produced with electrolysis so the entire system can be ultimately powered with electricity.  No fossil fuels required.

(Still don't understand the "air purification" claim.  Unless they are somehow extracting and sequestering pollutants from the air.)

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Unless the car is fitted with a generator of some sort to internally charge the battery?

My understanding is the fuel cell is either running the electric motors and/or charging the battery at the same time.

There are no IC engines, only electric motors. (see diagram below)

https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/nexo2021-nexo-diagram-system-content:7-5?wid

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty slick concept though.  Solves the charging time issue by making it a simply (hydrogen) refueling process.

All it needs is hydrogen infrastructure. 

(And some serious safety engineering to protect that compressed hydrogen fuel tank in the even of a crash.)

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...