ga_after_battery_problems.mp3 | |
File Size: | 4607 kb |
File Type: | mp3 |
general_assembly_move_prep.mp3 | |
File Size: | 1934 kb |
File Type: | mp3 |
Archive - Macomb Journal Message Board
AuthorTopic: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City (Read 3,257 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Thread Started on Dec 9, 2007, 6:48pm » I hope to hear some responses to an opinion piece I wrote for Sunday, Dec. 2nd's Journal regarding Macomb's economic potential. I believe that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable/hydrogen city. The Op-ed is below.
Macomb's economic potential
To the Editor:
A few months ago, William Bailey, chairman of the department of agriculture at Western, wrote in a local column about Beardstown’s economic potential. I believe that a similar line of reasoning could display more of Macomb’s economic potential. The following quote can be found online at the Illinois Farm Bureau’s FarmWeek archive of “Perspective” columns. See July 25, 2007 “Perspective -- Ports of Beardstown, Los Angeles, Singapore share traits” http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=10558&drvid=108&r=0.161297
"It is a bit more of a stretch to think of Beardstown as an international port through which containers of agricultural products could move to anyplace in the world. But that is certainly possible and is well within the grasp of a number of businesses who are attempting to make Beardstown into an international port."
Now, I propose that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable city. Perhaps this is also a stretch. But let me build the beginnings of my case.
What does such a city look like? Let me briefly describe a few techniques that could be integrated into a sustainable city. Buildings could be built or retrofitted to become hyper-efficient, using energy from their surroundings for heating and cooling and sometimes even lighting and electricity. Buildings so designed often return energy to the electrical grid. Hydrogen could serve as the premier energy carrier. It could be used as a fuel for transportation in fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines (H2ICE’s). Hydrogen might also heat homes by combustion or by fuel cells producing electricity for heating and other household applications. The hydrogen will be produced from renewable resources such as biomass conversion or from the electrolysis of water using wind or solar energy. Before all our fossil fuels are consumed, they can be reformed to produce hydrogen as a steppingstone toward fully renewable sources of hydrogen.
Why would Macomb be a good place to accelerate our transition? First, other cities are already pursuing the goal of becoming sustainable. For instance, Columbia, SC is seeking to become “Hydrogen City.” A smaller city of 14,000 in Lolland, Denmark is also hoping to become the world’s first hydrogen city, H2PIA. So, there is precedent for bodies politic on the municipal level to spearhead this kind of economic development.
Second, leaders in the state of Illinois are already pursuing other projects in sustainability. Most of us are keenly aware of the importance of Illinois ethanol as a step toward sustainability. Similarly as in other states, northern Illinois is developing a hydrogen highway. This is in accord with the vision for the eventual national transition to a hydrogen-based economy.
Third, any time one wants to build a large, complex machine, one starts by building a smaller model, a prototype. If cities are large, complex machines, smaller cities could be developed that model the vision for the future development of the larger cities.
Are there any cities in Illinois aiming to become fully sustainable? Are there any locations in Illinois where there could be built a locally functioning, model hydrogen economy?
Let me be specific about Macomb’s characteristics that I believe make it an ideal place to build one such model economy. Macomb is both large enough and small enough to qualify as a model city. Macomb can be described as “micropolitan.” It has mechanics, movement patterns, and other qualities similar to a metropolitan area, except on a smaller scale. For instance, the satellite towns in McDonough County are to Macomb as Chicago’s suburbs are to the larger Chicago.
Next, Macomb is a city of learning. WIU is a primary economic engine. Much of Macomb’s core population is in the education industry. An excellent teaching opportunity exists for a community to develop itself as a model for sustainability. It would be like a giant field exercise or scientific experiment in research and development.
Third, Macomb’s rural setting with low population density is an advantage. Our agribusiness people understand the cyclic nature of agricultural production patterns. These patterns are very similar to sustainable energy production and consumption patterns. Also, our low population density will make it easier for the older technologies to be upgraded or replaced by the newer technologies. Think of it like the difference between the traffic jams around construction in metropolitan areas versus the only slightly more congested traffic around construction in smaller cities and towns.
Fourth, the use of economic cooperatives such as the electric and telephone cooperatives show that our people have a history of working together to bring to us goods and services difficult to procure by other methods. This is a kind of cooperation similar to the lifestyles that will eventually be necessary for life among the future’s sustainable energy infrastructure.
Finally, we are already connected to or near enough to companies who would likely be interested in cooperating in this project. For instance, large equipment manufacturers John Deere and Caterpillar are each only two hours away. These are only a couple possibilities of which I have personal knowledge.
How do we get started? I would suggest an expanded feasibility study. I have tried to show above some of the factors that make the project feasible. But there are professionals, such as Teska Associates, who could work together to develop a more comprehensive plan. Consider Macomb’s Comprehensive Plan, p. 65, Figure D – Action Plan Table, Line Four: “Action Step: Promote the use of green technology and clean energy. Purpose: To become a sustainable City and to reduce green-house gas emissions.”
With a little vision, we could tell a grand story, invite the investment of cutting edge technology, and develop an already great city into a model city. People will flock to Macomb to see how we did it. Students will live the future at WIU. And people will learn from our model in order to improve their own cities.
Daniel Miller
Colchester Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #1 on Dec 23, 2007, 12:51pm » I've been developing a website to promote this vision. See www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com for my blog and a growing list of helpful links. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #2 on Dec 23, 2007, 1:18pm » noone has responded to this witch i find very interesting. I have read it a few times and while i don't quite understand how this would work. I do see the posative aspect this would have on the community and the nation as a hole. I will be doing a little more research on this as it seems to be a logical choie of action to move the community forward on all plains. I think this might be something worth bringing to our city government. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #3 on Dec 23, 2007, 2:56pm » Thanks for your response, cubs1091. I'm glad that you see some of the potential of this vision. Frankly, I don't entirely understand how this would work, either. That is what the expanded feasibility study would continue to study. I agree that this would be worth bringing to our city government. I have so far met with one member of the County Board, Gary Sherer. As a first step, he suggested that I gather together people interested in this idea. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #4 on Dec 23, 2007, 8:05pm » Well i will tell you any help you need i am willing. I live in Macomb and am raising my family here. I look forward to any positive change, and am willing to do anything to move it forward. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #5 on Dec 23, 2007, 8:23pm » Great to hear, cubs1091. Maybe we could suggest that folks get together at a local coffee shop sometime after the holidays. We could meet other interested folks and brainstorm. Mr. Sherer said he'd meet with a group of 4 for this first step. Feel free to spread the word! Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #6 on Jan 3, 2008, 12:15am » I just discovered that the Illinois legislature has passed a law enabling the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to fund Smart/Green City Grants. Check out HB3394 at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0170 There will be Illinois funds available for visionary planning and development that integrates green/sustainable technology. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #7 on Jan 9, 2008, 11:23am » Next Tuesday, Jan. 15 at 1:30 PM, there will be a small group meeting at New Copperfield's Book Service to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #8 on Jan 12, 2008, 12:40am » Meeting Location Changed: Tuesday's meeting will be held same time at a local citizen's house. Please leave me a personal message under the "Members" menu for more details. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #9 on Jan 12, 2008, 10:31am » The info I get says there isn’t going to be a hydrogen economy. Not only does it take more energy to make H than you get from it… it is hard to store and transport.
I saw a very informative speech by a spokesman from Toyota’s alt fuel R&D department. He said Toyota has a pretty good engine but to get a useable range it needs a 10,000 psi tank. That’s requires a heavy tank, powerful pumps to fill it and is very dangerous. He said Hydrogen cars are “still 5, 10, 20 or more years away”. Which means things need to be invented and that might not happen.
I would say it probably won’t happen. Cause we’ve been making H for 100 years. The fuel cell was invented 50 years ago. I saw the car that “ran on water” 30 years ago during the first oil crisis… and it still doesn’t work. I challenge you to name anything that has more R&D, by more people, by more sectors, by more counties, for a longer time… than the gas engine. And it is still only 40% efficient. Most of the energy in gas is turned into heat. If we can do anything with technology… first make a car that gets 100mpg.
Anyway, the Toyota spokesman talked about many different types of alternatives. He said light weight composites were too slow to manufacture. Ethanol would require using spare land that has insufficient water. Bio mass takes more energy to gather than it makes… I don’t remember anything he said positive. Except…
He said 60% (I think) off the middle east population is under the age 21 and they all want to drive and they got all the gas. So Toyota was very “excited” about that market. Doncha love global corporations?
That brings up the biggest threat USA has… if all these countries that export oil decide to use it for their OWN economic development… or decide to trade it directly for manufactured goods (mostly made “not in USA”, thank you very much Uncle Sam) then gas won’t just get pricy, it will get scarce. And with 75% of USA population living within 250 miles of the coast you have to wonder how much will percolate 1200 miles inland to good o’ Macomb.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #10 on Jan 12, 2008, 7:04pm » Whatever exists is possible. And R&D creates the existence of new things.
Yes, the plausibility of the hydrogen economy is debated. For some pro-hydrogen and pro-hyper-efficiency perspectives see "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution" and "Winning the Oil Endgame," both co-authored by Amory Lovins, the chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute at www.rmi.org. Indeed, there is a wise case for integrating an entire spectrum of energy strategies. But there are good arguments, such as those above, for hydrogen becoming a significant energy carrier.
Indeed, there is still R&D to be done. The main thrust of my position is that Macomb would make a great R&D city in a variety of ways. Storage, usable range, and safety are all areas of research currently being done. But making vehicles radically lighter helps in all three of these areas. And yes, it could take a number of years to make advances in marketing the best technologies. The petroleum economy wasn't built over night, either.
Agreed, gasoline efficiency is also an important goal. But creatively developing a model hydrogen economy would also yield very helpful data and a vibrant entrepreneurial atmosphere for R&D, technology, and business.
Agreed, vested interests of companies, nations, and particular populations are factors that could make life difficult for the USA and for Macomb. Peak oil is a phenomenon that will likely affect us more than oil depletion. This could be thought of as scarcity of the ability to increase the total production of oil. But as for Macomb, combining enough vision and cooperation could yield a much brighter future than we may otherwise have. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #11 on Jan 14, 2008, 7:21am » I specifically mentioned Toyota is not going to use composites because of Lovins. I design metal stamping dies and have interest in formable plastics that might run in progressive tools. But Lovins plastic is thermal setting, so it runs slow and requires expensive applied heat. I bet there are other problems too… like strain and stretch limitations, pull out strength, and I doubt Lovins snap together cars would pass the shake test.
But certainly weight is a big factor in MPG. Remove all the luxuries and you lower weight. Lower the crash requirements you can lower the weight. Move cargo by efficient trains and remove dangerous trucks from commuter traffic then lower and enforce the speed limit you can be safe in lighter cars. Too give everyone what they want… burn 21M bbl/day.
Quote:But there are good arguments, such as those above, for hydrogen becoming a significant energy carrier.
OK. Tell us. Summarize a few arguments from the book. Why would hydrogen would be good for Macomb. Or even better, why would Macomb be good for Hydrogen?
Right now commercial H is made from Natural Gas. Even Lovins admits H would have to be made from NG till something better comes along. 10-15 years ago I read an article over concerns that all the new NG fueled co-gen plants would diminish supply for home heating. But rest assured, they said USA had, I forget, like 15 trillion ft3 that would last 200 years. Now the peak oil guys are saying NG is disappearing fast. The biggest user of NG is fertilizer. Maybe a farmer will tell us what he paid for nitrogen 8 years ago and what he’s going to have to pay this year.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #12 on Jan 14, 2008, 10:14am » Diemaker, thank you for your serious consideration of my proposal and your time and thought in replying.
I'm not an expert in tools, dies, or plastics. You are likely correct that plastics and composites have technical limitations. But with continued research and development, improvements, advances, and solutions are likely to come about. I've also heard something about ultralight metals or steel, if I remember correctly. Have you heard anything about this? I guess I'm a technological optimist when I remember how Edison's light bulb required hundreds of attempts, and the US space program crashed many rockets before achieving orbit.
A couple of your suggestions for lowering weight seem acceptable and others less than desirable. Lowering the weight of the whole fleet would make all vehicles less dangerous to each other in collisions, but yes, this would take time to transition. Again, my technological optimism imagines that there should be ways to get both safety and efficiency by creatively integrating new materials in appropriate applications.
I'll need some time to review the arguments in the books to provide quality summaries without misrepresenting them. I'm also still in the process of reading "Winning the Oil Endgame." I believe that I tried to explain, in part, how Macomb would be good for hydrogen in my original post. Does this suffice? After reviewing the books, I'll add more.
Yes, currently H is made from natural gas. Yes, I agree that fossil fuels of all kinds will continue to become more expensive. That is why I am saying that we should install renewable energy infrastructure sooner than later, because this will be overall less expensive than waiting. And yes, food and water security will also become issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, we are also likely facing a "Peak Fertilizer" phenomenon as well. I have not read any sources speaking of this directly, but it makes sense that as fossil resources peak, all other derivative products will also peak. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #13 on Jan 15, 2008, 7:46am » I haven’t seen any new steel specs yet. 20 years ago they started using HSLA (high strength low alloy) that allowed parts to use about 25% less steel for the same strength. I suspect it might be rigitized steel. Steel with fine structure physically rolled into it. There’s a lot of known alloys that can significantly add strength, chrome-moly steel has a tensile strength 3-4 times that of common low carbon steel but it’s expensive. And expense represents real cost… usually high energy cost. I saw a mine in Colorado that literally ground the mountain into gravel to wash trace deposits of molybdenum out.
So when you hear “technology has diminishing returns” or it “isn’t scaleable” it means that to provide that tech to the masses… you got to grind up mountains.
Haha, a little tongue in cheek. But really, that’s often true. And a good example would be… fuel cells. Fuel cells use platinum as a catalyst. Platinum is very costly, but available… until you start putting a fuel cell in every home, office and garage in the world. Then in 10 years they will be searching the globe for mountains to grind up to get a little platinum.
I did a some research… Denmark is home to the worlds leading wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas. Denmark gets 20% of it’s electricity from wind. Lolland, Denmark produces 50% more wind power than it uses. The problem with wind is it comes when it comes. And the problem with electricity is you can’t store it economically. So when the wind blows at 2am… well, if you could make H with that unused wattage then you would have the best of both worlds.
So Lolland built a small plant to produce hydrogen with electricity in a process called electrolysis. Which is basically the inverse process used by fuel cells and… also uses PLATINUM as a cathode. Any process converting anything into something else loses energy. Electrolysis loses… opinions differ… about 40%. Fuel cells lose 20%. Add in indirect cost like maintenance and platinum cost and efficiency drops more. Make the electricity with coal and you lose more. Make electricity from corn stalks (biomass) and it’s like trying to live on a diet of celery… you use more energy chewing and digesting celery than it provides… so you slowly die.
But Lolland has low cost, surplus energy so they can waste it making hydrogen. The plan is, after they got the H plant debugged in a couple years they will put 35 Fuel cells in nearby houses and see what problems that produces. I say more power to them. They have a realistic plan, using realistic resources and are doing real work.
I found nothing on H2PIA except some visionary scope… to be built by unnamed developers… last year.
I didn’t look much at Columbia because the first two articles I read were so filled with sticky sweet optimism and giggly fun pet projects it made me puke. Columbia is home of University of S.C. The city is all behind it but I’d bet that Hydrogen is mostly a USC project... and being paid for by USA. And at this point USA is broke and will have to borrow even more $ from China. USC also has access to a nearby hydro-electric plant. I don’t know if they plan to do the HARD work and make H, or just buy H… and probably buy off the shelf fuel cells to power their score board and Segways. Yeah, H powered Segways. I find that perversely hilarious… 2 great over-hyped visions of the future come together like a reeses peanut butter cup.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #14 on Jan 15, 2008, 8:32am » I'm glad to see that there are some advances in alloy technology that have been used for some time. Perhaps metals, plastics, and composites could all be integrated in new ways for both safety and efficiency. If we depend on one specific solution, such as platinum fuel cells, then we may find that said specific solution, such as platinum fuel cells, shows that "technology has diminishing returns" or that it "isn't scalable." But non-platinum fuel cells are also being researched and developed. Perhaps a mix of fuel cell types will prove to be most effective and will perhaps not require as many mountains to be reduced to gravel. And of course, initial R&D is always more expensive than production for the masses. That is why I am proposing an R&D laboratory/test market of 10,000 in Macomb, since 10,000 is the practical population minus the students.
Yes, Lolland has some advantages that make their project easily feasible. Macomb also has a set of characteristics that lend a certain degree of feasibility to a similar project. Perhaps greater gains for Macomb will come from a different combination of renewable and sustainable technologies than for Lolland. But the great thing about hydrogen is that it can store the surplus energy - by whatever means that surplus is collected - and it can be used like a fuel. Battery storage, though capable of storing energy, is less like a fuel.
As far as loosing energy, entropy cannot be avoided. So, you are correct that efficiency is an area in which we can make great improvements. We loose quite a bit of our energy during electrical transmission over the grid. If the grid were rewired with strings of carbon nanotubes, the electrical resistance would approach zero.... but yet again, more R&D must be done to untangle the carbon nanotubes.
The fact that the world's fossil energy supplies are limited can also not be avoided. So, eventually, renewable and sustainable alternatives will be necessary. Overall, it will be less expensive to install these while we still have relatively inexpensive fossil energy. And I do believe that we can create alternatives to dying in an oil war, dying from the effects of climate change, or wasting away in a non-technologically powered, non-modern, post-machine subsistence economy.
Hype is impractical. But vision is necessary to create a better future. Diemaker, I applaud your ability to describe the challenges to progress. Personally, I hope to take up the more difficult task of creating solutions. I continue to believe that, if we invest the worlds' energy stockpile in developing a renewable, sustainable energy infrastructure, we can preserve our ability to live technologically with a standard of living similar to and eventually better than what we now enjoy. Link to Post - Back to Top LoggedPage 1 of 5 » Jump to page 0 && (document.getElementById('pageNo2')).value Go
AuthorTopic: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City (Read 3,258 times) diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #15 on Jan 15, 2008, 9:55am » "But non-platinum fuel cells are also being researched and developed."
Yeah, I saw where they were experimenting with gold as a lower cost cathode. It’s a very corrosive environment inside the melting pot.
“strings of carbon nanotubes”
Nano everything seems to the great white hope. 25 years ago super conductivity was going to provide zero energy loss.
“The fact that the world's fossil energy supplies are limited…”
Not just fossil fuels. Lithium batteries make electric cars feasible. But they haven’t found enough lithium to make ½ billion car batteries. It’s the scale that is the killer.
“Diemaker, I applaud your ability to describe the challenges to progress. Personally, I hope to take up the more difficult task of creating solutions.”
No No, don’t martyr yourself at my expense. I have lots of solutions. But I contend there is much delusional thinking by coddled generations that created, grew up in or depend on a disposable world of comfort, convenience and instant gratification. And those people want to continue the process of consuming the worlds resources to sustain the unnatural lifestyle they’re accustomed to. Do you know how President Bushes Hydrogen Economy was going to make the enormous volumes of H needed?
BTW, here’s that ground up mountain. There is nothing new about molybdenum. Except the world demand for it.
And here is the beautiful lake of waste water.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #16 on Jan 15, 2008, 10:40am » I've heard of other non-gold solutions - forgive me that I'm being lazy in not looking up which chemicals it would use. But I've heard the gold solution, too. In my opinion, gold would be better put to use in fuel cells than having it merely sit around in forts and safes.
Whether nanotech solutions become real, only time and R&D will tell. I'm not saying it'll be easy.
Agreed, many necessary materials are in limited quantities. Maybe we'll have to share cars? That wouldn't be so bad. They taught me that in kindergarten. lol
I wondered if you would read my comment as a dichotomy between us. No, I'm not meaning to make myself a martyr. In the context of our discussion, I've simply heard more of your descriptions of challenges than I've heard of your solutions. I'd gladly lend ear to more of your solutions. I've just been trying to address a number of the challenges that you describe, agreeing with you that describing these challenges is an important part of finding solutions.
I too am troubled by the spoiled ones among us. I don't consider myself to be very spoiled and I recognize the necessity of hard work. I've tried to work hard to improve as many things as I can for myself and my community. It's this work that we've both done that helps us see reality more clearly.
Yes, I'm aware that Bush's H plan is heavily fossil fuel dependent. It's described as a "Black Hydrogen" Agenda. See the Green Hydrogen Coalition for another strategy. http://www.greenhydrogencoalition.org/
Thanks for the pics. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #17 on Jan 16, 2008, 8:32am » “In my opinion, gold would be better put to use in fuel cells than having it merely sit around…”
Wow, Exactly what I was talking about.
"Black Hydrogen" Nuclear is the only logical choice for an H economy. It’s clean. It’s enormously dense so we don’t waste energy hauling it. It performs best running full speed 24/7 so we can make excess wattage for peak demand and make H in off peak with no waste. And best of all… many many countries will never have nuke power so we can take their uranium and save our coal for desperate times. So where should we build Macomb’s Nuke Plant? Need a lot of water to run a nuke… can’t use Spring Lake… I guess it will have to be Lake Argyle.
I’m not being dichotomous… You agreed with every reality I stated.
The only rebuttal you had was… we need R&D. Which scores real low points on the debate card. Fusion is theoretically possible, would provide the ultimate energy supply, and has been researched for 40 (???) years without success.
I am providing “truth in advertisement”. Because I think a lot of these alt fuel schemes are being sold as a product that will “save your SUV”… to capture the enormous amounts of money flowing into the energy funds. Alt Fuel is kind of like the DotCom of the 2k decade.
Being that transportation is one of the biggest problems with H, and Macomb has no way to make H, and it would cost lots to haul substantial volumes of H to Macomb… wouldn’t you agree a more logical place to set up an experimental H community would be near an existing H manufacturer. Or a place that has cheap energy to make H.
