Reply #41: 35% of all energy to include Transportation? And no mention of the US Military? [View All]

[happyslug]

Sorry those numbers still do NOT add up. To replace oil, without massive conservation which was the point I as trying to make, with Solar requires 100% replacement, not 35%. Furthermore the 35% number si for ALL energy NOT just oil. The reason for mention ALL ENERGY instead of Oil is it is difficult to replace oil with ANYTHING. Even fly-wheels, the most efficient electrical storage device has a 10% energy loss (And requires massive protection do to the possibility of severe damage if a flywheel is involved in an accident and in that accident the wheel itself, which rotates are very high speeds, gets lose from its supports). Flywheels are often used in space, if they break no one is near to get hurt. My point is Solar power to help in transportation has be converted to some usable form by means of transportation. No problem for railroads, overhead and third rail systems have been around for over 100 years. This is direct use and very efficient when combined with steel wheel on steel rail. The problem is rail is NOT the largest user or oil, cars and trucks are. For Cars and Trucks, overhead lines do NOT look promising (And where such overhead lines look good, converting the whole system to electric rail looks even better).

The problem with Cars and Trucks is converting the Electricity of Solar to something that can be carried on the Car or Truck. Batteries have only a 25% efficiently rate, fuel cells 50%, fly wheels 90%. Flywheels, if involved in an accident that causes lost of control over the fly wheel would release a huge killing device onto the roads. I See flywheels operating on ships and barges (Do to size and location loss of control of the flywheel is less of a concern), but cars and trucks will have to use Fuel Cells with their 50% loss of power (And added weight over what gasoline and Diesel weigh). This is where the problem lays, how do you replace oil in Cars and Trucks? If you go with Fuel Cells, there is a 50% energy loss. If you opt to use the electric power to help convert crops to bio-fuels, the energy loss is even greater (Exact amount is unknown to me). I suspect such conversion will become the norm for the bio-fuel car or truck could be refueled at the same speed as you fill your gasoline tank now, unlike having to weight to fill fuel-cells OR recharge them.

My point is the reason 35% of used, is that is about what the max we can expect from Solar. The costs to convert Electricity derived from Solar to other energy uses to replace oil is at last double what we get from oil today (Oil is such an ideal energy source for transportation, it is a liquid, you do NOT have to haul any part of it after you use it, operates even if the coldest temperatures and easy to be re-filled in your vehicle.

Thus my position that we will need to convert out lifestyles to reflect the lost of oil remains. The Solar power needed to do such a conversion is HUGE (As are the energy demands to convert from oil to Fusion or Fission power). It is NOT just a simple conversion of one form of energy to another, but change in HOW we use energy to reflect the limitations and Strengths of Electricity derived from Solar power. That was the main thrust of my comments and your citation do NOT address those problems.

The Article also does not go into electrical loss as the electrical power is transmitted to other parts of the Country (i.e. where it rains). People need energy but also food and water. Water can be transported to the Southwest, but at a huge energy costs given where the water is and where the power will be. The reverse is also true, a huge energy loss to transport the electrical power to area where water is plentiful. Neither is addressed by the writers for both increase the need for power over and above what we are using now. Efforts to make super efficient electrical lines are being researched, but all require keeping the lines close to absolute Zero, another energy loss but may be less energy used than energy lost through conventional lines (But in either case another source of energy loss and why the authors stopped at 35%).

Remember 50% of our present energy use is supplied by oil (And almost 100% of transportation energy is provided by oil). Thus our problem is not so much an energy shortage but an oil shortage followed by a Natural gas Shortage (and maybe by 2050 a coal shortage). Research is being done, but one you look into the whole picture, massive changes in how and where we live will be required (And I am NO going into farming, another oil depended area, where flywheels and direct lines are NOT freezable, it may be better to go back to the horse then forward with electrical powered heavy equipment, something that only time will tell).

Furthermore, no mention is made of the US Military, the US Navy, by itself, uses 15% of all Diesel fuel made in the world (This is for is ships, boats and even jet planes, Jet fuel and Diesel fuels are interchangeable, unlike Gasoline and Diesel). 5% of all oil "disappears" between exports and imports. Where this oil goes is unknown. I suspect the loss is oil used by the US Military overseas. The host country do NOT register the oil as an import for it is for the US Military not for their use, and the US does NOT register it as an import for it is being imported into another country. That gives you an idea of how much oil the US military uses (And remember the oil is registered if imported into the US, just not overseas). Like farmers, direct electrical lines are NOT usable by the military (Hard to run a jet from an over head line). Flywheels look promising for the Navy, but overall bio fuel looks like the most likely replacement, but like transportation is ignored in the Article for the costs are high compared to the cost of oil today.