Display:
There is something else that has to be taken into account: our energy needs are not just electric. We use tremendous amounts of heat of chemical processes, metallurgy, manufacturing. Of course, this could be cut down if production/consumption as a whole was down. But I don't feel that it can be eliminated. Quite the contrary, if we are to produce fertilizers one day with hydrogen that comes from water, not natural gaz, convert other plastics manufacturing to biomass feedstocks for CHON that could be energy sinks instead of sources like fossil fuels double up today in most process where they are used as materials also.

When you need heat, a fuel is at an advantage against electricity: you get 100% of the energy in it, not just 45% as limited by thermodynamics when converting to electricity. It is very wasteful to generate heat with electricity that has been slowly accumulated with renewables. Some newer nuclear plants address this need (PBR, IFR, super-critical water reactors...). The EPR does not. But in my view it is clearly a stopgap to cope with the obsolescence of current plants, with only incremental upgrades to PWR, doesn't qualify as true 3-rd gen in any way.

Pierre
by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:06:05 AM EST
Renewables aren't only for generating electricity. Both geothermal and solar-thermal power can generate heat. The potential of the former, in the hot-dry-rock version, is available in much more regions and is largely untapped today - and there is much room for development. (Germany has a few dry-rock pilot plants.)

While I'm not much of a biomass plant fan, they too are capable of dual production.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Using non-renewable energy sources for heating must be one of the most wasteful ideas ever implemented.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 06:39:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
er, I'm lost, you mean renewable ? Using non-renewable energy is bad in general, but when heating is necessary for a given purpose, burning fuel has an edge (in term of technical ease, as of today) over electricity except in special cases like aluminum smeltering. I just think we must anticipate the burden that heat-intensive industries (and we will always have some) will put on non-fossil energy sources when the fossil fuels become just unaffordable...

Pierre
by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:47:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Non-renewable resources shouldn't be burnt for heat, no. They have a low entropy content which is useful for doing work, not just as a source of heat, and being non-renewable means that they are the result of accumulation by processes on a geological time-scale. Burning them is thermodynamically wasteful.

There are renewable heat sources: geothermal, solar heating, solar furnaces [if you need temperatures in the thousands of Kelvin). There are renewable [carbon-neutral] fuels: biomass, wood, ethanol...

Heat-intensive industries will be limited by the amount of renewable heat that can be farmed.

A separate argument is that a fuel is too precious (in its energy density and its mobility) to burn it in a static industrial plant. The opportunity cost is too large. I don't have a problem with using renewable electricity for a heat-intensive industry, the opportunity cost is less, especially if the power comes from an attach power facility (solar panels, wind farm, sharing the location of the industrial plant; building the industrial plant on a geothermal hot spot, near a tidal power generator...).

That os my opinion anyway. It's not backed by any actual calculations, back-of-the-envelope or not.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 07:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think actually most process industries use natural gas or coal (cheapest options) and not liquid fuels for heating feedstocks. In some cases they double up as feedstock (coal for steel, natural gas for fertilizer).

Pierre
by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just because they are not liquid doesn't mean gas or coal are not mobile, dense fuels. Natural gas is a fluid and it is used increasingly in public transportation (I don't know whether it is liquefied or not). I wonder whether coal powder wouldn't be a more efficient way of using coal for mobile applications.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The trouble with coal powder as fuel (at least in steam locomotive applications) is that it sticks to surfaces and clogs up various parts. As fuel it is very efficient.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Powdering is key: it dramatically increases the area-to-volume ratio [combustion in a gas atmosphere happens on the surface] and minimizes the production of incompletely combusted products, which are generally dangerously polluting as they are chemically active (example: carbon monoxide is the result of incomplete combustion and is a poison as it binds to hemoglobin more strongly than osygen; carbon dioxide is the result of complete combustion ans is chemically inert).

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The one surviving (East) German coal powder locomotive (recognisable due to high tender), [class] 52 [no.]  9900:

...as you have given me another opportunity to push trains...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:43:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some busses of the RATP in Paris are gas-powered. It's liquefied, in a long tank on the roof. The gas goes into a regular engine, probably with some tuning. Also I saw a  PR a few month ago about a british university designing a gas-powered urban vehicle similar to a quad or a BMW-scooter with roof, for ultra-low power mobility.

Pierre
by Pierre on Mon May 22nd, 2006 at 08:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series