If you want to initiate a movement that has actual prospects of success, you need to capitalize on the local resources. The obvious one is Corn. Corn is being sold as another way to “save your SUV” but really, corn is a solar battery. And you can use that collected sunlight many ways. You want success that IS also sustainable… make Macomb the first Corn Furnas community. It could lead to innovations that re-open McGraw Edison into a corn furnas manufacturer.
And if you want immediate success look into passive energy. Passive systems are low tech, easy to use, provides instant, often FREE returns over entire life cycle… and it was perfected 30 years ago. So you don’t have to wait 30 years for all the trendy high tech fantasy fuels to do R&D. And if all those fantasy fuels don’t work… the people who invested in natural passive systems will be sitting sweet. RMI’s early work was all about passive systems.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #18 on Jan 16, 2008, 10:29am » I'm not a chemist, but I Goggled non-platinum fuel cells, and there are mentioned solid oxides and polymers. So, the palate of options for fuel cells is diversifying - not just platinum and gold.
Nuke power may be a component for a hydrogen economy, but the members of the Green Hydrogen Coalition would argue that it is not the only logical choice. Uranium, another limited resource, is also a fuel that will eventually face peak production and eventual depletion. Renewables are the only sustainable option over the long, long run.
As far as renewables requiring more energy input to install than you get back, this is only true over the short term. After the infrastructure is in place, the energy return continues to accumulate. There is thereafter only a need for maintenance and later upgrades in technology. The days of getting an immediate, high return on energy investment are numbered. This immediate high return is only possible as long as energy dense fuels remain. Renewables may not be energy dense, but they are consistent over the long term.
The dichotomy I mentioned was only referring to the difference you thought I was making: me a martyr and you a non-martyr. I wasn't trying to make this difference. Otherwise, when I have agreed with the realities you mention, at times I would agree with all or most of what you said and at other times, I agreed with only a part of what you said. When I agreed with part of what you said, I mentioned additional facts or potentials that you had not mentioned. Often, the facts and potentials I added were in proposing solutions.
Yes, I have emphasized R&D. My whole position is that Macomb would be a great place for research and development. Perfect? - No. Better than many places? - Yes. Could there be better places than Macomb? - Likely. But Macomb has a sufficient and unique set of characteristics that, in the context of a grand experiment, would yield very useful data.
Nor do I agree that R&D should rank low on a debate card. Looking at the history of past energy transitions, as the former premier energy supplies began to peak, other technologies were being researched and developed that eventually began to dominate the market. The interrelationships among whale oil, coal derivatives, petroleum, and natural gas show these characteristics. I'd bet that, over this century, similar patterns will emerge in the interrelationship among petroleum, coal, natural gas, and renewables.
I'd agree that you are indeed providing SOME "truth in advertisement," but there seems to me to be more real potential in these proposals than you give them credit. They begin to address and solve a whole spectrum of technical, social, political, and economic problems that we currently have because of our petroleum dependence. These include energy security, peak oil, geopolitical instabilities, and climate change. For instance, reduced oil dependence will help de-fund state sponsors of terror, since many petrodollars are currently flowing into their coffers.
The style of hydrogen economy that could be a model in Macomb would be one that could utilize renewables and distributed energy production and consumption. Part of the grand experimental study would try to answer the question of just how much and how soon renewables could replace the legacy fossil energies used locally in a model, micropolitan economy such as Macomb. Transportation of the hydrogen itself is one difficulty, yes... but transporting renewable electricity to on-site electrolyzers or transporting natural gas to on-site fuel reformers are other options for producing the hydrogen more locally.
Yes, corn furnaces could be a component of a comprehensive sustainability plan for Macomb. Yes, local resources should be utilized. But corn will also face peak fertilizer, as related to peak oil. But BOTH corn and hydrogen can be included in an overall strategy. As far as local resources being utilized, I've been showing local resources and community characteristics that would be helpful in building the hydrogen component of our local sustainability plan.
Yes, I have included passive energy in my thinking from the beginning of my proposal. I described passive energy with other words. "Buildings could be built or retrofitted to become hyper-efficient, using energy from their surroundings for heating and cooling and sometimes even lighting and electricity. Buildings so designed often return energy to the electrical grid." And when this energy is returned, it could either go to the grid, be captured locally in hydrogen, or sent to the grid to be captured in hydrogen somewhere else. So, yes, you are restating in other words part of what I was saying from the beginning. « Last Edit: Jan 16, 2008, 10:37am by machwing »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #19 on Jan 27, 2008, 1:57pm » We plan to meet with a couple local business leaders tomorrow, Mon. Jan 28 to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable or model hydrogen city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #20 on Feb 2, 2008, 9:52am » “The interrelationships among whale oil, coal derivatives, petroleum, and natural gas…”
I’ve heard the “interpretation” that whales were getting scarce so they developed rock oil. But I’m sure man has suffered resource depletion before without making technological breakthroughs. It’s the industrial revolution that created a snowball of science. It is amazing how science advanced in the 1800’s. According to Wiki… even the fuel cell was discovered in 1839… imagine that. So, it wasn’t that man needed power so he developed oil… More like, while man was discovering everything he eventually got around to oil.
Big difference between then and now. THEN… the world was full of energy rich resources waiting for a demand to be created. NOW… we have a huge world wide demand searching for an energy rich resource. Big, big difference.
Previously I asked to name something that has more R&D than the gas engine. One might be the electrical battery. Certainly researched longer than the ICE. Japan is electronics crazy like USA is car crazy, Japan has researched the battery intensively. There are big incentives too… Whoever discovers a way to pour electricity into a tank will make Bill Gates look like a pauper. Cause we all want electric cars. They are superior in every way except they don’t go very far. Infact, Hydrogen is just another type of battery, the best we’ve come up with to make Electricity portable.
Which is ironic, cause the biggest problem H has… is portability. HA! It is the smallest, lightest element on the chart. So it leaks through seals. It absorbs into steel making it brittle. It’s very explosive. It takes up a huge volume and can’t be liquefied except at very low temp. That’s why H-cars need 10,000psi tanks, to compress enough H into a small enough space. BTW, 10,000 psi will blow a hole through your hand.
And other problems too, like current H manufacturing releases huge CO2 gasses.
Green manufacturing of H is a big energy loser.
Fuel cells are going to cost considerably more, not just from lack of mass production, but precious metals.
Fuel cells don’t work in the cold.
The entire delivery system/sales/repair/user knowledge will have to be redone. I keep thinking the last time USA made a national change of this magnitude was the metric system. That should have been easy but completely failed.
And probably a bunch other problems.
I saw an engineer from GM’s H car program proudly displaying their new compact skateboard configuration. It looked outstanding. But he kept saying IF… if, if ,if we go H.
That’s all I’m going to say about the feasibility of H. I know we have smarter people now, with powerful computers and instant world wide information exchange… so it’s hard to say anything is impossible. But I still say if we can do anything… do 100mpg or a 300 mile battery first.
I’m not trying to discourage you Machwing. Quite the opposite. People should think what the world will be like in 20 years.
But the first thing that has to happen is government acknowledgement of a problem. It’s been 4 years since Bush announced the H economy, haven’t heard much since from him. AFAIK the original $2.1B is all they have spent on H. Energy is sidestepped in debates. There has been no public commercials on conservation. In the Carter era there were lots of conservation commercials and the people conserved… big time. People want to do what’s right. But a lot of people know USA shut down it’s oil wells in 80’s when Opec slashed prices and think we have plenty, least for their life. So it’s going to be hard to make them change.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #21 on Feb 2, 2008, 10:46am » Thanks for the good conversation, diemaker. It's clear that our energy future faces many challenges. I hope the other readers benefit from our discussion.
BTW, I just received a free copy of "Winning the Oil Endgame" from the Rocky Mountain Institute. (If you want a copy, you could contact them.) Indeed, therein the hydrogen option is described as an optional but also beneficial component of the overall national energy strategy. As a small city, Macomb may or may not fit a niche in hydrogen. But I think it's possible. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #22 on Feb 3, 2008, 5:53pm »
“Macomb may or may not fit a niche in hydrogen. But I think it's possible.”
Based on what?
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #23 on Feb 3, 2008, 8:22pm » Based on technological hope including but not limited to the following. 1) A grand synthesis of techniques, some of which I've mentioned in our discussion and some of which I believe will come about from R&D. 2) The pioneering work of people such as Amory Lovins and his collegues at the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Angel's Nest buildings [http://www.angels-nest.org/] 3) The inclusion of the beneficial hydrogen option in "Winning the Oil Endgame" 4) DVDs of presentations and personal discussions about renewable energy with the Bill Leighty of the Leighty Foundation [http://www.leightyfoundation.org/earth.php] Also see the Leighty Foundation's connection to Macomb under their history section [http://www.leightyfoundation.org/history.php] And if you contacted Mr. Leighty, he would likely enjoy speaking with you. If you mentioned my name [Daniel Miller] in saying that you and I have been conversing, he would also likely remember and confirm that he has also spoken with me. 5) I also have the hope of working out the bugs as we go along, seeing how close we can come to a vision for a locally sustainable community with a significant renewable and/or hydrogen and/or ammonia component. (I haven't yet mentioned renewable ammonia, but it is just a step away from similar thinking concerning hydrogen.)
If we'd like to discuss more in this forum, I would enjoy that. I just thought you were saying that you were concluding your discussion by saying "That’s all I’m going to say about the feasibility of H." Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #24 on Feb 4, 2008, 12:54pm » I am finished with feasibility, were talking in context of Macomb now. What attributes does Macomb have? I know… it’s small, semi isolated, has WIU. At least 2 of those could be considered negatives. And I don’t think any great minds are aspiring to do advanced research at WIU either. Do you have any other arguments?
You make a comparison that Beardstown is trying to be a port and that’s no less goofy than Macomb being a hydrogen city… but Btown has a navigable river that leads to the Ocean. And ports charge money, and no tech breakthrough is required. So I’m looking for some “navigable river” that Macomb has that would make me say… Oh, OK, that will work.
I must say I’m happy to hear you say “technological hope”. That’s a realistic declaration. Cause H might happen, it might not. If it does happen, it probably won’t be everything you hope for. Cause renewables are not that powerful.
Somewhere, I “think” I heard… Maybe Representative Rosco Bartlett’s speech… only 1% of USA energy coming from renewables. And the vast majority of that was Hydro-electric. We doubled wind power last year and will double it again and again but it’s not going to come close to the energy we currently use. I really fear that when the public decides it wants H, the nukes will follow.
Oh,oh, I’m talking H again. The real reason I’m talking at all is because I want to talk sustainable. But I’m getting to that…
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #25 on Feb 4, 2008, 2:55pm » If you'd rather speak about sustainability more generally, I'm open for that.
To close off our discussion on hydrogen, for the time being, I'll close with a quote from "Winning the Oil Endgame," p. 230.
[Begin Quote]
"Hydrogen: practical after all
In that exploratory and indicative spirit, we sketch here the main elements of a hydrogen transition that is optional - we can displace oil profitably even without it - but would be advantageous in profits, emissions, fuel flexibility, and security. It would also reduce calls on natural-gas resources, whether by stretching them longer or by avoiding those of highest private and public cost. Ultimately, hydrogen would make possible a completely renewable solution to mobility fuels, so they could not be cut off, would never run out, and wouldn't harm the earth's climate. Done well, these fuels could also cost less per mile and have steady, predictable prices.
Along the way, we briefly address some of the salient misunderstandings that have led many otherwise well-informed commentators to criticize the hydrogen economy as infeasible, uneconomic, dangerous, or polluting. These misconceptions are dealt with in a documented white paper by this report's senior author [Lovins, 2003b] Capable technologists worldwide would not already have created 172 prototype hydrogen cars and 87 hydrogen filling stations if they were simply sloppy thinkers or deluded dreamers. Rather, they have developed practical solutions to the problems that many recent studies (often propagating each other's errors) carelessly assume to be formidable or insoluble. As energy venture capitalist Robert Shaw says of the hydrogen transition, "Those who think it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those doing it." "
[End Quote]
I know you're not saying that it's impossible, but we're agreeing to stop talking about hydrogen and start talking more generally about sustainability. I'm saying that there are likely more eloquent advocates of hydrogen than I am.
As far as Macomb in particular, for one, I've tried to view what may initially look like drawbacks as actual advantages. I'm trying to be as creative with Macomb's resources as I can be. If one wants to see a few things as lemons, I say let's make some lemonade. I don't know if you consider the set of characteristics I've mentioned to amount to a "navigable river" of sorts. But this vision catches on among the population, this vision and drive could become more powerful than many difficulties. I believe Macomb's greatest resource is its relatively tight-nit community. As for who has a great mind... that is often hotly debated. Perhaps great minds just haven't yet looked closely enough at our local data set? Additional arguments? - Well, we're finally getting a four lane road in with 336...
Hope can be powerful. I'm glad that my hope is not irrational, too. I continue to hope that we will make more and more advances. And science and industry have a long tradition of continuing in this manner. Maybe H won't be all I hope for, but why should I consider renewables as not that powerful? Even though they're not energy dense, they're consistent and domestic. They're also the best and only option over the long-long-long run, say 300 years in the future for sure - after fossil fuels have peaked and become even more scarce.
Yes, we have yet much to do in the way of renewables. And yes, energy efficiency is a huge part of the puzzle. Maybe nukes will follow, but it would not be entirely necessary. There are for sure many nuclear interests who will push for it, though. Unfortunately, greens and environmentalists don't have lots of capital.
Anyway, yes, as you said, we can stop talking about hydrogen... but we haven't yet talked about NH3 - ammonia - as a means to transport energy. This would remove some of the current difficulties to the H infrastructure, but it would have other challenges of its own.
Anyway... yes, yes, let's talk about sustainability more generally. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #26 on Feb 5, 2008, 12:11pm » Gee, I felt like Lovins was looking right at me when I read his quote. Hehe.
Isn’t Lovins main push for lightweight plastic cars? Cut the weight in half and double MPG or battery life. That Toyota spokesman I mentioned earlier also said Lovins super plastic was NOT recyclable. 45 million cars / year would eventually end up in the land fill instead of the melting pot. It’s really hard to keep a good ideal secret… you have to sell the bad ideals.
"Those who think it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those doing it."
Bush spent at least $2.1B 4 years ago on H development. Cut that into $1-$40M chunks and you have a lot of projects ready for their press release about now. I think a lot of the H hype comes from people who believe their seeing market ready products, but really, they are tax funded experiments. My tax dollars. And I want “truth in advertisement”.
The only new Macomb attributes you provide are “tight-nit” and a “4-lane”.
Ok, what’s Macomb’s river… the rail road. Transporting H and H fueling stations are a big obstacle. Rail transport is very efficient. Macomb has empty factory parking lots next to side tracks. Rail tankers of H could park here and pump directly into cars or tanks. Macomb is small so all cars would be within 1 mile of the fuel. You could set up for a tiny fraction they are going to spend in CA, putting slick expensive stations making H on site from NG in posh suburbs where people will drive miles thru congestion to fill up.
If you want to get a few million$ from a billionaire I would think you need to conjure up plans… scout locations, get cost and suppliers, gather info on regulations.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #27 on Feb 6, 2008, 3:49pm » Lightweight composites (carbon fibers or other fibers with plastics) are one component of Lovins's plan. As for research on plastics and automobiles, I found http://www.plastics-car.com/s_plasticscar/. Here there was a headline about recycling for plastic autos. Another article spoke about the use of plastics in the front ends of vehicles passing crash tests www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1080&DID=6584 . I have not yet looked into the shake test or pull-out strength you mentioned earlier.
There are other techniques demonstrated by Lovins (and others) in the built environment that integrate a wide variety of efficient energy practices at the level of a single building. These (often passive energy) systems could be integrated at the city level. The emergent properties at this level of organization could also be studied and optimized for optimum efficiency. After all, transportation is only one part of a city system.
It's natural that experiments must precede market-ready products. Just because there may be some hype, there are always those looking for the facts. I hope not to be hyping anything. That's why I've recommended that a feasibility study be conducted for Macomb's potential as a model city.
I don't propose that we continue unless the idea proves to be beneficial and profitable. Yes, plans with locations, costs and suppliers, and information on regulations are all needed for a feasibility study and for investment. I've been looking for people with whom to work who could help assemble such data. That's one of the reasons I published my opinion piece in the first place.
Good point about the railroad. I had thought of this at one time, but forgot to mention it. You've mentioned one possibility for the distribution of the hydrogen. But perhaps a distributed generation plan may also be possible. The feasibility study could explore both (or more) options.
What else regarding sustainability would you like to discuss, other than hydrogen? Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #28 on Feb 6, 2008, 4:06pm » As far as hydrogen taking more energy to produce than you get back, I will post "Hydrogen Now's" response to that in their FAQ's. http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/FAQs.htm
[Begin Quote]
FAQ 18. Is not hydrogen a carrier of energy, such as electricity? Does it not take more energy to produce hydrogen than is realized?
Yes, hydrogen is an energy carrier. It is not energy itself, but requires energy to produce it. Hydrogen Now! promotes the use of renewable energy to produce hydrogen. Since renewable energy, such as wind, is inexhaustible, we will never run out of the ability to produce all the hydrogen we need. The only costs are installation of wind turbines, the equipment for electrolysis and transportation. The same applies to solar and geothermal resources. It does take energy to produce hydrogen. However, it also takes energy to produce gasoline, including drilling, pumping, storing, refining and transportation. A better way is to produce hydrogen from renewable energy, totally eliminating the dirty pollution of the oil refinery process.
[End Quote]
I'll admit that this does not totally answer the question.
A similar question was asked of biodiesel, and I heard on the radio yesterday that a new study showed the belief that it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than you get back was false. Perhaps the same kind of study will show similar results for making hydrogen. « Last Edit: Feb 6, 2008, 4:07pm by machwing »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #29 on Feb 9, 2008, 11:54am » “As far as hydrogen taking more energy to produce than you get back,”
Didn’t you also say: “As far as loosing energy, entropy cannot be avoided”
“As far as local resources being utilized, I've been showing local resources…”
All you’ve said are optimistic generalizations and renewables. Wind and solar… everyone has those… and many places have a lot more than Macomb.
“Good point about the railroad. I had thought of this at one time, but forgot to mention it.”
Really?
“Here there was a headline about recycling for plastic autos…”
I saw the headline “US Government, Industry to Tackle End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling”. It was not about plastic cars. It was about the plastic that is currently in every car now… that is recyclable but is too difficult to separate. Like plastic insulators, clips, bezels… Not Lovins super plastic.
You can find a web site to support any vision you want. “hydrogennow.org” will paint the rosy picture you want to see. I love how they address the real problems:
“It is rather difficult to come up with any substantial negatives, but there are some challenges ahead.”
That’s like saying “there are no negatives living on the Moon, only challenges… like water food and air.”
Yes, bio-diesel works. It cost a lot less in inputs and processing than ethanol, but produces a lot less gallons. 160 continuous acres of beans produces 10,000 gallons of bio-diesel (figures vary). That’s enough for 1 semi truck for 6-12 months. These renewables will not come close to replacing oil. It takes a whole farm all year to produce the same energy an oil well can pump in 30 minuets.
Bartlett’s speech says ethanol will burn 1 gallon of energy to produce 1.25 gallons. So we will burn 2.25 gallons to replace every 1 we use now, and we’re causing big environmental problems now just burning that 1 gallon.
They talk about other plants that have a much higher energy content, sugar cane and oil palms. Most of them are tropic plants, that grow year round in warmth. Brazil may one day be the Saudi Arabia of the world… if cutting down all the rain forest doesn’t turn the Amazon into the Sahara. But I’m afraid we are stuck with Corn and Beans. Cause we got 100’s of $B in machinery, infrastructure and R&D to do corn and beans.
So we are stuck, just like we are stuck with the results of a huge 15 year housing boom of 3000ft2 cardboard and plastic McMansions… and the huge debt to pay for them. I am a Carter era kid. I totally bought into the ideal that oil is finite. That we should build earth bermed/underground houses, with solar rooms, solar water radiator heat, solar shingles, thermal mass fireplaces… starting 30 years ago. BUT WE DIDN’T.
2004 the president printed $200B for road repair and construction. Which is the equivalent of sweeping when an employee has nothing else to do. That’s why Macomb got it’s 4 lane. It eventually cost us $300B and pretty soon 1Million men will have to find a job, maybe as truck drivers on the new 4 lane burning another 10,000 gal each? I have to wonder what $300B could have done if it had been spent on energy saving systems that are real and here right now.
Anyway… sustainability… I was hoping to… oops, out of time.
« Last Edit: Feb 9, 2008, 12:21pm by diemaker »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged«Page 2 of 5 » Jump to page 0 && (document.getElementById('pageNo2')).value Go
AuthorTopic: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City (Read 3,259 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #30 on Feb 9, 2008, 2:37pm » Well, we could keep talking about hydrogen, but you wanted to talk about other sustainability topics. Whether or not hydrogen will be the preferred energy carrier for renewables, the fact still remains that eventually, we will need to choose the best energy carrier for that renewable energy in any given situation.
So, let's hear your other sustainability topics... perhaps we could start it in another topic so people won't get lost in this discussion, as it has gotten long? Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #31 on Feb 21, 2008, 6:59am » “the fact still remains that eventually, we will need to choose the best energy carrier for that renewable energy in any given situation”
Hmmm, the best energy carrier of sustainable renewable energy…
I know!
A horse.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #32 on Mar 3, 2008, 1:53pm » The Amish show that it is still possible to live with pre-modern, horse-powered sustainable technology. But there is enough energy and technology available today to power modern machines that use sustainable electricity and other sustainable energy carriers. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #33 on Mar 3, 2008, 3:49pm » Hi, Ive been busy lately, but came upon a alternative source. Magnetic generators are going to be introduced by the end of this year. A 4'x4' generator is powerfull enough to generate electricity for up to 15 homes, and can be transferred by antenna. So O.K. hydrogen is a long way off. This technology is almost here. Here is one sight that is currently letting tests be run by scientists to prove they have developed it.
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/ Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #34 on Mar 4, 2008, 11:41am » Permanent magnet motors have been around along time. Testla was going to use the worlds biggest permanent magnet… the world… to give everyone unlimited free energy. Of course the greedy power companies (roll eyes and smirk) killed him so they could continue charging for electricity. According to the Steorn site they let the world test their tech all last year. You would think they would update the site with the world’s results.
“But there is enough energy and technology available today to power modern machines”
Sure, but not all of them. And not all they plan to build. They got some big machines outside of Macomb.
Windpower is cost effective. They are going up everywhere. I stood under one in Pittsfield… it was huge. I’ve read claims that if Nebraska was covered in windmills it could supply USA with all the power it needs.
1st off… they exaggerate… based off stated capacity instead of real world output.
2nd, covering Nebraska is a big job. For example, I’ve heard there are 100,000,000 cars in USA thanks to the power of mass production and years of accumulation. Figure an average size is 8’x20’ and they would ALL fit nicely into McDonough county. Siemans opened a plant in Ft.Madison to make Windmill blades. 400 employees make 600 blades… a year. Not 600 “sets”, 600 blades, enough for 200 windmills.
3rd, I highly suspect they exclude something, like manufacturing needs. Cause according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/ USA uses 5 trillion kw. WindMill is like 1 million kw. So you need 5,000,000 WMs. WMs are spaced 1 per 24 acres to avoid turbulence. That requires 187,500 square miles and Nebraska is like 78,000 square miles.
4th 5th and 6th… doesn’t include power loss and down time and all the other unforeseen consequences that will appear. I’m surprised no scientist is warning of weather changes from reduced air speeds.
When you start doing the math on these claims they fall apart. Replacing current energy needs with renewables will be a ghastly project.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #35 on Mar 4, 2008, 12:45pm » Replacing current energy needs with renewables will certainly be challenging. But it will be less ghastly when also integrating highly increased efficiencies. We all agreed that efficiency will be a very helpful tactic. Also, energy requirements could be reduced by relocalizing economies to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. The massive global supply chains are certainly an energy hog and very likely unsustainable. The supply chains will have to be redesigned, likely relocalized.
So, in part, I'm saying we should redefine some of what we believe are energy "needs." We value the service or product that results from our energy use. For instance, we don't really want gallons of gasoline, we want ease of mobility. Similarly, we don't necessarily want electricity, we want lights that shine, foods hot and cold, and communication devices functioning. All these kinds of services can either use less energy or be accomplished by a variety of integrative techniques. For instance, a building's water supply and drainage system can be designed to handle clean water, gray water, and black water. The gray water can be used for things like flushing toilets and watering plants. Black water is sent to some kind of processing system.
So, I'm saying that our energy "needs" will not be exactly the same in an sustainable system/building/city/community/region/economy that was be designed to integrate a wide variety of materials, processes, and energies at the appropriate sizes and scales for any particular situation. The math may indeed work better if one discovers that a lot more work can be done with significantly fewer resources, as the Rocky Mountain Institute says "Abundance by Design."
This is no easy task, either, as it requires a paradigm shift in our population's thinking. And, as you know, this will also be difficult because of any number of special interests.
As far as windmills, there are also smaller bladed models and other helix-style wind turbines. So, there will be some flexibility to add to this feasible resource. For another perspective on how wind and other stranded renewables might be utilized, see http://www.leightyfoundation.org/earth.php You may not like the talk of hydrogen and ammonia as energy carriers, but it's one option for transporting the energy from the wind fields. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged photodoc
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 61
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #36 on Mar 5, 2008, 9:29am » Sounds like somebody has been reading an oil industry website. We could go on and on about why renewables will or won't work. But that would just be "fiddleing while Rome burns" The fact is we need to get going and stop fiddleing with study after study. As an example, the automobile industry has been studing electric cars to death. Meanwhile several other countries have been selling outstanding electric cars for years. Battery technology exists right now to power a car from 0-60 in under 5 seconds and gives a range of over 100 miles on a single charge. Would you rather pay 1 or 2 cents per mile in an electric car than 10 to ? cents per mile for a gas guzzler? I know I wouldn't. And neither would a LOT of people if Detroit would start selling an alternative. But they can't do that because oil futures would plummet, sending their funding right down the drain. So we have to do it by converting our internal cumbustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric. If interested here's a site you can get more info...POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/build-your-own.html Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #37 on Mar 5, 2008, 10:40am » As for cars they have a gadget out that guarantees that if you put it in your car it will double your gas mileage, however it costs $1000.00 just to buy the part then another $500.00 to have it installed. This would be great if it were more affordable. As for electricity. We talk about how much is needed when we really don't know. These reports are based on electricity used as of now, but this is not accurate. A refridgerator needs more to kick on then to run yet it still gets the higher amount constantly. So basically you are actually buying more electric than you need. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #38 on Mar 6, 2008, 7:02am » Well Cubs, if your SUV gets 10mpg and spending $1500 will get you 20mpg… with gas @ $3.00/gal you would pay for it in 5000 miles. And the next 5000 would save you $1500. If gas goes to $4 payback is at 3750 miles.
And guess what else? I don’t believe it.
I had an old refrigerator that lasted 27 years without a problem, sold it with the house 5 years ago… it might still be running. New house had an “efficient” fridge. 6 years old and had to spend $150 on a new chip for it. These energystar appliances might be a ruse. Complex layers of mini systems and monitoring that fail prematurely. It’s just real hard to break the 80-20 rule. And no efficiency rating accounts for how often the door is open.
I wonder how much energy is used by appliances fighting each other. Like keeping a fridge cold in a heated house. Or using the stove with the AC going.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #39 on Mar 6, 2008, 8:27am » I have to agree on your point that appliances fight each other. As for the gas mileage increase here is a site that will give you some more information on this technology.
prelgnitioncc.com/int
also I will throw in another site that is telling people they will give them free electricity. I still don't know if i believe this is going to happen, but I am watching.
IncredibleNewTechnologies.com Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #40 on Mar 6, 2008, 10:29am » What? Running your car on water? I knew a guy whose bother worked with a guy whose friend made a car that ran on water. Hehe. You would think since the Government printed $2.4 Billion to research Hydrogen the first thing they would do is find this guy.
So Cubs, did you sign up for free electricity? Oh, I’m sure it’s real. Certainly they are not gathering personal info for a “call list” or “spam list” or identity theft scam.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #41 on Mar 6, 2008, 11:44am » lol as i said I am watching this. However there is a patent pending, for a magnetic generator. I just red about it at this sight. Eventually something has to happen.
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1956 Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #42 on Mar 6, 2008, 5:00pm » BusinessWeek had an interesting article about the Rise of the Carbon-Neutral City. Check out this link http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2008/id20080211_503795.htm If a project similar to those described in the article were to be done in Macomb, perhaps hydrogen could be a niche research and development focus for this city. But perhaps something else, too. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #43 on Mar 7, 2008, 8:58am » Machwing, thanks for being a good sport while I trashed renewables. The fact is I’ve been engineering for 20 years and have to look at everything analytically. Most people don’t know how things work, or made, or the externalities of what they buy. They just shop options, price and availability. And they can be sold anything.
I don’t know what or if there will be a “premiere energy carrier” but I know Macomb won’t be the epicenter of development. There really is nothing to invest in currently. (other than wind and solar) There is no “leading edge” or even “bleeding edge”, just a hole to throw money into hoping that something will pop out. Unless you have a local, dedicated, genuinely brilliant enthusiast to direct the project I think you would throw money into that hole.
Whatever happens, there will be a readjustment in the amount of energy used. And that adjustment is not mysterious or high tech… it is perfectly rational. You talked about a “paradigm shift”… I already lived through one paradigm shift where people who grew up without much were sensibly conservative out of necessity… replaced with a generation of reckless waste. We long ago provided for the common welfare and have spent the last 30 years burning energy to provide thrills, convenience, instant gratification and disposable goods that are more fun to shop for than own.
The future was so bright… we had to wear shades.
The energy problem is an attitude problem. The reason I trashed renewables is because… if you think life will continue as is with just slight change in how you fill up your car then there is no reason to change attitude.
If you really want to do something that will benefit the area… regardless of future energy supplies… work on efficiency, conservation and re-localization of goods and services. Then, when a feasible source of energy is available… almost certainly in less amounts … you’ll be ready. Cause isn’t it silly that Macomb gets cans of green beans trucked 2000 miles from CA.
I totally agree with abundance by design. But these systems require ground up design. In the case of homes and buildings… it’s too late in USA. We just maxed out the credit card to build massive amounts of super comfortable… “SUV like” … subdivisions. They got efficient appliances, insulation, tight windows but no abundance by design. Instead they designed in theaters, hot tubs, cathedral ceilings, and open hearth fireplaces with the brick work outside the house. And so many were built on the ever expanding edge of town and has increased the average commute to an incredible 32 miles.
We have spent so much time NOT considering abundance by design few know how to. Except a hand full of left-over hippies building expensive custom homes for other hippies that got rich in realestate and techs. We have spent so much time writing codes to regulate safety, appearances, zoning, traffic management, blah blah blah… it will take a team of lawyers to build abundance by design.
And you better find someone smart to weed out the bad ideals. Grey water systems are not energy savers. They are expensive, complex, desperate and somewhat disgusting attempts to save water. Good for Arizona, good for the space shuttle… not needed in Macomb. You might save a little energy from less water treatment but probably wouldn’t pay for construction. Macomb’s water should get priority though. The swamps at spring lake increased 10 fold since I was a kid. Silt traps at the inlets could have reduced that. River management is completely upside down. River banks on the prairie should not be lined with trees. I believe there is a very simple, natural and cheap way to clean the river. But no, the current mentality is to build a bigger, more expensive energy wasting machine that will provide excess that will be gobbled up recklessly.
They say water is going to be a big deal. The way we treat our water as sewage there is no wonder. Some farmers in south California won’t grow food this year cause they can make more money selling their irrigation water allotments to municipalities.
Small blades are for low wind speeds that can’t move big blades. They produce less electricity too. Helix, or Savonius type wind engines are much LESS efficient than prop turbines because they have to overcome their own drag. Their only advantage is a compact footprint.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged davedorsett
Senior Member
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 381
Location: Macomb IL
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #44 on Mar 7, 2008, 10:17am » diemaker, I'd recommend you change your name to "sensemaker" and run for king for life...
I've stayed out of this thread because a couple of you clearly had a greater grasp on many of these issues than I have but your running point/counter-point posts have been most informative. Could you please expand a bit on your suggestions for our watershed? As a community we are going to need to make a lot of decisions in this area in the near future and I'm certainly interested in thoughtful viewpoints.
If only more Internet discourse were like this! Link to Post - Back to Top LoggedDave«Page 3 of 5 » Jump to page 0 && (document.getElementById('pageNo2')).value Go
AuthorTopic: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City (Read 3,260 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #45 on Mar 7, 2008, 3:24pm » diemaker, you're welcome, I try the best I can to be a good sport. dave, yes, diemaker could be "sensemaker." He has had some very helpful comments. Indeed, it would be nice if more internet correspondence were like this.
I just hope that the potential of my idea isn't lost in the absence of expertise on my part. In other words, I'd hope that a professional more qualified than myself would be able to review our discussion and find the strengths and limitations in all our thinking. There have been a number of times diemaker has made a comment about which I have had doubts, but I have not been prepared to immediately address it. So I just let it go. I am thus unsure to what degree diemaker is correct or incorrect/incomplete on a number of points. Of course, the same could be said of my own comments.
I just have to admit that I am more of a layman as far as exacting technical issues are concerned. I did study the natural sciences for 2 years in college, but then switched to get a BA in religion and philosophy. My studies, however, contributed to my view on model sustainable cities. Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" and his "The Meaning of the City" have been particularly influential to my thinking and to my proposal. These are sociological and theological reflections on the dominance of "technique" in modern society. Just be careful not to dismiss Ellul as a neo-Luddite.
diemaker said "The energy problem is an attitude problem. The reason I trashed renewables is because… if you think life will continue as is with just slight change in how you fill up your car then there is no reason to change attitude."
I'm not just trying to save "my" SUV. Wasteful consumption bothers me, as well. I don't have an SUV, but a small car. And I've not been particularly affluent. The best I can say (perhaps you won't agree? lol) is that I've got a reasonably decent head on my shoulders...
I think that life will be radically (at the root) different during my lifetime, in this coming century. Our current industrial/economic paradigms define our "supply" as "limited" because of these paradigms' internal logic. They are very linear. A resource is extracted, manipulated/manufactured, consumed, and disposed of: a straight line of use. In contrast, "abundance by design" re-thinks what is a supply, what is a resource, and how much can be squeezed, integrated, cycled, and recycled. It is more cyclic, circular than are our current linear industrial and economic paradigms. And, as we agreed, abundance by design is the better option than is a life of scarcity. Another term I'm beginning to hear is "Permaculture." We have to re-think what are resources and how they can/should be used.
Yes, there has not been very much abundance by design built into the McMansions. But if these and other legacy building will eventually need to be retrofitted and/or replaced, the process/dynamics of retrofitting/replacement could be modeled and studied in a community that is "micropolitan." Macomb is micropolitan. Might there be a better micropolitan community in which to try one such "in-fill" project? - Sure, why not? Somewhere that has more money and more political pull than Macomb? But I'm trying to say how Macomb could creatively promote itself as a community where such a project could be possible. If not the first or second or third project of this kind, why not somewhere in the top 50? Or top 100? If the $22 Billion Dubai project is in cooperation with and in league with MIT, why couldn't we consider ourselves to be in cooperation with and in the league of WIU? We might not be on the cutting edge, but we could be on the blade. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #46 on Mar 7, 2008, 5:17pm » Here’s how it works: “The renewable energy comes from solar or wind power and is used to split H2O – ordinary water – into H2 and O2 – hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is vented into the atmosphere, which already contains about 20 percent O2. The hydrogen is used in fuel cells that can produce energy, for instance in the form of electricity and heat. In the fuel cell, the energy is created by silent electrochemical processes with no pollution. The only product left over when the hydrogen is used up, is pure water. During periods with low energy demand, we can store the hydrogen. Then, when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we use the stored hydrogen.” This is the way it should work, and could if people were willing to try.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #47 on Mar 8, 2008, 10:11am » "The Technological Society”… I didn’t read it. Read a synopsis saying it’s about what old ideals should be thrown away or kept in the new industrial world… written in 1964 Well, I’ll tell you, in USA we threw them ALL away in exchange for a society dictated by money and convenience. (pause) ok, I overstated, not ALL. But a tremendous amount of our society is driven by the pursuit money. I suppose money has always been important, but not like today in the USA. 200 years ago you simply couldn’t buy much, period. Now you can buy incomprehensible things… complete fantasies. And money was never so pursued. I was a teenager in the 70’s and saw the horrendous environmental destruction of this country. Raw sewage and factory waste poured into the rivers killing everything. Acid rain turning virgin mountain lakes into vinegar. The great lakes BURNING form industrial spills. And for WHAT? Money. You never saw that, you probably don’t even know about it. They started regulating it and it got better but it cost $ to keep it clean and eventually shipped it to other countries to let them pollute their country. Out of sight, out of mind. We traded industrial waste for consumer waste and the land fills and the cities boundaries grew. YOU got to grow up in a clean, safe, abundant world where money flowed like water.
In the 70’s during the oil crisis there was a saying… USA has 6% of the people and uses 40% of the oil. Sound familiar? The same phase is thrown around now. USA has 5% of the people and uses 25% of the oil. You might think we are making great advances in conservation, right? WRONG. In the 70’s we were the leading exporter of manufactured goods in the world. We used much of that oil to make things the world used. Now we are the leading importer of goods. I say we are still using 40% of the oil… we just have other countries burn it for us. (another original observation from sensemaker, hehe)
Now reality is working it’s way back into USA and everyone’s scared. Let me tell you, poor people don’t worry about being rich, rich people worry about being poor. And now a whole new set of perversions are coming to keep the money flowing. They are going to turn enormous quantities of corn into ethanol, then take the nutrient depleted mash, fortify it with cow bones and gristle and feed it back to cows. Because of corn prices I saw land being farmed that has been eroded down to hardpan… corn growing out of dirty white clay. This bio-engineering scares me, if USA starts to become desperate all the checks and balances will be ignored. Yes, things will change in your lifetime… you might see this area turned to desert. 30 years form now you might debate the morals of generically engineering humans.
I could go on and on… but I’ll stop with one of my favorite philosophical quotes: "Yeah but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should." Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park.
Haha, I crack myself up.
I have not been attacking machwing. Many times when I have said “you” I mean that figuratively as in anyone who thinks we will transition smoothly into renewable energies. When I say “SUV” I mean the general energy pig lifestyle of USA. I try to be accurate, but I’m not guaranteeing any accuracy… I’m not getting paid for this. I recall a lot from memory and try to quantify it by saying “I think” or (?). If I say “I heard” USA has 100 Million cars, I don’t know that for a fact, some other web site might say we have 150 million, maybe one figure is cars, the other includes trucks… but I’m in the ballpark… and I did the math, 100 million 8x20 spaces fit inside McDonough county. Even if in error, those numbers are immaterial, I provide them as a visual aid for the point that it is a gargantuan job to fill space with manufactured machines.
If you don’t know I’m wrong… then how do you know YOU are right? How about that for philosophizing.
Honestly, machwing, I don’t have a clue what you want to do. You’ve written pages of fancy fluff framing a very vague vision… make super efficient buildings and run everything off hydrogen made from renewables. Fine, do that. But for conversation sake, do you have anything more specific? I’m trying to expound on individual topics.
But just for the record, I don’t think it will do much for what Macomb faces in the next 20 years. Macomb is not Dubai, and WIU is not MIT. …”In my opinion”… Macomb is a peasant town. And WIU is a degree mill. The reason Macomb hasn’t decayed like Monmouth or Canton is because of WIU. And WIU has stayed strong because the kids, all jacked up on the promise that they can buy a good salary, have put themselves into great debt and Macomb has reaped the lions share of that debt. It’s hard to say how much more money USA can hallucinate. Or if the end of the baby boomers “mini boom” will significantly reduce the money coming into Macomb. Maybe high corn prices will bring new prosperity… or maybe the farmers have been set up for a big bust. But regardless of economic situation people will still be here. Got good soil, water, temperate climate. Macomb is very sustainable for those reason alone… As long as you don’t overpopulate which will ultimately cause terrible social turmoil… How comfortably sustainable depends on how you spend your money now, when there is plenty of energy, and you can buy anything from anywhere. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #48 on Mar 15, 2008, 11:52am » OK. Lets look at http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2008/id20080211_503795.htm
1st, I hate trennerdy (new word) terms like carbon neutral. They promote Bio Diesel as carbon neutral because burning it releases as much CO2 as the beans sucked up growing. But what base line are they working from? Not a natural baseline. Cause from pre-history to 100 years ago there was no co2 spewing engines and the farm land to grow those beans were densely covered with 6 foot tall grasses that converted CO2 to O2 9 months out of the year. That new bean field is sparsely planted with 18” tall plants whose mature life is 3 months. The ground is bare the other 9 months. “carbon neutral” is just a way to make you feel OK about the continued destruction of the planet.
2nd, these articles provide nothing. There is not one energy saving technique described. I have a very hard time reading crap like this cause it’s mostly fluff… proposals and inflated claims. I suppose it does give names you can search for more info.
3rd, forget about Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Whatever they are doing is just more fantasy creating. Like the indoor ski hill they built in the desert. Or those stupid islands that cost sooo much energy to suck sand off the ocean floor to build… and when the oil is gone and they can’t afford the constant maintenance they will be reclaimed by the ocean currents. I bet they are building the same kind of unrealistic “green” city. I applaud UAE for not turning to the dark side and spending their wealth on weapons, but they didn’t do the world any favors either.
4th, this is a cartoon. OK? A cartoon.
I bet china is doing some impressive things. An enormous population who have lived a mostly substance life suddenly prosperous in a very informed world. I bet craftsmanship is very high in China, like it was in USA before worthy people got funneled into money scam careers. Their surplus population is well controlled and life is cheap. This is just a hypothetical example of what you could do with cheap life… solar panels work best when perpendicular to the sun. Our ideal is to build an expensive closed loop feedback system to track the sun and adjust the panels automatically with motors. In china they could hire a guy to manually move panels. Lining them up by a simple sight. Caring for enough panels to take an hour to move them, then starting over, so all panels are adjusted every hour. And they do that sort of thing in China because people have to work for very little... and… every job has honor if done well. I could go on and on about that.
I also like the rooftop garden ideal. 3 foot of dirt provides total insulation. But building have to be built strong, we will not be able to put gardens on top of walmarts.
I want to talk about the picture of the English buildings. The BedZED project.
I recognize many features. The general shape is what I learned as a “salt box” design. Tall south facing glass wall to collect sun…. Sloping north wall to deflect winter winds. The glass wall needs to be a separate “sun room” cause it can get real hot in there and keeping it separate allows some control of the heat without affecting living space. On the BedZED it looks like the sun room is the walkway to the apartments. Best if solar room has big thermal mass to store heat. Stone is a slow thermal conductor, so slow you could think of it as a thermal battery. Otherwise you have to have supplemental heat at night and cloudy days. Stone is a slow thermal conductor, so slow you could think of it as a thermal battery. Thick stone mimics underground construction which is really the most efficient cause ambient temperature never exceeds 70 or drops below 50. I’ve been in old thick, un-insinuated stone houses that were naturally cool 75 deg inside when it was 95 outside... because they transferred cool from below grade 24/7. Stone efficiantcy can be dramatically improved with a thin thermal break… leaving thermal mass inside. People love insulated concrete houses. And there is nothing new about them. The first prog die I built as a diemaker 25 years ago made corrugated steel brackets to tie Styrofoam forms together. But no, instead of building solid efficient houses they built cheap high profit energy hogs. It is so funny (or sad) that we all learned the story of the 3 little pigs... yet very few buildings are made of stone. Stupid is as stupid does.
Heat loss thru the glass at night is terrible. The high tech glass are better, tripple pane, gas filled, phase change… but not great and expensive. Best would be a thermal shade that could be rolled down and sealed (somewhat) tight. Some houses were built so Styrofoam beads could be blown into the windows at night and sucked out when sunny. It was goofy but “high tech” ideal. Some built houses with few or only south facing windows… which sucks on nice days, but the ideal was to build a complete insulated envelope and kepp it climate controlled all year long by burning energy. BTW, I have never had AC in my house. Double hung and slider windows (the predominate type of window in USA) are physically bad sealers. French windows are the best. But have been so poorly designed in the USA (casement) they are not used. The BedZED has few and small windows on the sides. Solar houses often build big eaves to block the sun in the summer from hitting the glass… but that doesn’t work good because of seasonal lag. Best would be to make the solar room weather proof and take the glass out in the summer. Best would be double pane, light weight, shatter proof Lexan instead of glass.
On the BedZED, the top row of glass looks like louvers, the rest looks stationary. I bet on hot days the louvers open and hot air rises thru the roof and out the HUGE wind vanes on top… creating a vacuum to suck heat from the rest of the building. The vanes could also suck cool shaded ground air thru the sloped roof, also cooling the house. nothing new bout wind vanes. They got huge wind vains on 1920's barns around here that look very similar. Except the barn vanes were for sucking cow farts out of the barn. I bet the BedZED vains are controlled, maybe even powered… but the principle is the same, the vain rotates. An airfoil keeps the opening facing leeward so wind passing around it creates a vacumm.
Well, that’s about all I see from the picture. Everything I just said I learned 30 years ago when energy efficiency was in vogue. Then I went to the BedZED web sites to read about it and most what I said was mentioned. They also have solar panels and efficient lighting. Nothing new there. BTW, nothing uses less energy than a light that is not on, and that is an attitude problem. They also collect rain water… just like they did 100 years ago in cisterns.
And then they got a long list of what I consider, I don’t know… hallucinated efficiently. Like everyone has to drive an electric car. Or building materials were all produced within 35 miles of construction. Sure, that all reduces energy spent. But it’s more on my “attitude” thinking than high tech. They choose to go local, they choose to drive electric. BedZED will also use what they call “tree waste fuels” to produce electricity and heat. Boy this is the real ass biter for me. A tree has a lot of energy created from sunlight stored over years. But burning trees is “anti environment”. “tree waste” is green cause it implies your using something that would otherwise be thrown away. But there isn’t that much energy in branches and twigs… if they are going to burn tree “waste” for heat AND produce electricity… they are going to need and awful lot of it. That goes back to what I said about bio-mass, you spend more energy gathering than it produces. If the areas they get the “tree waste” from decide to use it for themselves, cause they also decided to go green, what’s BedZED going to use? I bet a huge factor in BedZED calling themselves green is from “tree waste” that is unsustainable once you scale it up to include everyone.
If you choose to drive 55 mph on the interstate you can be green. If you choose to turn the thermostat to 60 in winter and not use AC you can be green. I’m telling you… the energy problem is an attitude problem. And a big attitude problem is that we didn’t build these types of houses 30 years ago when we perfectly well knew how. And there is absolutely no reason we can’t build every single house that way from now on. There is a statement from Machwings article
“In some ways, it isn't rocket science," says Worldchanging.com's Steffen, pointing to Vancouver's achievements. "A lot of the time, we simply don't choose to plan smartly,"
Well, I say almost NONE of it is rocket science. As I just shown, much of the way a building is efficient is 30, 130 or 3000 years old. It was learned from necessity, and it was forgotten by choice. Creating new, feel good terminology is not a substitute for an attitude adjustment.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #49 on Mar 15, 2008, 5:48pm » What to say in response to two long posts???... I guess I'll answer generally.
Diemaker said
Honestly, machwing, I don’t have a clue what you want to do. You’ve written pages of fancy fluff framing a very vague vision… make super efficient buildings and run everything off hydrogen made from renewables. Fine, do that. But for conversation sake, do you have anything more specific? I’m trying to expound on individual topics.
[End Quote]
Here's what I wanted to do. I wanted to understand a variety of contemporary challenges facing local and global civilization, and I wanted to know how they interrelate. I found economic, social, environmental, political, religious/ideological, and local issues all tied to oil. I then discovered that oil production would peak, thus affecting and stressing all of these interrelated phenomena. Next, I started looking for solutions. New, sustainable energies and resources could help ease the mounting tensions. And new techniques and technologies could put these sustainable strategies into use. But how could such a process of transition be studied and managed on a feasible scale? A model city seemed reasonable, since the dominant mechanical form built by humans on the surface of the earth is the city. If we could understand, manage, and model the process at the small city level, then the process could be replicated at the larger city level. Is this vague? Is it fluff? Perhaps... But as vague or as fluffy as it may be, Macomb seemed plausible as a location where such an endeavor could be possible. (And yes, better locations for such a project likely also exist.)
I've been trying to build hope with a degree of technical plausibility. Perhaps flight was once thought to be vague and fluffy... Perhaps the walking on the moon was also vague and fluffy... but with enough hope and motivation, the resources were organized, many things solved by trial and error, and we did it... perhaps also wasting a little energy along the way. But we had hope and vision. And we learned along the way.
In some ways, I've needed to stay vague so that people could stay open to the conversation. Will hydrogen be the premier energy carrier? Maybe, maybe not. But the larger question of "what should Macomb's sustainable future look like?" remains incompletely answered. It may still be possible for Macomb to begin modeling a transition to sustainability, whatever integrative form it may take, and become economically better off in a variety of ways by doing so. There is opportunity in the necessity to become sustainable. Perhaps there may even develop a "sustainable tourism" industry, where people travel to locations to learn how to be green.
So, perhaps for now, no, I don't yet have anything as specific as you're looking for. I didn't grow up in the Carter era. And perhaps I don't have as much disgust (as you seem to have) about the missed opportunities of former years because I did not live through those former years. Perhaps I have a remnant of hope that things can and will be better, and MUST become better/more sustainable in order for my generation to survive this coming century... not to endorse any candidate, but Obama wrote something about the AUDACITY of hope. « Last Edit: Mar 15, 2008, 5:49pm by machwing »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #50 on Mar 31, 2008, 8:46pm » I threw in my 2 cents about Macomb as a model sustainable city at the Illinois State Republicans Capital Bill Round Table held at the City Hall community room today. State support would be helpful in getting a city wide project like this going. But of course, this is mostly looking at future capital bills, not so much the current one. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #51 on Apr 16, 2008, 2:36pm » I just discovered that GE has developed a plastic called Noryl(R) that could replace much of the metal in the electrodes of electrolyzers. The necessary metals would be plated on the plastic. This would reduce the overall capital cost to this component of the hydrogen and/or ammonia economy. I don't know if a similar solution could be developed for the metals in fuel cells. This article http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage6136.html only mentioned the electrolyzers. LOL - Here's to R&D! Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #52 on May 9, 2008, 12:47pm » As I continue to research sustainable energy, I continue to see that one question that needs to be answered is "Which is the best energy carrier for any given situation?" Renewable energy can be stored and transported in a number of forms. Hydrogen is one energy carrier often discussed. NH3 - Anhydrous Ammonia is another, less often discussed. Even less often discussed is Boron. Electricity is itself an energy carrier. (This is not an exhaustive list of energy carriers.) Storage and movement of each of these carriers have different advantages and disadvantages. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #53 on May 30, 2008, 2:31pm » “Perhaps flight was once thought to be vague and fluffy...”
Before the ICE flight was impossible. It only took 6 years from the first production car to Wrights flight. And that was in world of 2 billion people, mostly illiterate, where goods and information took along time to get. We probably would have been to the moon in the 40’s if we didn’t have a depression and 2 world wars.
“And perhaps I don't have as much disgust (as you seem to have) about the missed opportunities of former years…”
I don’t see it as “missed opportunities”. I see it as the natural greed and exploitive tendencies of man that circumvents obvious perils for a fast buck. And while the miniboomers, who were raised in dreamland, believe themselves to be above such selfish thoughts… that will probably change if dreamland disappears.
“I just discovered that GE has developed a plastic called Noryl…”
Good thing Macomb didn’t buy expensive platinum core H station, eh?
On the news I heard the ethanol makers are losing money because… cost have gone up. When gas spiked from $1.40 to $3 during Katrina, I heard ethanol was cost effective when gas cost $2.35. But $2.35 is the number with $1.40 gas and $2 corn. Now gas is $4 and Corn $6 and ethanol uses a lot of both, so proportional increase.
Yesterday on the radio (NPR) I heard H. Clinton say the world food crisis in not because of USA making ethanol. It was because of oil shortages. (and something else I didn’t hear). Hold on now, I’ve never heard any politicians talk about shortages. Just last week Bush went to Arabia to get them to increase production and they said NO… because they were meeting demand. Someones lying.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #54 on Jun 5, 2008, 8:58am » Hey Y’all. If you really want the scoop on energy… quit reading/watching/talking propagandizing opinions and watch the congress debate on Cspan. Congressional debates are usually boring but these guys are really going at it.
The basic debate is that the Dems want conservation, alt fuels and carbon tax.
The Pubs want to drill the strategic reserves. Anwar and the much of the coast.
I’m totally with the dems on this. I don’t mind so much if they drill cause they really don’t have many spills these days, I don’t see an environmental threat with drilling. Like one florida rep said: we have more oil spills from sport boats than oil riggs… and that’s why I’m for the dems. If we drill that last oil we have to keep gas cheap… we won’t conserve and we won’t develop alts. And the next generation will have even less time and energy to work with. The pubs are being very selfish.
I’m really sick of the pubs whining about how single moms have to, just absolutely HAVE to drive their kids 50 miles a day. High gas prices have forced USA to use 400K barrels less oil last year… none of that was absolutely necessary. Any truely necessary industry or service that uses gas will be able to pass the cost.
« Last Edit: Jun 5, 2008, 9:00am by diemaker »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #55 on Jun 10, 2008, 7:10am » The debate is over, the bill to conserve, research and protect... failed.
No one expected it to pass, this was just a rehearsal for later debates… to get people talking I guess. There was a lot of finger pointing and sob stories and debunking of scientific data. To summarize what I saw…
The dems firmly believe global warming is real and man made and very disturbing. And that oil is finite and will continue to get more expensive. To protect from a devastating future we need to act now with a “moon shot” effort to subsidize clean renewables. And to fund that with a carbon tax on dirty energy. (mostly oil and coal) The tax would increase price but high prices will cut down on waste. Those who choose to waste are funding the future.
The pubs think the bill would hurt the “economy” by adding another layer of taxes and regulations on energy which has already become expensive for many businesses. And that all of this is unnecessary because USA has (get this) 200 Billion barrels of oil that is in restricted coast line and they want that coast unrestricted. The pubs blame the dems for the restrictions.
Of course they are probably both right and wrong and you would think they could compromise… opening up a few areas to drilling in exchange for the carbon tax.
What confuses me is that the Pubs blame the dems for not lifting drilling restrictions. But the Pubs were able to kill the Dems carbon bill? (obvious not party parity, but still, why bring it up?)
The carbon tax does seem controversial… The right to buy and sell pollution. Looks like a lot of room for loopholes and hard to enforce. I know there are industries that consistently break EPA regulations and pay the fines as part of business simply because they physically cannot comply to produce their product… and the EPA agrees the product is needed and agrees to fine instead of shut down. Carbon tax would allow companies to pollute if they can afford it… I’m not sure there would be any other ethical scrutiny.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #56 on Jul 18, 2008, 8:23pm » Has anybody seen the Pickens Plan commercials? T. Boone Pickens, a oilman, says that we should use natural gas for transportation and wind and solar for electricity. He says that currently, about 22% of our electricity is produced from natural gas. But this 22% can be replaced by wind-generated electricity. Thus, this saved natural gas could be used in the transportation sector, to help reduce foreign oil dependence. I agree with his presentation that this would be a good strategy to begin our transition off of foreign oil. With $700 Billion going to foreign countries to pay for oil, I would prefer to buy domestically produced sources. After all, many of these oil producing countries are not friendly to the USA. In a way, we are bankrolling much of both sides of the war on terror. As many of these oil dollars end up finding their way into the pockets of our adversaries.
Of course, I'm in favor of a renewable hydrogen economy. And I still think Macomb has many characteristics that would be desirable in a location to develop a model sustainable city, a model hydrogen city. Whereas I've continued to receive more positive feedback to this idea from sources other than this message board, it's probably better not to list these praises before the idea gains more traction. But in any case, I continue to enjoy our discussions here. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #57 on Aug 9, 2008, 8:19am » If you had watched Cspan when I said you would have seen Pickens unveil his plan when he testified in front of congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOczaEzzxaM&NR=1
When I first heard his plan I was shocked because the peak oil guys have said Natural Gas was going to be the first energy source that disappears.
Assuming we really have enough NG to run autos for a few decades I guess his plan is pretty good. During the gas shortages of the 70’s a few people converted their cars to propane (methane converts to liquid propane easily) I worked with a guy who converted his truck and put a 30 gallon tank in the bed where most guys put a tool box. Propane is clean burning and power dense.
Some pitfalls I thought of…
All the stations would have to upgrade to more expensive pressure tanks.
NG generators are instant on. I bet a much of that 22% is only used during peak hours. Wind is steady at best so either extra capacity is needed or accept afternoon brownouts.
I don’t know, but I’d bet the power to generate 22% of our electrical won’t come close to running all our vehicles.
Replacing 1 trillion KWs with 3MW turbines requires 334,000 turbines. (I think that’s how it converts) Pickens said his plan would cost $1Tillion for the turbines. That’s about $3M apiece. So, for the big 300’ towers I’d say that sounds about right. One thing that upsets me is that Pickens provides almost no figures. Obviously Pickens doesn’t want to confuse people with data so all he offers is propaganda which always makes me suspicious. It also demonstrates just how much $1T is. And to think, next year USA will be $10.5T in debt. Pizzed away on the “audacious hope” that indulged people will change the world for the better.
I read a bunch of articles trying to find downsides but the only thing I found was that the wind corridor east of the rockies that Pickens want to cover in windmills has significantly less wind in the summer… when more electricity is needed.
So a few of these “cons” could change the required number of WM’s upward if extensive testing hasn’t been done. It’s tough to even build a road under budget, I would bet figures have been fudged or guessed downward to sell the ideal. Once the project is started we’re committed at whatever cost.
---------------
Cspan also had a couple of very telling interviews with Pickens. (I can’t fid vid) He said that there is not that much oil in the restricted offshore areas. He was also nailed with the fact that a few years ago Pickens predicted no oil problems and oil would be about $60 now. Pickens replied: “We were wrong. But now we are right.” I do like a man who says he was wrong instead of giving a 20 minute excuse. But why has he changed his mind so radically? Why dose he not believe we have enormous reserves off shore like congress says?
My thought… total speculation… is that Pickens, being a multibillionaire oil tycoon, knew USA seismic surveyed all the coast in the 80’s (to find out what we had incase we had to war with Russia) and the USGS predicted 85 Billion barrels in restricted off shore areas. Pickens saw the ensuing oil crunch and assumed congress would lift the off shore restrictions. Pickens then financed geologist with modern equipment to get accurate data on the most promising areas. Why? Cause this is how billionaires play the lottery… if congress opens virgin land for exploration he wants to be there the next day to lease the best claims. But the results were disappointing. So Pickens conceded the end of oil and came up with the NG plan.
Looks like Congress will soon open up restricted off shore drilling. One of the big hurdles is ANWAR. An enormous 7/8ths of USA coast is restricted but the Pubs are demanding access to the relatively tiny ANWAR. Why? Is it possible the Pubs also believe there is no oil offshore?
Like I said, just a guess.
-----------------------------
Oil price has dropped $30 last week. Part of congress extensive oil discussion was about how speculation was affecting price. Big name financial experts came in under oath with conflicting stories. From speculators had no effect… to adding up to $80 a bbl. It was very confusing. A bill to regulate speculators narrowly failed. Right after that bill failed… oil prices started down. News credits the fall to reduced consumption, increased production, the hype of off shore reserves… even Bush’s diplomatic efforts overseas… but I think the big financial firms got a firm warning about artificially jacking up the price of oil. Afterall, they are just now sending people to prison for the tech bubble bust 8 years ago. In a few years they will probably throw the sub-prime guys in jail. The oil speculators could have been threatened.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #58 on Sept 12, 2008, 8:24am » Something else. I don’t see Picken’s plan as just an energy plan, it is also a financial plan and ecology plan. That’s the reason his plan appears viable. The accountants are happy because NG is produced on this continent so the money spent stays here. A massive windmill project makes the renewable energy people happy. If all our autos ran on the much cleaner burning NG our pollution would significantly reduce and we could then agree to KYOTO treaties and put pressure on China to clean up too… then the environmental people would be happier.
The biggest part is the money part. The oil predicament… and the resulting financial and ecological devastation… has been obvious since the 1970’s. But it wasn’t until oil hit $130 a barrel that congress decided to get passionate. This caused USA’s energy trade deficit to jump from $200B to $700B in just a few years. USA is in financial trouble and doesn’t need to lose an extra $500B. More troubling is the likelihood that as USA prints money to replace the deficit… devaluation will snowball. To get rid of this climbing re-incurring expense USA seems willing to invest. What to invest in and how much it will cost is the question and this is where it becomes hilarious.
Picken’s says his plan will cost $1T for the windmills and another $200B for the grid. $1.2 TRILLION to replace 22% of our CURRENT electrical needs with renewable energy. He offers no figures for how much it will cost to change the fleet of autos and supply chain to Natural Gas. He does say NG cost less than $1/gal (in some areas)… well, I guarantee that will change.
Presidential candidate Obama stated in his nominee acceptance speech that he would make USA energy INDEPENDENT in 10 years by spending $150 billion. He’s going to do this while reducing taxes and giving everyone health care too.
Isn’t that hilarious?
So who’s right?
The businessman who says it will cost $1.2T to create 22% sustainability?
Or the politician trying to get elected who promises $150B will create total independence?
To me… all these schemes are BS if we don’t stop growth.
The real problem is the quintupling of the population in the last century. There are no shortages of energy… or food or water… there is a surplus of demand. And in USA people probably use 100x more energy than 100 years ago. Until the politicians stop this obsession with growth… and focus on sustainability and balance… demand will never be satisfied. If you haven’t seen “The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See “… watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
I think the most chilling example from that vid is the bacteria in the test tube. It's in part 3.
In the fairy tale land called USA many dispute that 2+2=4. But rest assured, it does. If USA continues with 3% growth then Pickens 22% windmills will only produce 11% of demand in 23 years.
Haw… it will probably take 23 years to implement Pickens plan. If they started now, they would have to erect 35 windmills a day to be finished in 23 years (based on my guess of 300,000 windmills)
BTW, I have a job where I can somewhat watch TV and watched many hours of the congressional energy debates. Renewable energy methods were tossed around often… Wind and solar of course, also solar thermal, geo thermal, ethanol, algae, tidal and wave… but hydrogen was almost never mentioned. Pickens was one of the few who even said Hydrogen.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #59 on Sept 15, 2008, 11:27am » Oh, something I just thought of that I haven’t read anyplace… Natural gas power plants are less than 25 years old. I bet many are not even paid for yet.
Whose gonna tell them to shut down?
They are basing abundant NG supply on a new shale extraction technique called Hydraulic Fracturing. Dirlling holes down and sideways through the shale… pumping it full of water and sand to 10,000 psi to crack the shale. Remove the water and the sand wedged in the cracks allows the gas to seep out. Amazing! But oh so much work compared to days when you could just drill into a pocket and the gas gushed out.
The more I read about it... the less I think it will happen. They may build the willmills but they won’t convert cars to NG. If things get ugly… we will take Iraq’s oil. We’re there, they owe us… right? With Iraq things can continue as is for another 20 years.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged«Page 4 of 5 » Jump to page 0 && (document.getElementById('pageNo2')).value Go
AuthorTopic: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City (Read 3,261 times) diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #60 on Sept 25, 2008, 10:44am » I guess you can think of shale fracturing as opening a bottle of pop and seeing all the co2 bubble out. But shale is solid so fracturing allows it to behave more liquid. Hydraulic fracturing can break up a wedge ½ mile wide and 1 mile or more long. If the fracture hits a fault or porous material the fluid leaks and they can’t develop pressure. They haven’t had problems yet but they are drilling virgin material and can choose the best areas for success. Diminishing returns and unforeseen consequences are inevitable.
If you watched the video I posted of pickens testifying for congress… near the end Pickens mentioned James Howard Kunstler’s advocacy of the railroads. I couldn’t agree more.
Railroads are 10x more efficient than trucking. We must stop long haul trucking. Oil cost are killing USA. Trains often haul semi trailers packed with goods from point to point then the truck move the goods the final few miles. If business stayed close to the tracks, or tracks expanded to existing shopping and industrial parks… expensive trucking could be minimized.
Many towns were built around the rails. The stations, warehouses and factories built around these attributes were inconvenient in the cheap oil economy. But they will be the towns’ asset in the future.
Which would you rather have… 8 trains passing through town on regular intervals every day… or 8000 semi trucks passing through town at all hours?
Trains were often hated for the accidents they caused… no car ever won a fight with a train. Many rural crossing had no signals, which has changed. I challenge someone to compare a decade of train accidents with a decade of trucking accidents and see which is worst.
Trains are slow. Yeah, sort of. Railroads have been crippled. Many multiple track lines have been reduced to 1 track forcing traffic to one direction at a time. Restore multiple tracks and fit locos with GPS reporting back to a central controller and that will significantly increase speed, efficiency and reduce accidents. If train traffic quadrupled in the next decade reliability and frequency will quadruple too.
Trucks destroy roads. Maintenance is a major cost. Get the trucks off and they will last longer. Without trucks we can drive lighter more fuel efficient cars safely.
Many tracks have been torn up… to sell the steel and avoid paying taxes on the tracks… but the land is still owned by rail companies. By this time the track would have needed replaced anyway, so half the job is already done. Have you seen the new tracks they lay? Concrete ties with track attaching clips cast integrally. They will last 200 years. The ties could be made anywhere concrete is made. No cutting 50 year old trees for a few ties that will rot in 40 years and disintegrate under bouncing 80 ton rail cars. And the rails are welded together making them seamless. Trains running on these tracks can go 70mph no problem.
Tracks have got to be less expensive than interstates. Look how much money went into the interstate between Macomb to Quincy. How long has it been under construction… 10 years? The transcontinental railroad laid 1800 miles of track… through the rockies… in the 1860's... with HAND TOOLS… in less time. Now they want to spend another $1/2B on an interstate to Peoria? What a waste.
Your leaders have no vision.
SO… I’m doing a 120 on the Pickens plan. (I never fully endorsed it) N. Gas is too valuable for farming and heating to use on driving. Converting cars will be a wasteful shock on the system. If we really got so much N.G. then build the next generation of locomotives to use it. Build 80 mpg cars, build electric cars… and melt the trucks into rails.
« Last Edit: Sept 25, 2008, 10:56am by diemaker »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #61 on Oct 7, 2008, 9:05am » Since Pam Fontwell (?) mentioned James Kunstler on NPR yesterday I thought it fitting to post a paragraph from his recent blog.
“"$700 billion could completely rebuild the US passenger system! All the way to complete eletrification and to the same standards the French enjoy with their TGVs."
It’s enough money to bring service to every town of 5000 and up.”
I’m not sure Kunstler is sure of that figure… but yeah, $700B still buys lot.
I ask you, is it just a coincidence that the banks failed after a summer of $4 gas?
It’s pretty obvious now that USA was overbuilding (it was to me), and you should have sold your stocks at 14000. (I did) It’s just as obvious to me now that we have to stop trucking. We have to trade overnight delivery with a fuel efficient 1 week wait. And we have to stop driving long distances. We have to travel by train and use “smart car” like commuter cars. Instead of 1 airport serving millions, and the entire superstructure to handle the overwhelming crowds, train stations will be everywhere, just a few miles from the final destination. Taxi drivers will line up around train stations and car rentals will pop up nearby.
Focus that much touted technology on a system that is real and now and has a future. Use Lovin’s super plastic to build light weight passenger rail-cars so we can run smaller, more frequent trains that don’t wear the tracks. It’s not the big hulking loco pulling 100 cars that’s efficient… it’s the smooth, straight, level, low rolling resistance of the steel rails that provide the efficiency. Railroads don’t need breakthroughs but we could certainly apply all the EXISTING tech of aerodynamics and computer controlled monitoring to perfect the inherently efficient rails.
Restoration of the rail system is a realistic vision, not fantasy world built on “IF”. It would do a lot to extend the oil we have. And if these fantasy fuels do have their breakthroughs I guarantee they will not match the power of oil. Their benefit will be extended by transportation system built around rails.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #62 on Oct 11, 2008, 3:41pm » Here's an interesting link to an article from Reuters: "Hydrogen cities" seen driving fuel cell adoption. http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnvironment08/idUSTRE4960UY20081007 Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #63 on Oct 13, 2008, 9:56am » If the cars waiting at the train station were H powered… that would be OK by me. But let’s get those trains running NOW.
I bet Machwing thinks all that new N.Gas Pickens says we have should be converted to hydrogen.
One thing that really confuses me is why news articles always blame H problems on stations. No stations no cars, no cars no stations. News loves to call this chicken or egg. It’s hard for me to believe corporations and entrepreneurs aren’t fighting for the chance to get on the ground floor of what may be the energy of the future. USA makes it easy to start a risk-free business. California is the 13th largest economy in the world and they are pro H, so CA will make it as easy for H station startups. And CA has many rich enviromentalist who will pay extra for H. If H succeeds a small chain of stations could turn into the next “Standard Oil Co.”.
I find it hard to find real information on H stations. The impression I get is that CA’s 23 H stations are mostly funded by CA and Bush’s initial $2B H initiative.
http://www.cah2report.com/vault/lawa.htm
“The station is a jointly funded by BP, Praxair, LAWA, South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy, all of which helped fund the $1.5 million construction cost.”
6 partners for 1 station? 3 private (assuming LAWA is private) and 3 public? BP had $7B profit 1st quarter alone, they couldn’t spare $1.5M?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080113/ai_n21201101
“Each of the last three agencies that received state funding to build a fueling station has decided not to pursue the project, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co… PG&E officials said they've shifted hydrogen to the back stage and now consider it a distant technology, with electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids moving to the front of the line.”
I’m not trying to “get you”. I just really think USA will bankrupt itself trying to keep the cars going.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #64 on Jan 7, 2009, 6:02am » I had to post here to move this thread back to the front page of the message board, in case people were looking for it from my "Sustainable City Conference Call" post. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #65 on Jul 10, 2009, 6:04am » Have you seen Boone Pickens recently?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pickens_wind_energy
“In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.”
Once again, logistics proves to be the Achilles heel of an otherwise great ideal. If only Boone could pour electricity into a barrel or down a pipe… eh Machwing? Obama has a lot of work to make good on his campaign promise of making USA energy independent in 10 years by spending $150B. Maybe he should throw a billion to Texas to help build Boone’s transmission lines. Oh Wait… Texas just succeeded form the nation and won’t be accepting any Fed money. My-My… such interesting times.
If I ran the world, Boones wind farm, his problems and solutions would be splattered all over the media… and Wacko Jacko would be just an extra long paragraph in the obituaries.
Speaking of Boone… I remember him saying that it takes more oil to make diesel than gasoline and that “diesel will never be cheaper than gas from now on”. Well, diesel has been cheaper than gas for months. Was Boone wrong again? Maybe. I bet the bad economy has left a lot of trucks and bulldozers idle and a glut of diesel on the market. Diesel got real cheap in the recession of the late 70’s.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #66 on Jul 14, 2009, 11:43am » Yeah - I read through the news link you posted. Always good to see problems addressed before too much investment and work has been made... often cheaper to find the solutions this way, of course.
Indeed - hydrogen and/or ammonia might be approaching the idea of pouring electricity in a barrel or down a pipe - and each hydrogen and ammonia have different benefits and drawbacks as when compared and contrasted. But perhaps this might show different locations in the supply and consumption infrastructure where each chemical may be more appropriate. Ammonia will remain important for an agricultural fertilizer, whether or not it's adopted as a fuel or energy carrier. And there is an interesting case to be made for generating this fertilizer's required hydrogen renewably from water electrolysis as compared to using natural gas as the hydrogen source for the NH3 chemical structure of the ammonia.
Obama and the funding - yeah... lots to work out, for sure. Most I've paid attention to lately has been more local pieces of potential infrastructure - Dakotas, Iowa, Illinois, for instance.
Didn't Dave recommend a number of months ago that you run for some kind of office like that? Lol - You've got lots of good ideas, in any event.
Hmmm... interesting about diesel... maybe Boone was thinking about contrasts between gasoline and diesel for light vehicle transportation instead of diesel for heavy machinery as compared to gasoline for light vehicle transportation... just wondering here. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #67 on Jul 17, 2009, 9:23am » “Always good to see problems addressed before too much investment and work has been made...”
We seem to have different takes on the same text. Boone did NOT address all the problems before investing too much. He DID contract $2B in windmills, he DID lease 200,000 acres… but NOW… he can’t build the grid. (so he says) So he’s trying to find buyers for his windmills… you know, to keep from going bankrupt. I wish reporters (or the readers) weren’t so techno deaf. I’d like to know what the “technological problems” are to building transmission lines… because that’s the real story.
Dave nominated me for the position of “sensemaker”… there is no “Dept. of Sense” in USA. Case in point… Illinois interim Governor signed a bill to print $31B for the “Jobs Now” program (mostly for road construction), and now that’s done he can get back to the state budget which is $5B in the red and continue to ignore the $55B debt that has already been stolen.
One thing that does make sense to me…the preoccupation with finding an alternative energy source. We have used so much time, money, resources and energy to create a country that exists to use energy that there is no other concept to invest in.
You can see the breakdown of $31B that they hope you will pay for through increased taxes and fees:
http://www.illinois.gov/publicincludes/s....0Packet%202.pdf
There is $400M (contingent on fed funding) for a train (efficient) but $500M for airports (inefficient). There’s about $1B more for projects that are labeled “efficiency”… but generally, this is growth funding. When the money is gone you will have more roads, more buildings, more programs, more people that will demand more maintenance and more energy.
That’s your inheritance.
You always talk of ammonia (NH3). What do I know about ammonia… it’s a great glass cleaner. It burns your eyes, nose and skin. Enormous amounts are used by farmers on fields and when rain comes at the wrong time the ammonia washes into the rivers where it froths into chunks of dirty yellow foam, contaminating the drinking water of millions until finally reaching the Gulf of Mexico where it feeds algae blooms whose ultimate decay depletes the water of oxygen and has created immense regions where no life can exist called Dead Zones.
I did some research of ammonia as an energy carrier…
NH3 takes more energy to produce. The first step is to make Hydrogen. Refine the H and combine it with nitrogen. The extra step uses energy.
Using NH3 in a fuel cell requires the inverse action, first the nitrogen must be removed to use the H to make electricity. So NH3 will be less efficient than H fuel cells… coming and going.
NH3 liquefies at 150# so it’s much easier to transport than H. It has problems though. Expands greatly with temperature. Highly corrosive to many metals and plastics but not steel… except, a little contamination with regular oxygen makes NH3 eat steel.
Burning NH3 makes water, like burning H dose. There is one chemical by product, I forget what it is.
NH3 burns slow. It’s actually classified by the Department of Transportation as nonflammable. So I don’t know how good it will be in engines. One site said it takes 2 gallons of ammonia to equal the power of 1 gallon of gas.
I’m done, too nice outside to do this now. Honestly, I think all this is all BS. No alt is sustainable once you amortize construction and maintenance energy used. Some where I read the 300 foot windmills use 250 tons of steel. That sounds right. It takes 100 pounds of ore to make 1 pound of steel and digging the ore is just the first step in a long energy intensive process to final product. Once windmills have to provide the energy to make windmills… game over. No one is working towards or even thinking about true sustainability. Everyone is working to create the next best “thing” that will command and conquer and enslave the planet.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged baffledinbushnell
New Member
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 9
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #68 on Jul 21, 2009, 2:07pm » Wow. I don't understand much of this. The terminology, etc. is confusing. I guess the whole gist is that we need less gas and more renewable forms of energy. The types of energy are apparently debateable. Much like everything else the government is trying to do. All this talk and no action. Reminds me of the Glenwood Pool controversy. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #69 on Jul 22, 2009, 8:18am » Hey baffledinbushnell -- Thanks for chiming in and giving us another good summary. I'm glad that you and hopefully a few others are also getting some good out of the ongoing conversation in this thread.
I hope that the most that government does is support those initial activities (such as research and development, feasibility studies, and pilot projects) that will help the private sector envision and build profitable, sustainable businesses. From my impression of the information out there, there ARE profitable new business models that are also sustainable -- but it's not "business as usual" -- so it's difficult to make change.
A couple links that might be helpful for this thread that I don't believe have made it here are for one, my comment over at WIUM's "Speak Your Piece" website about our community going "green." http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/wium/posts/list/2124518.page
And a reference to one white paper called the "National Renewable Ammonia Architecture." http://www.strandedwind.org/node/4130 Link to Post - Back to Top Logged«Page 5 of 5 Jump to page 0 && (document.getElementById('pageNo2')).value Go
AuthorTopic: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title) (Read 429 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Thread Started on Dec 11, 2007, 7:33pm » This is the same post as "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" with a different subject. I am wondering if a different set of readers will be attracted to comment with this different subject. After all, everybody's interested in the economy. But not everybody would have any idea what a "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" is. Original post is below.
I hope to hear some responses to an opinion piece I wrote for Sunday, Dec. 2nd's Journal regarding Macomb's economic potential. I believe that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable/hydrogen city. The Op-ed is below.
Macomb's economic potential
To the Editor:
A few months ago, William Bailey, chairman of the department of agriculture at Western, wrote in a local column about Beardstown’s economic potential. I believe that a similar line of reasoning could display more of Macomb’s economic potential. The following quote can be found online at the Illinois Farm Bureau’s FarmWeek archive of “Perspective” columns. See July 25, 2007 “Perspective -- Ports of Beardstown, Los Angeles, Singapore share traits” http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=10558&drvid=108&r=0.161297
"It is a bit more of a stretch to think of Beardstown as an international port through which containers of agricultural products could move to anyplace in the world. But that is certainly possible and is well within the grasp of a number of businesses who are attempting to make Beardstown into an international port."
Now, I propose that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable city. Perhaps this is also a stretch. But let me build the beginnings of my case.
What does such a city look like? Let me briefly describe a few techniques that could be integrated into a sustainable city. Buildings could be built or retrofitted to become hyper-efficient, using energy from their surroundings for heating and cooling and sometimes even lighting and electricity. Buildings so designed often return energy to the electrical grid. Hydrogen could serve as the premier energy carrier. It could be used as a fuel for transportation in fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines (H2ICE’s). Hydrogen might also heat homes by combustion or by fuel cells producing electricity for heating and other household applications. The hydrogen will be produced from renewable resources such as biomass conversion or from the electrolysis of water using wind or solar energy. Before all our fossil fuels are consumed, they can be reformed to produce hydrogen as a steppingstone toward fully renewable sources of hydrogen.
Why would Macomb be a good place to accelerate our transition? First, other cities are already pursuing the goal of becoming sustainable. For instance, Columbia, SC is seeking to become “Hydrogen City.” A smaller city of 14,000 in Lolland, Denmark is also hoping to become the world’s first hydrogen city, H2PIA. So, there is precedent for bodies politic on the municipal level to spearhead this kind of economic development.
Second, leaders in the state of Illinois are already pursuing other projects in sustainability. Most of us are keenly aware of the importance of Illinois ethanol as a step toward sustainability. Similarly as in other states, northern Illinois is developing a hydrogen highway. This is in accord with the vision for the eventual national transition to a hydrogen-based economy.
Third, any time one wants to build a large, complex machine, one starts by building a smaller model, a prototype. If cities are large, complex machines, smaller cities could be developed that model the vision for the future development of the larger cities.
Are there any cities in Illinois aiming to become fully sustainable? Are there any locations in Illinois where there could be built a locally functioning, model hydrogen economy?
Let me be specific about Macomb’s characteristics that I believe make it an ideal place to build one such model economy. Macomb is both large enough and small enough to qualify as a model city. Macomb can be described as “micropolitan.” It has mechanics, movement patterns, and other qualities similar to a metropolitan area, except on a smaller scale. For instance, the satellite towns in McDonough County are to Macomb as Chicago’s suburbs are to the larger Chicago.
Next, Macomb is a city of learning. WIU is a primary economic engine. Much of Macomb’s core population is in the education industry. An excellent teaching opportunity exists for a community to develop itself as a model for sustainability. It would be like a giant field exercise or scientific experiment in research and development.
Third, Macomb’s rural setting with low population density is an advantage. Our agribusiness people understand the cyclic nature of agricultural production patterns. These patterns are very similar to sustainable energy production and consumption patterns. Also, our low population density will make it easier for the older technologies to be upgraded or replaced by the newer technologies. Think of it like the difference between the traffic jams around construction in metropolitan areas versus the only slightly more congested traffic around construction in smaller cities and towns.
Fourth, the use of economic cooperatives such as the electric and telephone cooperatives show that our people have a history of working together to bring to us goods and services difficult to procure by other methods. This is a kind of cooperation similar to the lifestyles that will eventually be necessary for life among the future’s sustainable energy infrastructure.
Finally, we are already connected to or near enough to companies who would likely be interested in cooperating in this project. For instance, large equipment manufacturers John Deere and Caterpillar are each only two hours away. These are only a couple possibilities of which I have personal knowledge.
How do we get started? I would suggest an expanded feasibility study. I have tried to show above some of the factors that make the project feasible. But there are professionals, such as Teska Associates, who could work together to develop a more comprehensive plan. Consider Macomb’s Comprehensive Plan, p. 65, Figure D – Action Plan Table, Line Four: “Action Step: Promote the use of green technology and clean energy. Purpose: To become a sustainable City and to reduce green-house gas emissions.”
With a little vision, we could tell a grand story, invite the investment of cutting edge technology, and develop an already great city into a model city. People will flock to Macomb to see how we did it. Students will live the future at WIU. And people will learn from our model in order to improve their own cities.
Daniel Miller
Colchester Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #1 on Dec 23, 2007, 12:50pm » I've been developing a website to promote this vision. See www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com for my blog and a growing list of helpful links. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #2 on Jan 3, 2008, 12:16am » I just discovered that the Illinois legislature has passed a law enabling the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to fund Smart/Green City Grants. Check out HB3394 at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0170 There will be Illinois funds available for visionary planning and development that integrates green/sustainable technology. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #3 on Jan 9, 2008, 11:22am » Next Tuesday, Jan. 15 at 1:30 PM, there will be a small group meeting at New Copperfield's Book Service to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #4 on Jan 12, 2008, 12:40am » Meeting Location Changed: Tuesday's meeting will be held same time at a local citizen's house. Please leave me a personal message under the "Members" menu for more details. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #5 on Jan 27, 2008, 1:59pm » We plan to meet with a couple local business leaders tomorrow, Mon. Jan. 28 to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable or model hydrogen city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: Sustainable City Conference Call (Read 165 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Sustainable City Conference Call
« Thread Started on Dec 23, 2008, 1:03pm » I'm starting a new thread here instead of posting this at the end of the "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" thread because this is a bit of an announcement.
There are a handful of folks beginning to organize a conference call for round table discussion and networking concerning evaluation of the feasibility of Macomb as a model sustainable (and/or hydrogen and/or ammonia) city. The time and date have not yet been set, but it will likely be in January after the 6th. Keep an eye out for future additional information from community sources. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Sustainable City Conference Call
« Reply #1 on Jan 8, 2009, 2:09pm » I've posted a preliminary schematic of the overall system that the interested parties are hoping to discuss. www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com.
We're still working on finalizing the details of the netmeeting. It does look better to have a netmeeting than a conference call. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Sustainable City Conference Call
« Reply #2 on Jan 21, 2009, 2:11pm » I'll take it as a sign of progress that interested or curious parties desire to have a meeting with high quality content and communication. This would require more preparation than would be possible by January and more preparation than would a meet and greet type of round table discussion. So, there will be no meeting here in January. We may yet see what develops in the future. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: Electric Interurban Railways (Read 210 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Electric Interurban Railways
« Thread Started on Jul 23, 2009, 2:49pm » I thought of posting this under the "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" thread, since the topic has been referenced there. But this topic is also unique enough to warrant its own thread, I believe. I hope it's also timely, since the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs at WIU has just published a policy brief paper entitled "IIRA Policy Brief: Connecting the Spots: Twenty-First Century Electric Interurban Railways to Meet Strategic Transportation Goals" It can be found at their www.iira.org website or directly at http://www.iira.org/pubs/ruralpolicy/Pol....%20Railways.pdf
Speaking with Alderman Dave Dorsett (a regular contributor to these message boards, as well), I learned that Mayor Wisslead will be meeting soon with folks in Chicago to discuss high speed rail service. The IIRA paper recommends electric interurban rail as a service to go hand in hand with new high speed service - serving different markets and locales as appropriate to engineering and budgets.
I look forward to seeing how the discussions progress, especially as I believe there can also be synergies among renewable electricity/hydrogen/hydricity/ammonia and also smart microgrids. I believe that one such node of synergy might be possible at the geographical location of Macomb, IL. See my "Model Sustainable Cities" website at modelsustainablecities.weebly.com and also the "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" thread for a somewhat stream-of-consciousness style rendition of the possibilities. (A thread that's been running for about 2 years, now.)
Cheers Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #1 on Jul 29, 2009, 1:51pm » When I heard the governor say they would build a High Speed Train so Cardinal fans could watch a game at Wriggly field… I was disappointed at many levels. Least of which is that we need trains for sports enthusiast. I know he was being quip, but I’m not… why do we need HST?
Really… is this a deeply conceived vision to preempt future problems? Does it solve some real inconvenience or suffering need? Is it just a small but highly visible slice of well rounded stimulus spending? Is it just that we have everything else, now we want this too?
This is a rhetorical question… I know the answer. Obama told us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu4aQTexL-U
May honor and respect bestow anyone who has courage to answer… but extra points goes to the right answer.
Hint, it’s a foundation thingy.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged pjd
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 225
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #2 on Jul 29, 2009, 10:35pm » I think one theory behind it is that it would take more cars off the road thus less pollution. Now whether this would pan out off paper remains to be seen. I can see where there could be some benefit to it if planned and implemented correctly and it could possibly open up job markets for people in places that before would have been too far to commute. Just possibilities. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #3 on Jul 30, 2009, 7:23pm » In accordance to the terms of the question, Honor and respect is cast upon PJD. However… NO EXTRA POINTS. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #4 on Aug 11, 2009, 9:13am » Since I’m here… How about you Machwing? Don’t you want some extra points? Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #5 on Aug 11, 2009, 12:07pm » To earn the extra points, it seems I would need to anticipate the answer that agrees with your answer. I could attempt to do so, but I was thinking I would wait for you to go ahead and let us hear your perspective. You asked "why do we need high speed rail?" My interest is in interurban electric rail more than high speed rail. I think we would get better return on our investment and serve more markets with interurban rail development than high speed rail.
It's just that HSR gets more attention - so, yes, there are social and political factors here - not just simply technical. I'm guessing that the answer that you would like to award extra points is one that says something like "whose pocketbook will be filled" or "who will get political points". I know these things influence what goes on in the world. But it's been my hope to find technical solutions that can benefit our overall material resource efficiency (money is not itself a physical/material resource) and begin to set in place the infrastructure that will be needed for a post-peak oil future. It appears to me that interurban rail would be more useful in a post-peak oil future than high speed rail. But HSR may have some helpful functionality in certain places in that future, as well. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #6 on Aug 12, 2009, 7:53am » In accordance to the terms of the question, Honor and respect is cast upon Machwing.
However… NO EXTRA POINTS. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microgrid? (Read 173 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microgrid?
« Thread Started on Aug 8, 2009, 4:44pm » Here's an interesting article that has attracted some attention and gotten some comments at the Macomb Journal website already.
Ameren calls for stimulus money
http://www.macombjournal.com/newsnow/x1558729215/Ameren-calls-for-stimulus-money
The article mentions smart grid improvements.
One approach to smart grid deployment is the microgrid approach. A number of weeks ago, a number of local folks were close to generating some interest in Macomb as a potential location for a smart microgrid. This energy management system could also, I believe, integrate with some other electrical, transportation, and agricultural infrastructure and markets. I've posted some of my layman's thinking at this message board and at my "Model Sustainable Cities" website.
There could be some interesting benefits for Macomb, McDonough County, and West Central Illinois if enough interest from the community is expressed in these energy possibilities. A number of the Macomb city government officials and staff and other local professionals have lent ear to my suggestions. If there is additional interest in what ideas have been kicked around, I'm sure these leaders would be glad to hear that community members are interested in developing more of, what I believe is, a unique potential node for economic development of new synergies among energy and transportation technologies.
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in the community and in the democratic and entrepreneurial processes. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged matkin
New Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 47
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #1 on Aug 10, 2009, 1:35pm » Ameren gave us record rate increases and they are making record profits. The government should not give them a penny. Let them use their profits to pay for the projects. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged pjd
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 225
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #2 on Aug 10, 2009, 11:57pm » I agree, matkin. I am so sick of Ameren. They keep crying about how they have to raise rates to make a profit, that producing electricity is more expensive, blah blah blah. While that may very well be so, it is no different for the rest of us. It is taking more and more of our money just to get by nowadays as the price of everything goes up, but we just have to buckle down and deal with it....we can't march up to our boss and tell him he has to pay us more because we're not making enough. We can't petition the govt. to make our boss give us more money.
There was a time when electricity was a luxury, but nowadays, it's pretty much a necessity...to keep your food from spoiling, to wash your clothes, to be safe from heat related conditions, even to earn your livelihood if you work out of your home or telecommute, and for many other reasons. Now of course I know there are people like the Amish that live without it and people lived without it for thousands of years, but the world has changed and unless you live in an Amish community where no one uses it and your lifestyle and livelihood is not dependent on it, you must have it.
The way Ameren keeps raising rates is bad for businesses, bad for consumers (since rate hikes get passed on to them), bad for families, and bad for the economy in general. It irritates me that state governments keep approving these hikes with little to no argument.
Pretty soon if they keep raising rates (and people, including my family, are not seeing cost of living raises in their salaries to compensate due to the economy and in some cases the state budget) I'm afraid that we're going to have to start rationing the use of things and breaking out the oil lamps at night. We conserve electricity as much as possible already by making sure lights are turned off when the room isn't in use or when they're not needed, unplugging things that aren't being used, etc. My thermostat is set so high that even on hot days it rarely turns on...sometimes I think what's the use of even having AC (or heat in the winter as there are many days I sit in my own home shivering under two or three blankets). To be honest, we're better off than many....I can't imagine being an elderly person on a fixed income for example. « Last Edit: Aug 11, 2009, 12:00am by pjd »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #3 on Aug 11, 2009, 9:10am » Do any of you know what smart grid is? Huh? How bout you Machwing?
They want to be able to shut down your appliances to avoid brown outs.
Oh goodness, why would they need that?
Give them the smart grid… but insist they start a buy-back or banking program so people can generate their own electricity without the tremendous cost of trying to store it.
That would be… Smart.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #4 on Aug 11, 2009, 11:56am » There are indeed a number of visions about what a completed smart grid would look like. But I'm looking primarily at the perspectives from the Galvin Electricity Initiative. They are taking a smart microgrid approach and are advocating for a consumer-friendly policy structure that would create new business opportunities for entrepreneurs -- not just to benefit the current business models of the existing utilities. A network of smart microgrids that can island themselves and manage themselves to prevent more widespread system failure is part of the vision from Galvin. The Galvin Electricity Initiative is beginning work in Illinois, so this is why I have looked most specifically at their approach.
So yes and no -- I do know but I don't know what a smart grid is. The term is used differently by different people. So, this is why I was more specific about saying "smart microgrid" since this is slightly more specific and similar to the terms used by Galvin. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #5 on Aug 12, 2009, 8:02am » Uh-huh… a number of visions.
Or you could say a smart grid allows digital signals to run through the power lines to monitor and control power flow remotely. Reading your meter from the office instead of sending a meter reader is a smart grid example. It would allow them to isolate and reroute breaks almost instantly, instead of waiting for customers to call. They could get detailed power consumption readings for neighborhoods allowing them to fine tune the amperage needed, possibly varying the amperage hourly and adjusting for weekends… and ultimately they could turn off your appliances to avoid blackouts during peak use.
Appliance control is not a sinister plan. Would you rather your fridge go out for 3 hours or all power to off for 3 hours. It’s a choice they feel you will have to make in the future.
It’s already being done some places… not shutting off appliances, but shutting down whole industries. I was at Finkle Forgings during a hot summer day when suddenly sirens went off. They had to shut down the electric furnaces in 15 minutes. In order to get a discount rate on electricity they agreed to shut down in a moments notice when the power company decided the grid was in danger of overload, preventing a city brown out and a bunch of pjd’s screaming and biching about things they no nothing about.
Have you ever seen the power company offer rebates for Energystar appliances? Did you think that’s odd? Whatcha wanta bet… those appliances are smart grid ready.
-------------
I have no ideal what a micro grid is. I read Galvin site and I thought it read like a business plan. And the plan is… we are entrepreneurs who have found a way to charge people for something they already have. The IMPRESSION I get is… contract with Galvin and they will rebuild your grid to their standards and maintain it. Galvin will buy power and resell it to you though their grid.
Maybe Galvin has figured out a superior system that allows them to pocket the savings… or maybe… USA has gone through a massive expansion that has left many communities with a grid that has been patched and patched. Apparently some places are experiencing LOTS of interruptions, the History channel did a show about failing infrastructure and they highlighted a city in IL, I think it was DesPlains, where the average power interruption was 200 times a year, all blamed on the physical failure of the grid. If Galvin went to DesPlains and said: sign with us and we guarantee uninterrupted power… DesPlains might sign. No superior tech, just modern tech. If the overwhelmed power company did the work they would have to hire and train employees they can’t fire and provide life long benefits for. If Galvin does it they can sub contract and hire temps. And if Galvin ultimately fails… it can go bankrupt and walk away.
Like I said, I don’t know. But Galvin sounds like a third party contractor. Instead of paying for 1- 7 figure CEO, Galvin wants you to pay for 2- 7 figure CEO’s.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #6 on Aug 14, 2009, 10:06am » DEERFIELD… It was Deerfield, IL, a Chicago suburb that has had so many power problems. It was 200 average interruptions per year. I’d be surprised if Deerfield had any deer or fields. A lot of Chicago area was named after things that were destroyed.
That was a great show on History channel. “The Crumbling of America”, if you get a chance to see it. There’s a lot of real world horror entertainment out there but this looked factual. The show reorted a Gov survey gave USA’s infrastructure a “D” grade and it would cost $2.5 trillion to raise that level to a B. I see a lot of companies forming to grab a piece of that pie.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: McDonough County Comprehensive Plan Survey (Read 62 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
McDonough County Comprehensive Plan Survey
« Thread Started on Sept 28, 2009, 9:00pm » McDonough County is now conducting a public survey that will help in the development of a new Comprehensive Plan. Here's a link to the WIUM news piece.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wium/n....or.County.Plan
Here is a direct link to the survey itself.
http://www.wiu.edu/wsrc/countysurvey.htm
In responding to the survey, I of course referenced my ideas about new energy systems for the area. I'm sure the questions in the survey could create lots of discussion for the message boards here. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Thread Started on Dec 9, 2007, 6:48pm » I hope to hear some responses to an opinion piece I wrote for Sunday, Dec. 2nd's Journal regarding Macomb's economic potential. I believe that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable/hydrogen city. The Op-ed is below.
Macomb's economic potential
To the Editor:
A few months ago, William Bailey, chairman of the department of agriculture at Western, wrote in a local column about Beardstown’s economic potential. I believe that a similar line of reasoning could display more of Macomb’s economic potential. The following quote can be found online at the Illinois Farm Bureau’s FarmWeek archive of “Perspective” columns. See July 25, 2007 “Perspective -- Ports of Beardstown, Los Angeles, Singapore share traits” http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=10558&drvid=108&r=0.161297
"It is a bit more of a stretch to think of Beardstown as an international port through which containers of agricultural products could move to anyplace in the world. But that is certainly possible and is well within the grasp of a number of businesses who are attempting to make Beardstown into an international port."
Now, I propose that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable city. Perhaps this is also a stretch. But let me build the beginnings of my case.
What does such a city look like? Let me briefly describe a few techniques that could be integrated into a sustainable city. Buildings could be built or retrofitted to become hyper-efficient, using energy from their surroundings for heating and cooling and sometimes even lighting and electricity. Buildings so designed often return energy to the electrical grid. Hydrogen could serve as the premier energy carrier. It could be used as a fuel for transportation in fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines (H2ICE’s). Hydrogen might also heat homes by combustion or by fuel cells producing electricity for heating and other household applications. The hydrogen will be produced from renewable resources such as biomass conversion or from the electrolysis of water using wind or solar energy. Before all our fossil fuels are consumed, they can be reformed to produce hydrogen as a steppingstone toward fully renewable sources of hydrogen.
Why would Macomb be a good place to accelerate our transition? First, other cities are already pursuing the goal of becoming sustainable. For instance, Columbia, SC is seeking to become “Hydrogen City.” A smaller city of 14,000 in Lolland, Denmark is also hoping to become the world’s first hydrogen city, H2PIA. So, there is precedent for bodies politic on the municipal level to spearhead this kind of economic development.
Second, leaders in the state of Illinois are already pursuing other projects in sustainability. Most of us are keenly aware of the importance of Illinois ethanol as a step toward sustainability. Similarly as in other states, northern Illinois is developing a hydrogen highway. This is in accord with the vision for the eventual national transition to a hydrogen-based economy.
Third, any time one wants to build a large, complex machine, one starts by building a smaller model, a prototype. If cities are large, complex machines, smaller cities could be developed that model the vision for the future development of the larger cities.
Are there any cities in Illinois aiming to become fully sustainable? Are there any locations in Illinois where there could be built a locally functioning, model hydrogen economy?
Let me be specific about Macomb’s characteristics that I believe make it an ideal place to build one such model economy. Macomb is both large enough and small enough to qualify as a model city. Macomb can be described as “micropolitan.” It has mechanics, movement patterns, and other qualities similar to a metropolitan area, except on a smaller scale. For instance, the satellite towns in McDonough County are to Macomb as Chicago’s suburbs are to the larger Chicago.
Next, Macomb is a city of learning. WIU is a primary economic engine. Much of Macomb’s core population is in the education industry. An excellent teaching opportunity exists for a community to develop itself as a model for sustainability. It would be like a giant field exercise or scientific experiment in research and development.
Third, Macomb’s rural setting with low population density is an advantage. Our agribusiness people understand the cyclic nature of agricultural production patterns. These patterns are very similar to sustainable energy production and consumption patterns. Also, our low population density will make it easier for the older technologies to be upgraded or replaced by the newer technologies. Think of it like the difference between the traffic jams around construction in metropolitan areas versus the only slightly more congested traffic around construction in smaller cities and towns.
Fourth, the use of economic cooperatives such as the electric and telephone cooperatives show that our people have a history of working together to bring to us goods and services difficult to procure by other methods. This is a kind of cooperation similar to the lifestyles that will eventually be necessary for life among the future’s sustainable energy infrastructure.
Finally, we are already connected to or near enough to companies who would likely be interested in cooperating in this project. For instance, large equipment manufacturers John Deere and Caterpillar are each only two hours away. These are only a couple possibilities of which I have personal knowledge.
How do we get started? I would suggest an expanded feasibility study. I have tried to show above some of the factors that make the project feasible. But there are professionals, such as Teska Associates, who could work together to develop a more comprehensive plan. Consider Macomb’s Comprehensive Plan, p. 65, Figure D – Action Plan Table, Line Four: “Action Step: Promote the use of green technology and clean energy. Purpose: To become a sustainable City and to reduce green-house gas emissions.”
With a little vision, we could tell a grand story, invite the investment of cutting edge technology, and develop an already great city into a model city. People will flock to Macomb to see how we did it. Students will live the future at WIU. And people will learn from our model in order to improve their own cities.
Daniel Miller
Colchester Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #1 on Dec 23, 2007, 12:51pm » I've been developing a website to promote this vision. See www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com for my blog and a growing list of helpful links. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #2 on Dec 23, 2007, 1:18pm » noone has responded to this witch i find very interesting. I have read it a few times and while i don't quite understand how this would work. I do see the posative aspect this would have on the community and the nation as a hole. I will be doing a little more research on this as it seems to be a logical choie of action to move the community forward on all plains. I think this might be something worth bringing to our city government. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #3 on Dec 23, 2007, 2:56pm » Thanks for your response, cubs1091. I'm glad that you see some of the potential of this vision. Frankly, I don't entirely understand how this would work, either. That is what the expanded feasibility study would continue to study. I agree that this would be worth bringing to our city government. I have so far met with one member of the County Board, Gary Sherer. As a first step, he suggested that I gather together people interested in this idea. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #4 on Dec 23, 2007, 8:05pm » Well i will tell you any help you need i am willing. I live in Macomb and am raising my family here. I look forward to any positive change, and am willing to do anything to move it forward. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #5 on Dec 23, 2007, 8:23pm » Great to hear, cubs1091. Maybe we could suggest that folks get together at a local coffee shop sometime after the holidays. We could meet other interested folks and brainstorm. Mr. Sherer said he'd meet with a group of 4 for this first step. Feel free to spread the word! Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #6 on Jan 3, 2008, 12:15am » I just discovered that the Illinois legislature has passed a law enabling the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to fund Smart/Green City Grants. Check out HB3394 at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0170 There will be Illinois funds available for visionary planning and development that integrates green/sustainable technology. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #7 on Jan 9, 2008, 11:23am » Next Tuesday, Jan. 15 at 1:30 PM, there will be a small group meeting at New Copperfield's Book Service to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #8 on Jan 12, 2008, 12:40am » Meeting Location Changed: Tuesday's meeting will be held same time at a local citizen's house. Please leave me a personal message under the "Members" menu for more details. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #9 on Jan 12, 2008, 10:31am » The info I get says there isn’t going to be a hydrogen economy. Not only does it take more energy to make H than you get from it… it is hard to store and transport.
I saw a very informative speech by a spokesman from Toyota’s alt fuel R&D department. He said Toyota has a pretty good engine but to get a useable range it needs a 10,000 psi tank. That’s requires a heavy tank, powerful pumps to fill it and is very dangerous. He said Hydrogen cars are “still 5, 10, 20 or more years away”. Which means things need to be invented and that might not happen.
I would say it probably won’t happen. Cause we’ve been making H for 100 years. The fuel cell was invented 50 years ago. I saw the car that “ran on water” 30 years ago during the first oil crisis… and it still doesn’t work. I challenge you to name anything that has more R&D, by more people, by more sectors, by more counties, for a longer time… than the gas engine. And it is still only 40% efficient. Most of the energy in gas is turned into heat. If we can do anything with technology… first make a car that gets 100mpg.
Anyway, the Toyota spokesman talked about many different types of alternatives. He said light weight composites were too slow to manufacture. Ethanol would require using spare land that has insufficient water. Bio mass takes more energy to gather than it makes… I don’t remember anything he said positive. Except…
He said 60% (I think) off the middle east population is under the age 21 and they all want to drive and they got all the gas. So Toyota was very “excited” about that market. Doncha love global corporations?
That brings up the biggest threat USA has… if all these countries that export oil decide to use it for their OWN economic development… or decide to trade it directly for manufactured goods (mostly made “not in USA”, thank you very much Uncle Sam) then gas won’t just get pricy, it will get scarce. And with 75% of USA population living within 250 miles of the coast you have to wonder how much will percolate 1200 miles inland to good o’ Macomb.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #10 on Jan 12, 2008, 7:04pm » Whatever exists is possible. And R&D creates the existence of new things.
Yes, the plausibility of the hydrogen economy is debated. For some pro-hydrogen and pro-hyper-efficiency perspectives see "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution" and "Winning the Oil Endgame," both co-authored by Amory Lovins, the chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute at www.rmi.org. Indeed, there is a wise case for integrating an entire spectrum of energy strategies. But there are good arguments, such as those above, for hydrogen becoming a significant energy carrier.
Indeed, there is still R&D to be done. The main thrust of my position is that Macomb would make a great R&D city in a variety of ways. Storage, usable range, and safety are all areas of research currently being done. But making vehicles radically lighter helps in all three of these areas. And yes, it could take a number of years to make advances in marketing the best technologies. The petroleum economy wasn't built over night, either.
Agreed, gasoline efficiency is also an important goal. But creatively developing a model hydrogen economy would also yield very helpful data and a vibrant entrepreneurial atmosphere for R&D, technology, and business.
Agreed, vested interests of companies, nations, and particular populations are factors that could make life difficult for the USA and for Macomb. Peak oil is a phenomenon that will likely affect us more than oil depletion. This could be thought of as scarcity of the ability to increase the total production of oil. But as for Macomb, combining enough vision and cooperation could yield a much brighter future than we may otherwise have. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #11 on Jan 14, 2008, 7:21am » I specifically mentioned Toyota is not going to use composites because of Lovins. I design metal stamping dies and have interest in formable plastics that might run in progressive tools. But Lovins plastic is thermal setting, so it runs slow and requires expensive applied heat. I bet there are other problems too… like strain and stretch limitations, pull out strength, and I doubt Lovins snap together cars would pass the shake test.
But certainly weight is a big factor in MPG. Remove all the luxuries and you lower weight. Lower the crash requirements you can lower the weight. Move cargo by efficient trains and remove dangerous trucks from commuter traffic then lower and enforce the speed limit you can be safe in lighter cars. Too give everyone what they want… burn 21M bbl/day.
Quote:But there are good arguments, such as those above, for hydrogen becoming a significant energy carrier.
OK. Tell us. Summarize a few arguments from the book. Why would hydrogen would be good for Macomb. Or even better, why would Macomb be good for Hydrogen?
Right now commercial H is made from Natural Gas. Even Lovins admits H would have to be made from NG till something better comes along. 10-15 years ago I read an article over concerns that all the new NG fueled co-gen plants would diminish supply for home heating. But rest assured, they said USA had, I forget, like 15 trillion ft3 that would last 200 years. Now the peak oil guys are saying NG is disappearing fast. The biggest user of NG is fertilizer. Maybe a farmer will tell us what he paid for nitrogen 8 years ago and what he’s going to have to pay this year.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #12 on Jan 14, 2008, 10:14am » Diemaker, thank you for your serious consideration of my proposal and your time and thought in replying.
I'm not an expert in tools, dies, or plastics. You are likely correct that plastics and composites have technical limitations. But with continued research and development, improvements, advances, and solutions are likely to come about. I've also heard something about ultralight metals or steel, if I remember correctly. Have you heard anything about this? I guess I'm a technological optimist when I remember how Edison's light bulb required hundreds of attempts, and the US space program crashed many rockets before achieving orbit.
A couple of your suggestions for lowering weight seem acceptable and others less than desirable. Lowering the weight of the whole fleet would make all vehicles less dangerous to each other in collisions, but yes, this would take time to transition. Again, my technological optimism imagines that there should be ways to get both safety and efficiency by creatively integrating new materials in appropriate applications.
I'll need some time to review the arguments in the books to provide quality summaries without misrepresenting them. I'm also still in the process of reading "Winning the Oil Endgame." I believe that I tried to explain, in part, how Macomb would be good for hydrogen in my original post. Does this suffice? After reviewing the books, I'll add more.
Yes, currently H is made from natural gas. Yes, I agree that fossil fuels of all kinds will continue to become more expensive. That is why I am saying that we should install renewable energy infrastructure sooner than later, because this will be overall less expensive than waiting. And yes, food and water security will also become issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, we are also likely facing a "Peak Fertilizer" phenomenon as well. I have not read any sources speaking of this directly, but it makes sense that as fossil resources peak, all other derivative products will also peak. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #13 on Jan 15, 2008, 7:46am » I haven’t seen any new steel specs yet. 20 years ago they started using HSLA (high strength low alloy) that allowed parts to use about 25% less steel for the same strength. I suspect it might be rigitized steel. Steel with fine structure physically rolled into it. There’s a lot of known alloys that can significantly add strength, chrome-moly steel has a tensile strength 3-4 times that of common low carbon steel but it’s expensive. And expense represents real cost… usually high energy cost. I saw a mine in Colorado that literally ground the mountain into gravel to wash trace deposits of molybdenum out.
So when you hear “technology has diminishing returns” or it “isn’t scaleable” it means that to provide that tech to the masses… you got to grind up mountains.
Haha, a little tongue in cheek. But really, that’s often true. And a good example would be… fuel cells. Fuel cells use platinum as a catalyst. Platinum is very costly, but available… until you start putting a fuel cell in every home, office and garage in the world. Then in 10 years they will be searching the globe for mountains to grind up to get a little platinum.
I did a some research… Denmark is home to the worlds leading wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas. Denmark gets 20% of it’s electricity from wind. Lolland, Denmark produces 50% more wind power than it uses. The problem with wind is it comes when it comes. And the problem with electricity is you can’t store it economically. So when the wind blows at 2am… well, if you could make H with that unused wattage then you would have the best of both worlds.
So Lolland built a small plant to produce hydrogen with electricity in a process called electrolysis. Which is basically the inverse process used by fuel cells and… also uses PLATINUM as a cathode. Any process converting anything into something else loses energy. Electrolysis loses… opinions differ… about 40%. Fuel cells lose 20%. Add in indirect cost like maintenance and platinum cost and efficiency drops more. Make the electricity with coal and you lose more. Make electricity from corn stalks (biomass) and it’s like trying to live on a diet of celery… you use more energy chewing and digesting celery than it provides… so you slowly die.
But Lolland has low cost, surplus energy so they can waste it making hydrogen. The plan is, after they got the H plant debugged in a couple years they will put 35 Fuel cells in nearby houses and see what problems that produces. I say more power to them. They have a realistic plan, using realistic resources and are doing real work.
I found nothing on H2PIA except some visionary scope… to be built by unnamed developers… last year.
I didn’t look much at Columbia because the first two articles I read were so filled with sticky sweet optimism and giggly fun pet projects it made me puke. Columbia is home of University of S.C. The city is all behind it but I’d bet that Hydrogen is mostly a USC project... and being paid for by USA. And at this point USA is broke and will have to borrow even more $ from China. USC also has access to a nearby hydro-electric plant. I don’t know if they plan to do the HARD work and make H, or just buy H… and probably buy off the shelf fuel cells to power their score board and Segways. Yeah, H powered Segways. I find that perversely hilarious… 2 great over-hyped visions of the future come together like a reeses peanut butter cup.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #14 on Jan 15, 2008, 8:32am » I'm glad to see that there are some advances in alloy technology that have been used for some time. Perhaps metals, plastics, and composites could all be integrated in new ways for both safety and efficiency. If we depend on one specific solution, such as platinum fuel cells, then we may find that said specific solution, such as platinum fuel cells, shows that "technology has diminishing returns" or that it "isn't scalable." But non-platinum fuel cells are also being researched and developed. Perhaps a mix of fuel cell types will prove to be most effective and will perhaps not require as many mountains to be reduced to gravel. And of course, initial R&D is always more expensive than production for the masses. That is why I am proposing an R&D laboratory/test market of 10,000 in Macomb, since 10,000 is the practical population minus the students.
Yes, Lolland has some advantages that make their project easily feasible. Macomb also has a set of characteristics that lend a certain degree of feasibility to a similar project. Perhaps greater gains for Macomb will come from a different combination of renewable and sustainable technologies than for Lolland. But the great thing about hydrogen is that it can store the surplus energy - by whatever means that surplus is collected - and it can be used like a fuel. Battery storage, though capable of storing energy, is less like a fuel.
As far as loosing energy, entropy cannot be avoided. So, you are correct that efficiency is an area in which we can make great improvements. We loose quite a bit of our energy during electrical transmission over the grid. If the grid were rewired with strings of carbon nanotubes, the electrical resistance would approach zero.... but yet again, more R&D must be done to untangle the carbon nanotubes.
The fact that the world's fossil energy supplies are limited can also not be avoided. So, eventually, renewable and sustainable alternatives will be necessary. Overall, it will be less expensive to install these while we still have relatively inexpensive fossil energy. And I do believe that we can create alternatives to dying in an oil war, dying from the effects of climate change, or wasting away in a non-technologically powered, non-modern, post-machine subsistence economy.
Hype is impractical. But vision is necessary to create a better future. Diemaker, I applaud your ability to describe the challenges to progress. Personally, I hope to take up the more difficult task of creating solutions. I continue to believe that, if we invest the worlds' energy stockpile in developing a renewable, sustainable energy infrastructure, we can preserve our ability to live technologically with a standard of living similar to and eventually better than what we now enjoy. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #15 on Jan 15, 2008, 9:55am » "But non-platinum fuel cells are also being researched and developed."
Yeah, I saw where they were experimenting with gold as a lower cost cathode. It’s a very corrosive environment inside the melting pot.
“strings of carbon nanotubes”
Nano everything seems to the great white hope. 25 years ago super conductivity was going to provide zero energy loss.
“The fact that the world's fossil energy supplies are limited…”
Not just fossil fuels. Lithium batteries make electric cars feasible. But they haven’t found enough lithium to make ½ billion car batteries. It’s the scale that is the killer.
“Diemaker, I applaud your ability to describe the challenges to progress. Personally, I hope to take up the more difficult task of creating solutions.”
No No, don’t martyr yourself at my expense. I have lots of solutions. But I contend there is much delusional thinking by coddled generations that created, grew up in or depend on a disposable world of comfort, convenience and instant gratification. And those people want to continue the process of consuming the worlds resources to sustain the unnatural lifestyle they’re accustomed to. Do you know how President Bushes Hydrogen Economy was going to make the enormous volumes of H needed?
BTW, here’s that ground up mountain. There is nothing new about molybdenum. Except the world demand for it.
And here is the beautiful lake of waste water.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #16 on Jan 15, 2008, 10:40am » I've heard of other non-gold solutions - forgive me that I'm being lazy in not looking up which chemicals it would use. But I've heard the gold solution, too. In my opinion, gold would be better put to use in fuel cells than having it merely sit around in forts and safes.
Whether nanotech solutions become real, only time and R&D will tell. I'm not saying it'll be easy.
Agreed, many necessary materials are in limited quantities. Maybe we'll have to share cars? That wouldn't be so bad. They taught me that in kindergarten. lol
I wondered if you would read my comment as a dichotomy between us. No, I'm not meaning to make myself a martyr. In the context of our discussion, I've simply heard more of your descriptions of challenges than I've heard of your solutions. I'd gladly lend ear to more of your solutions. I've just been trying to address a number of the challenges that you describe, agreeing with you that describing these challenges is an important part of finding solutions.
I too am troubled by the spoiled ones among us. I don't consider myself to be very spoiled and I recognize the necessity of hard work. I've tried to work hard to improve as many things as I can for myself and my community. It's this work that we've both done that helps us see reality more clearly.
Yes, I'm aware that Bush's H plan is heavily fossil fuel dependent. It's described as a "Black Hydrogen" Agenda. See the Green Hydrogen Coalition for another strategy. http://www.greenhydrogencoalition.org/
Thanks for the pics. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #17 on Jan 16, 2008, 8:32am » “In my opinion, gold would be better put to use in fuel cells than having it merely sit around…”
Wow, Exactly what I was talking about.
"Black Hydrogen" Nuclear is the only logical choice for an H economy. It’s clean. It’s enormously dense so we don’t waste energy hauling it. It performs best running full speed 24/7 so we can make excess wattage for peak demand and make H in off peak with no waste. And best of all… many many countries will never have nuke power so we can take their uranium and save our coal for desperate times. So where should we build Macomb’s Nuke Plant? Need a lot of water to run a nuke… can’t use Spring Lake… I guess it will have to be Lake Argyle.
I’m not being dichotomous… You agreed with every reality I stated.
The only rebuttal you had was… we need R&D. Which scores real low points on the debate card. Fusion is theoretically possible, would provide the ultimate energy supply, and has been researched for 40 (???) years without success.
I am providing “truth in advertisement”. Because I think a lot of these alt fuel schemes are being sold as a product that will “save your SUV”… to capture the enormous amounts of money flowing into the energy funds. Alt Fuel is kind of like the DotCom of the 2k decade.
Being that transportation is one of the biggest problems with H, and Macomb has no way to make H, and it would cost lots to haul substantial volumes of H to Macomb… wouldn’t you agree a more logical place to set up an experimental H community would be near an existing H manufacturer. Or a place that has cheap energy to make H.
If you want to initiate a movement that has actual prospects of success, you need to capitalize on the local resources. The obvious one is Corn. Corn is being sold as another way to “save your SUV” but really, corn is a solar battery. And you can use that collected sunlight many ways. You want success that IS also sustainable… make Macomb the first Corn Furnas community. It could lead to innovations that re-open McGraw Edison into a corn furnas manufacturer.
And if you want immediate success look into passive energy. Passive systems are low tech, easy to use, provides instant, often FREE returns over entire life cycle… and it was perfected 30 years ago. So you don’t have to wait 30 years for all the trendy high tech fantasy fuels to do R&D. And if all those fantasy fuels don’t work… the people who invested in natural passive systems will be sitting sweet. RMI’s early work was all about passive systems.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #18 on Jan 16, 2008, 10:29am » I'm not a chemist, but I Goggled non-platinum fuel cells, and there are mentioned solid oxides and polymers. So, the palate of options for fuel cells is diversifying - not just platinum and gold.
Nuke power may be a component for a hydrogen economy, but the members of the Green Hydrogen Coalition would argue that it is not the only logical choice. Uranium, another limited resource, is also a fuel that will eventually face peak production and eventual depletion. Renewables are the only sustainable option over the long, long run.
As far as renewables requiring more energy input to install than you get back, this is only true over the short term. After the infrastructure is in place, the energy return continues to accumulate. There is thereafter only a need for maintenance and later upgrades in technology. The days of getting an immediate, high return on energy investment are numbered. This immediate high return is only possible as long as energy dense fuels remain. Renewables may not be energy dense, but they are consistent over the long term.
The dichotomy I mentioned was only referring to the difference you thought I was making: me a martyr and you a non-martyr. I wasn't trying to make this difference. Otherwise, when I have agreed with the realities you mention, at times I would agree with all or most of what you said and at other times, I agreed with only a part of what you said. When I agreed with part of what you said, I mentioned additional facts or potentials that you had not mentioned. Often, the facts and potentials I added were in proposing solutions.
Yes, I have emphasized R&D. My whole position is that Macomb would be a great place for research and development. Perfect? - No. Better than many places? - Yes. Could there be better places than Macomb? - Likely. But Macomb has a sufficient and unique set of characteristics that, in the context of a grand experiment, would yield very useful data.
Nor do I agree that R&D should rank low on a debate card. Looking at the history of past energy transitions, as the former premier energy supplies began to peak, other technologies were being researched and developed that eventually began to dominate the market. The interrelationships among whale oil, coal derivatives, petroleum, and natural gas show these characteristics. I'd bet that, over this century, similar patterns will emerge in the interrelationship among petroleum, coal, natural gas, and renewables.
I'd agree that you are indeed providing SOME "truth in advertisement," but there seems to me to be more real potential in these proposals than you give them credit. They begin to address and solve a whole spectrum of technical, social, political, and economic problems that we currently have because of our petroleum dependence. These include energy security, peak oil, geopolitical instabilities, and climate change. For instance, reduced oil dependence will help de-fund state sponsors of terror, since many petrodollars are currently flowing into their coffers.
The style of hydrogen economy that could be a model in Macomb would be one that could utilize renewables and distributed energy production and consumption. Part of the grand experimental study would try to answer the question of just how much and how soon renewables could replace the legacy fossil energies used locally in a model, micropolitan economy such as Macomb. Transportation of the hydrogen itself is one difficulty, yes... but transporting renewable electricity to on-site electrolyzers or transporting natural gas to on-site fuel reformers are other options for producing the hydrogen more locally.
Yes, corn furnaces could be a component of a comprehensive sustainability plan for Macomb. Yes, local resources should be utilized. But corn will also face peak fertilizer, as related to peak oil. But BOTH corn and hydrogen can be included in an overall strategy. As far as local resources being utilized, I've been showing local resources and community characteristics that would be helpful in building the hydrogen component of our local sustainability plan.
Yes, I have included passive energy in my thinking from the beginning of my proposal. I described passive energy with other words. "Buildings could be built or retrofitted to become hyper-efficient, using energy from their surroundings for heating and cooling and sometimes even lighting and electricity. Buildings so designed often return energy to the electrical grid." And when this energy is returned, it could either go to the grid, be captured locally in hydrogen, or sent to the grid to be captured in hydrogen somewhere else. So, yes, you are restating in other words part of what I was saying from the beginning. « Last Edit: Jan 16, 2008, 10:37am by machwing »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #19 on Jan 27, 2008, 1:57pm » We plan to meet with a couple local business leaders tomorrow, Mon. Jan 28 to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable or model hydrogen city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #20 on Feb 2, 2008, 9:52am » “The interrelationships among whale oil, coal derivatives, petroleum, and natural gas…”
I’ve heard the “interpretation” that whales were getting scarce so they developed rock oil. But I’m sure man has suffered resource depletion before without making technological breakthroughs. It’s the industrial revolution that created a snowball of science. It is amazing how science advanced in the 1800’s. According to Wiki… even the fuel cell was discovered in 1839… imagine that. So, it wasn’t that man needed power so he developed oil… More like, while man was discovering everything he eventually got around to oil.
Big difference between then and now. THEN… the world was full of energy rich resources waiting for a demand to be created. NOW… we have a huge world wide demand searching for an energy rich resource. Big, big difference.
Previously I asked to name something that has more R&D than the gas engine. One might be the electrical battery. Certainly researched longer than the ICE. Japan is electronics crazy like USA is car crazy, Japan has researched the battery intensively. There are big incentives too… Whoever discovers a way to pour electricity into a tank will make Bill Gates look like a pauper. Cause we all want electric cars. They are superior in every way except they don’t go very far. Infact, Hydrogen is just another type of battery, the best we’ve come up with to make Electricity portable.
Which is ironic, cause the biggest problem H has… is portability. HA! It is the smallest, lightest element on the chart. So it leaks through seals. It absorbs into steel making it brittle. It’s very explosive. It takes up a huge volume and can’t be liquefied except at very low temp. That’s why H-cars need 10,000psi tanks, to compress enough H into a small enough space. BTW, 10,000 psi will blow a hole through your hand.
And other problems too, like current H manufacturing releases huge CO2 gasses.
Green manufacturing of H is a big energy loser.
Fuel cells are going to cost considerably more, not just from lack of mass production, but precious metals.
Fuel cells don’t work in the cold.
The entire delivery system/sales/repair/user knowledge will have to be redone. I keep thinking the last time USA made a national change of this magnitude was the metric system. That should have been easy but completely failed.
And probably a bunch other problems.
I saw an engineer from GM’s H car program proudly displaying their new compact skateboard configuration. It looked outstanding. But he kept saying IF… if, if ,if we go H.
That’s all I’m going to say about the feasibility of H. I know we have smarter people now, with powerful computers and instant world wide information exchange… so it’s hard to say anything is impossible. But I still say if we can do anything… do 100mpg or a 300 mile battery first.
I’m not trying to discourage you Machwing. Quite the opposite. People should think what the world will be like in 20 years.
But the first thing that has to happen is government acknowledgement of a problem. It’s been 4 years since Bush announced the H economy, haven’t heard much since from him. AFAIK the original $2.1B is all they have spent on H. Energy is sidestepped in debates. There has been no public commercials on conservation. In the Carter era there were lots of conservation commercials and the people conserved… big time. People want to do what’s right. But a lot of people know USA shut down it’s oil wells in 80’s when Opec slashed prices and think we have plenty, least for their life. So it’s going to be hard to make them change.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #21 on Feb 2, 2008, 10:46am » Thanks for the good conversation, diemaker. It's clear that our energy future faces many challenges. I hope the other readers benefit from our discussion.
BTW, I just received a free copy of "Winning the Oil Endgame" from the Rocky Mountain Institute. (If you want a copy, you could contact them.) Indeed, therein the hydrogen option is described as an optional but also beneficial component of the overall national energy strategy. As a small city, Macomb may or may not fit a niche in hydrogen. But I think it's possible. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #22 on Feb 3, 2008, 5:53pm »
“Macomb may or may not fit a niche in hydrogen. But I think it's possible.”
Based on what?
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #23 on Feb 3, 2008, 8:22pm » Based on technological hope including but not limited to the following. 1) A grand synthesis of techniques, some of which I've mentioned in our discussion and some of which I believe will come about from R&D. 2) The pioneering work of people such as Amory Lovins and his collegues at the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Angel's Nest buildings [http://www.angels-nest.org/] 3) The inclusion of the beneficial hydrogen option in "Winning the Oil Endgame" 4) DVDs of presentations and personal discussions about renewable energy with the Bill Leighty of the Leighty Foundation [http://www.leightyfoundation.org/earth.php] Also see the Leighty Foundation's connection to Macomb under their history section [http://www.leightyfoundation.org/history.php] And if you contacted Mr. Leighty, he would likely enjoy speaking with you. If you mentioned my name [Daniel Miller] in saying that you and I have been conversing, he would also likely remember and confirm that he has also spoken with me. 5) I also have the hope of working out the bugs as we go along, seeing how close we can come to a vision for a locally sustainable community with a significant renewable and/or hydrogen and/or ammonia component. (I haven't yet mentioned renewable ammonia, but it is just a step away from similar thinking concerning hydrogen.)
If we'd like to discuss more in this forum, I would enjoy that. I just thought you were saying that you were concluding your discussion by saying "That’s all I’m going to say about the feasibility of H." Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #24 on Feb 4, 2008, 12:54pm » I am finished with feasibility, were talking in context of Macomb now. What attributes does Macomb have? I know… it’s small, semi isolated, has WIU. At least 2 of those could be considered negatives. And I don’t think any great minds are aspiring to do advanced research at WIU either. Do you have any other arguments?
You make a comparison that Beardstown is trying to be a port and that’s no less goofy than Macomb being a hydrogen city… but Btown has a navigable river that leads to the Ocean. And ports charge money, and no tech breakthrough is required. So I’m looking for some “navigable river” that Macomb has that would make me say… Oh, OK, that will work.
I must say I’m happy to hear you say “technological hope”. That’s a realistic declaration. Cause H might happen, it might not. If it does happen, it probably won’t be everything you hope for. Cause renewables are not that powerful.
Somewhere, I “think” I heard… Maybe Representative Rosco Bartlett’s speech… only 1% of USA energy coming from renewables. And the vast majority of that was Hydro-electric. We doubled wind power last year and will double it again and again but it’s not going to come close to the energy we currently use. I really fear that when the public decides it wants H, the nukes will follow.
Oh,oh, I’m talking H again. The real reason I’m talking at all is because I want to talk sustainable. But I’m getting to that…
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #25 on Feb 4, 2008, 2:55pm » If you'd rather speak about sustainability more generally, I'm open for that.
To close off our discussion on hydrogen, for the time being, I'll close with a quote from "Winning the Oil Endgame," p. 230.
[Begin Quote]
"Hydrogen: practical after all
In that exploratory and indicative spirit, we sketch here the main elements of a hydrogen transition that is optional - we can displace oil profitably even without it - but would be advantageous in profits, emissions, fuel flexibility, and security. It would also reduce calls on natural-gas resources, whether by stretching them longer or by avoiding those of highest private and public cost. Ultimately, hydrogen would make possible a completely renewable solution to mobility fuels, so they could not be cut off, would never run out, and wouldn't harm the earth's climate. Done well, these fuels could also cost less per mile and have steady, predictable prices.
Along the way, we briefly address some of the salient misunderstandings that have led many otherwise well-informed commentators to criticize the hydrogen economy as infeasible, uneconomic, dangerous, or polluting. These misconceptions are dealt with in a documented white paper by this report's senior author [Lovins, 2003b] Capable technologists worldwide would not already have created 172 prototype hydrogen cars and 87 hydrogen filling stations if they were simply sloppy thinkers or deluded dreamers. Rather, they have developed practical solutions to the problems that many recent studies (often propagating each other's errors) carelessly assume to be formidable or insoluble. As energy venture capitalist Robert Shaw says of the hydrogen transition, "Those who think it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those doing it." "
[End Quote]
I know you're not saying that it's impossible, but we're agreeing to stop talking about hydrogen and start talking more generally about sustainability. I'm saying that there are likely more eloquent advocates of hydrogen than I am.
As far as Macomb in particular, for one, I've tried to view what may initially look like drawbacks as actual advantages. I'm trying to be as creative with Macomb's resources as I can be. If one wants to see a few things as lemons, I say let's make some lemonade. I don't know if you consider the set of characteristics I've mentioned to amount to a "navigable river" of sorts. But this vision catches on among the population, this vision and drive could become more powerful than many difficulties. I believe Macomb's greatest resource is its relatively tight-nit community. As for who has a great mind... that is often hotly debated. Perhaps great minds just haven't yet looked closely enough at our local data set? Additional arguments? - Well, we're finally getting a four lane road in with 336...
Hope can be powerful. I'm glad that my hope is not irrational, too. I continue to hope that we will make more and more advances. And science and industry have a long tradition of continuing in this manner. Maybe H won't be all I hope for, but why should I consider renewables as not that powerful? Even though they're not energy dense, they're consistent and domestic. They're also the best and only option over the long-long-long run, say 300 years in the future for sure - after fossil fuels have peaked and become even more scarce.
Yes, we have yet much to do in the way of renewables. And yes, energy efficiency is a huge part of the puzzle. Maybe nukes will follow, but it would not be entirely necessary. There are for sure many nuclear interests who will push for it, though. Unfortunately, greens and environmentalists don't have lots of capital.
Anyway, yes, as you said, we can stop talking about hydrogen... but we haven't yet talked about NH3 - ammonia - as a means to transport energy. This would remove some of the current difficulties to the H infrastructure, but it would have other challenges of its own.
Anyway... yes, yes, let's talk about sustainability more generally. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #26 on Feb 5, 2008, 12:11pm » Gee, I felt like Lovins was looking right at me when I read his quote. Hehe.
Isn’t Lovins main push for lightweight plastic cars? Cut the weight in half and double MPG or battery life. That Toyota spokesman I mentioned earlier also said Lovins super plastic was NOT recyclable. 45 million cars / year would eventually end up in the land fill instead of the melting pot. It’s really hard to keep a good ideal secret… you have to sell the bad ideals.
"Those who think it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those doing it."
Bush spent at least $2.1B 4 years ago on H development. Cut that into $1-$40M chunks and you have a lot of projects ready for their press release about now. I think a lot of the H hype comes from people who believe their seeing market ready products, but really, they are tax funded experiments. My tax dollars. And I want “truth in advertisement”.
The only new Macomb attributes you provide are “tight-nit” and a “4-lane”.
Ok, what’s Macomb’s river… the rail road. Transporting H and H fueling stations are a big obstacle. Rail transport is very efficient. Macomb has empty factory parking lots next to side tracks. Rail tankers of H could park here and pump directly into cars or tanks. Macomb is small so all cars would be within 1 mile of the fuel. You could set up for a tiny fraction they are going to spend in CA, putting slick expensive stations making H on site from NG in posh suburbs where people will drive miles thru congestion to fill up.
If you want to get a few million$ from a billionaire I would think you need to conjure up plans… scout locations, get cost and suppliers, gather info on regulations.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #27 on Feb 6, 2008, 3:49pm » Lightweight composites (carbon fibers or other fibers with plastics) are one component of Lovins's plan. As for research on plastics and automobiles, I found http://www.plastics-car.com/s_plasticscar/. Here there was a headline about recycling for plastic autos. Another article spoke about the use of plastics in the front ends of vehicles passing crash tests www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1080&DID=6584 . I have not yet looked into the shake test or pull-out strength you mentioned earlier.
There are other techniques demonstrated by Lovins (and others) in the built environment that integrate a wide variety of efficient energy practices at the level of a single building. These (often passive energy) systems could be integrated at the city level. The emergent properties at this level of organization could also be studied and optimized for optimum efficiency. After all, transportation is only one part of a city system.
It's natural that experiments must precede market-ready products. Just because there may be some hype, there are always those looking for the facts. I hope not to be hyping anything. That's why I've recommended that a feasibility study be conducted for Macomb's potential as a model city.
I don't propose that we continue unless the idea proves to be beneficial and profitable. Yes, plans with locations, costs and suppliers, and information on regulations are all needed for a feasibility study and for investment. I've been looking for people with whom to work who could help assemble such data. That's one of the reasons I published my opinion piece in the first place.
Good point about the railroad. I had thought of this at one time, but forgot to mention it. You've mentioned one possibility for the distribution of the hydrogen. But perhaps a distributed generation plan may also be possible. The feasibility study could explore both (or more) options.
What else regarding sustainability would you like to discuss, other than hydrogen? Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #28 on Feb 6, 2008, 4:06pm » As far as hydrogen taking more energy to produce than you get back, I will post "Hydrogen Now's" response to that in their FAQ's. http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/FAQs.htm
[Begin Quote]
FAQ 18. Is not hydrogen a carrier of energy, such as electricity? Does it not take more energy to produce hydrogen than is realized?
Yes, hydrogen is an energy carrier. It is not energy itself, but requires energy to produce it. Hydrogen Now! promotes the use of renewable energy to produce hydrogen. Since renewable energy, such as wind, is inexhaustible, we will never run out of the ability to produce all the hydrogen we need. The only costs are installation of wind turbines, the equipment for electrolysis and transportation. The same applies to solar and geothermal resources. It does take energy to produce hydrogen. However, it also takes energy to produce gasoline, including drilling, pumping, storing, refining and transportation. A better way is to produce hydrogen from renewable energy, totally eliminating the dirty pollution of the oil refinery process.
[End Quote]
I'll admit that this does not totally answer the question.
A similar question was asked of biodiesel, and I heard on the radio yesterday that a new study showed the belief that it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than you get back was false. Perhaps the same kind of study will show similar results for making hydrogen. « Last Edit: Feb 6, 2008, 4:07pm by machwing »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #29 on Feb 9, 2008, 11:54am » “As far as hydrogen taking more energy to produce than you get back,”
Didn’t you also say: “As far as loosing energy, entropy cannot be avoided”
“As far as local resources being utilized, I've been showing local resources…”
All you’ve said are optimistic generalizations and renewables. Wind and solar… everyone has those… and many places have a lot more than Macomb.
“Good point about the railroad. I had thought of this at one time, but forgot to mention it.”
Really?
“Here there was a headline about recycling for plastic autos…”
I saw the headline “US Government, Industry to Tackle End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling”. It was not about plastic cars. It was about the plastic that is currently in every car now… that is recyclable but is too difficult to separate. Like plastic insulators, clips, bezels… Not Lovins super plastic.
You can find a web site to support any vision you want. “hydrogennow.org” will paint the rosy picture you want to see. I love how they address the real problems:
“It is rather difficult to come up with any substantial negatives, but there are some challenges ahead.”
That’s like saying “there are no negatives living on the Moon, only challenges… like water food and air.”
Yes, bio-diesel works. It cost a lot less in inputs and processing than ethanol, but produces a lot less gallons. 160 continuous acres of beans produces 10,000 gallons of bio-diesel (figures vary). That’s enough for 1 semi truck for 6-12 months. These renewables will not come close to replacing oil. It takes a whole farm all year to produce the same energy an oil well can pump in 30 minuets.
Bartlett’s speech says ethanol will burn 1 gallon of energy to produce 1.25 gallons. So we will burn 2.25 gallons to replace every 1 we use now, and we’re causing big environmental problems now just burning that 1 gallon.
They talk about other plants that have a much higher energy content, sugar cane and oil palms. Most of them are tropic plants, that grow year round in warmth. Brazil may one day be the Saudi Arabia of the world… if cutting down all the rain forest doesn’t turn the Amazon into the Sahara. But I’m afraid we are stuck with Corn and Beans. Cause we got 100’s of $B in machinery, infrastructure and R&D to do corn and beans.
So we are stuck, just like we are stuck with the results of a huge 15 year housing boom of 3000ft2 cardboard and plastic McMansions… and the huge debt to pay for them. I am a Carter era kid. I totally bought into the ideal that oil is finite. That we should build earth bermed/underground houses, with solar rooms, solar water radiator heat, solar shingles, thermal mass fireplaces… starting 30 years ago. BUT WE DIDN’T.
2004 the president printed $200B for road repair and construction. Which is the equivalent of sweeping when an employee has nothing else to do. That’s why Macomb got it’s 4 lane. It eventually cost us $300B and pretty soon 1Million men will have to find a job, maybe as truck drivers on the new 4 lane burning another 10,000 gal each? I have to wonder what $300B could have done if it had been spent on energy saving systems that are real and here right now.
Anyway… sustainability… I was hoping to… oops, out of time.
« Last Edit: Feb 9, 2008, 12:21pm by diemaker »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged«
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #30 on Feb 9, 2008, 2:37pm » Well, we could keep talking about hydrogen, but you wanted to talk about other sustainability topics. Whether or not hydrogen will be the preferred energy carrier for renewables, the fact still remains that eventually, we will need to choose the best energy carrier for that renewable energy in any given situation.
So, let's hear your other sustainability topics... perhaps we could start it in another topic so people won't get lost in this discussion, as it has gotten long? Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #31 on Feb 21, 2008, 6:59am » “the fact still remains that eventually, we will need to choose the best energy carrier for that renewable energy in any given situation”
Hmmm, the best energy carrier of sustainable renewable energy…
I know!
A horse.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #32 on Mar 3, 2008, 1:53pm » The Amish show that it is still possible to live with pre-modern, horse-powered sustainable technology. But there is enough energy and technology available today to power modern machines that use sustainable electricity and other sustainable energy carriers. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #33 on Mar 3, 2008, 3:49pm » Hi, Ive been busy lately, but came upon a alternative source. Magnetic generators are going to be introduced by the end of this year. A 4'x4' generator is powerfull enough to generate electricity for up to 15 homes, and can be transferred by antenna. So O.K. hydrogen is a long way off. This technology is almost here. Here is one sight that is currently letting tests be run by scientists to prove they have developed it.
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/ Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #34 on Mar 4, 2008, 11:41am » Permanent magnet motors have been around along time. Testla was going to use the worlds biggest permanent magnet… the world… to give everyone unlimited free energy. Of course the greedy power companies (roll eyes and smirk) killed him so they could continue charging for electricity. According to the Steorn site they let the world test their tech all last year. You would think they would update the site with the world’s results.
“But there is enough energy and technology available today to power modern machines”
Sure, but not all of them. And not all they plan to build. They got some big machines outside of Macomb.
Windpower is cost effective. They are going up everywhere. I stood under one in Pittsfield… it was huge. I’ve read claims that if Nebraska was covered in windmills it could supply USA with all the power it needs.
1st off… they exaggerate… based off stated capacity instead of real world output.
2nd, covering Nebraska is a big job. For example, I’ve heard there are 100,000,000 cars in USA thanks to the power of mass production and years of accumulation. Figure an average size is 8’x20’ and they would ALL fit nicely into McDonough county. Siemans opened a plant in Ft.Madison to make Windmill blades. 400 employees make 600 blades… a year. Not 600 “sets”, 600 blades, enough for 200 windmills.
3rd, I highly suspect they exclude something, like manufacturing needs. Cause according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/ USA uses 5 trillion kw. WindMill is like 1 million kw. So you need 5,000,000 WMs. WMs are spaced 1 per 24 acres to avoid turbulence. That requires 187,500 square miles and Nebraska is like 78,000 square miles.
4th 5th and 6th… doesn’t include power loss and down time and all the other unforeseen consequences that will appear. I’m surprised no scientist is warning of weather changes from reduced air speeds.
When you start doing the math on these claims they fall apart. Replacing current energy needs with renewables will be a ghastly project.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #35 on Mar 4, 2008, 12:45pm » Replacing current energy needs with renewables will certainly be challenging. But it will be less ghastly when also integrating highly increased efficiencies. We all agreed that efficiency will be a very helpful tactic. Also, energy requirements could be reduced by relocalizing economies to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. The massive global supply chains are certainly an energy hog and very likely unsustainable. The supply chains will have to be redesigned, likely relocalized.
So, in part, I'm saying we should redefine some of what we believe are energy "needs." We value the service or product that results from our energy use. For instance, we don't really want gallons of gasoline, we want ease of mobility. Similarly, we don't necessarily want electricity, we want lights that shine, foods hot and cold, and communication devices functioning. All these kinds of services can either use less energy or be accomplished by a variety of integrative techniques. For instance, a building's water supply and drainage system can be designed to handle clean water, gray water, and black water. The gray water can be used for things like flushing toilets and watering plants. Black water is sent to some kind of processing system.
So, I'm saying that our energy "needs" will not be exactly the same in an sustainable system/building/city/community/region/economy that was be designed to integrate a wide variety of materials, processes, and energies at the appropriate sizes and scales for any particular situation. The math may indeed work better if one discovers that a lot more work can be done with significantly fewer resources, as the Rocky Mountain Institute says "Abundance by Design."
This is no easy task, either, as it requires a paradigm shift in our population's thinking. And, as you know, this will also be difficult because of any number of special interests.
As far as windmills, there are also smaller bladed models and other helix-style wind turbines. So, there will be some flexibility to add to this feasible resource. For another perspective on how wind and other stranded renewables might be utilized, see http://www.leightyfoundation.org/earth.php You may not like the talk of hydrogen and ammonia as energy carriers, but it's one option for transporting the energy from the wind fields. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged photodoc
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 61
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #36 on Mar 5, 2008, 9:29am » Sounds like somebody has been reading an oil industry website. We could go on and on about why renewables will or won't work. But that would just be "fiddleing while Rome burns" The fact is we need to get going and stop fiddleing with study after study. As an example, the automobile industry has been studing electric cars to death. Meanwhile several other countries have been selling outstanding electric cars for years. Battery technology exists right now to power a car from 0-60 in under 5 seconds and gives a range of over 100 miles on a single charge. Would you rather pay 1 or 2 cents per mile in an electric car than 10 to ? cents per mile for a gas guzzler? I know I wouldn't. And neither would a LOT of people if Detroit would start selling an alternative. But they can't do that because oil futures would plummet, sending their funding right down the drain. So we have to do it by converting our internal cumbustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric. If interested here's a site you can get more info...POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/build-your-own.html Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #37 on Mar 5, 2008, 10:40am » As for cars they have a gadget out that guarantees that if you put it in your car it will double your gas mileage, however it costs $1000.00 just to buy the part then another $500.00 to have it installed. This would be great if it were more affordable. As for electricity. We talk about how much is needed when we really don't know. These reports are based on electricity used as of now, but this is not accurate. A refridgerator needs more to kick on then to run yet it still gets the higher amount constantly. So basically you are actually buying more electric than you need. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #38 on Mar 6, 2008, 7:02am » Well Cubs, if your SUV gets 10mpg and spending $1500 will get you 20mpg… with gas @ $3.00/gal you would pay for it in 5000 miles. And the next 5000 would save you $1500. If gas goes to $4 payback is at 3750 miles.
And guess what else? I don’t believe it.
I had an old refrigerator that lasted 27 years without a problem, sold it with the house 5 years ago… it might still be running. New house had an “efficient” fridge. 6 years old and had to spend $150 on a new chip for it. These energystar appliances might be a ruse. Complex layers of mini systems and monitoring that fail prematurely. It’s just real hard to break the 80-20 rule. And no efficiency rating accounts for how often the door is open.
I wonder how much energy is used by appliances fighting each other. Like keeping a fridge cold in a heated house. Or using the stove with the AC going.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #39 on Mar 6, 2008, 8:27am » I have to agree on your point that appliances fight each other. As for the gas mileage increase here is a site that will give you some more information on this technology.
prelgnitioncc.com/int
also I will throw in another site that is telling people they will give them free electricity. I still don't know if i believe this is going to happen, but I am watching.
IncredibleNewTechnologies.com Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #40 on Mar 6, 2008, 10:29am » What? Running your car on water? I knew a guy whose bother worked with a guy whose friend made a car that ran on water. Hehe. You would think since the Government printed $2.4 Billion to research Hydrogen the first thing they would do is find this guy.
So Cubs, did you sign up for free electricity? Oh, I’m sure it’s real. Certainly they are not gathering personal info for a “call list” or “spam list” or identity theft scam.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #41 on Mar 6, 2008, 11:44am » lol as i said I am watching this. However there is a patent pending, for a magnetic generator. I just red about it at this sight. Eventually something has to happen.
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1956 Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #42 on Mar 6, 2008, 5:00pm » BusinessWeek had an interesting article about the Rise of the Carbon-Neutral City. Check out this link http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2008/id20080211_503795.htm If a project similar to those described in the article were to be done in Macomb, perhaps hydrogen could be a niche research and development focus for this city. But perhaps something else, too. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #43 on Mar 7, 2008, 8:58am » Machwing, thanks for being a good sport while I trashed renewables. The fact is I’ve been engineering for 20 years and have to look at everything analytically. Most people don’t know how things work, or made, or the externalities of what they buy. They just shop options, price and availability. And they can be sold anything.
I don’t know what or if there will be a “premiere energy carrier” but I know Macomb won’t be the epicenter of development. There really is nothing to invest in currently. (other than wind and solar) There is no “leading edge” or even “bleeding edge”, just a hole to throw money into hoping that something will pop out. Unless you have a local, dedicated, genuinely brilliant enthusiast to direct the project I think you would throw money into that hole.
Whatever happens, there will be a readjustment in the amount of energy used. And that adjustment is not mysterious or high tech… it is perfectly rational. You talked about a “paradigm shift”… I already lived through one paradigm shift where people who grew up without much were sensibly conservative out of necessity… replaced with a generation of reckless waste. We long ago provided for the common welfare and have spent the last 30 years burning energy to provide thrills, convenience, instant gratification and disposable goods that are more fun to shop for than own.
The future was so bright… we had to wear shades.
The energy problem is an attitude problem. The reason I trashed renewables is because… if you think life will continue as is with just slight change in how you fill up your car then there is no reason to change attitude.
If you really want to do something that will benefit the area… regardless of future energy supplies… work on efficiency, conservation and re-localization of goods and services. Then, when a feasible source of energy is available… almost certainly in less amounts … you’ll be ready. Cause isn’t it silly that Macomb gets cans of green beans trucked 2000 miles from CA.
I totally agree with abundance by design. But these systems require ground up design. In the case of homes and buildings… it’s too late in USA. We just maxed out the credit card to build massive amounts of super comfortable… “SUV like” … subdivisions. They got efficient appliances, insulation, tight windows but no abundance by design. Instead they designed in theaters, hot tubs, cathedral ceilings, and open hearth fireplaces with the brick work outside the house. And so many were built on the ever expanding edge of town and has increased the average commute to an incredible 32 miles.
We have spent so much time NOT considering abundance by design few know how to. Except a hand full of left-over hippies building expensive custom homes for other hippies that got rich in realestate and techs. We have spent so much time writing codes to regulate safety, appearances, zoning, traffic management, blah blah blah… it will take a team of lawyers to build abundance by design.
And you better find someone smart to weed out the bad ideals. Grey water systems are not energy savers. They are expensive, complex, desperate and somewhat disgusting attempts to save water. Good for Arizona, good for the space shuttle… not needed in Macomb. You might save a little energy from less water treatment but probably wouldn’t pay for construction. Macomb’s water should get priority though. The swamps at spring lake increased 10 fold since I was a kid. Silt traps at the inlets could have reduced that. River management is completely upside down. River banks on the prairie should not be lined with trees. I believe there is a very simple, natural and cheap way to clean the river. But no, the current mentality is to build a bigger, more expensive energy wasting machine that will provide excess that will be gobbled up recklessly.
They say water is going to be a big deal. The way we treat our water as sewage there is no wonder. Some farmers in south California won’t grow food this year cause they can make more money selling their irrigation water allotments to municipalities.
Small blades are for low wind speeds that can’t move big blades. They produce less electricity too. Helix, or Savonius type wind engines are much LESS efficient than prop turbines because they have to overcome their own drag. Their only advantage is a compact footprint.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged davedorsett
Senior Member
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 381
Location: Macomb IL
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #44 on Mar 7, 2008, 10:17am » diemaker, I'd recommend you change your name to "sensemaker" and run for king for life...
I've stayed out of this thread because a couple of you clearly had a greater grasp on many of these issues than I have but your running point/counter-point posts have been most informative. Could you please expand a bit on your suggestions for our watershed? As a community we are going to need to make a lot of decisions in this area in the near future and I'm certainly interested in thoughtful viewpoints.
If only more Internet discourse were like this! Link to Post - Back to Top LoggedDave«
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #45 on Mar 7, 2008, 3:24pm » diemaker, you're welcome, I try the best I can to be a good sport. dave, yes, diemaker could be "sensemaker." He has had some very helpful comments. Indeed, it would be nice if more internet correspondence were like this.
I just hope that the potential of my idea isn't lost in the absence of expertise on my part. In other words, I'd hope that a professional more qualified than myself would be able to review our discussion and find the strengths and limitations in all our thinking. There have been a number of times diemaker has made a comment about which I have had doubts, but I have not been prepared to immediately address it. So I just let it go. I am thus unsure to what degree diemaker is correct or incorrect/incomplete on a number of points. Of course, the same could be said of my own comments.
I just have to admit that I am more of a layman as far as exacting technical issues are concerned. I did study the natural sciences for 2 years in college, but then switched to get a BA in religion and philosophy. My studies, however, contributed to my view on model sustainable cities. Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" and his "The Meaning of the City" have been particularly influential to my thinking and to my proposal. These are sociological and theological reflections on the dominance of "technique" in modern society. Just be careful not to dismiss Ellul as a neo-Luddite.
diemaker said "The energy problem is an attitude problem. The reason I trashed renewables is because… if you think life will continue as is with just slight change in how you fill up your car then there is no reason to change attitude."
I'm not just trying to save "my" SUV. Wasteful consumption bothers me, as well. I don't have an SUV, but a small car. And I've not been particularly affluent. The best I can say (perhaps you won't agree? lol) is that I've got a reasonably decent head on my shoulders...
I think that life will be radically (at the root) different during my lifetime, in this coming century. Our current industrial/economic paradigms define our "supply" as "limited" because of these paradigms' internal logic. They are very linear. A resource is extracted, manipulated/manufactured, consumed, and disposed of: a straight line of use. In contrast, "abundance by design" re-thinks what is a supply, what is a resource, and how much can be squeezed, integrated, cycled, and recycled. It is more cyclic, circular than are our current linear industrial and economic paradigms. And, as we agreed, abundance by design is the better option than is a life of scarcity. Another term I'm beginning to hear is "Permaculture." We have to re-think what are resources and how they can/should be used.
Yes, there has not been very much abundance by design built into the McMansions. But if these and other legacy building will eventually need to be retrofitted and/or replaced, the process/dynamics of retrofitting/replacement could be modeled and studied in a community that is "micropolitan." Macomb is micropolitan. Might there be a better micropolitan community in which to try one such "in-fill" project? - Sure, why not? Somewhere that has more money and more political pull than Macomb? But I'm trying to say how Macomb could creatively promote itself as a community where such a project could be possible. If not the first or second or third project of this kind, why not somewhere in the top 50? Or top 100? If the $22 Billion Dubai project is in cooperation with and in league with MIT, why couldn't we consider ourselves to be in cooperation with and in the league of WIU? We might not be on the cutting edge, but we could be on the blade. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged cubs1091
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #46 on Mar 7, 2008, 5:17pm » Here’s how it works: “The renewable energy comes from solar or wind power and is used to split H2O – ordinary water – into H2 and O2 – hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is vented into the atmosphere, which already contains about 20 percent O2. The hydrogen is used in fuel cells that can produce energy, for instance in the form of electricity and heat. In the fuel cell, the energy is created by silent electrochemical processes with no pollution. The only product left over when the hydrogen is used up, is pure water. During periods with low energy demand, we can store the hydrogen. Then, when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we use the stored hydrogen.” This is the way it should work, and could if people were willing to try.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #47 on Mar 8, 2008, 10:11am » "The Technological Society”… I didn’t read it. Read a synopsis saying it’s about what old ideals should be thrown away or kept in the new industrial world… written in 1964 Well, I’ll tell you, in USA we threw them ALL away in exchange for a society dictated by money and convenience. (pause) ok, I overstated, not ALL. But a tremendous amount of our society is driven by the pursuit money. I suppose money has always been important, but not like today in the USA. 200 years ago you simply couldn’t buy much, period. Now you can buy incomprehensible things… complete fantasies. And money was never so pursued. I was a teenager in the 70’s and saw the horrendous environmental destruction of this country. Raw sewage and factory waste poured into the rivers killing everything. Acid rain turning virgin mountain lakes into vinegar. The great lakes BURNING form industrial spills. And for WHAT? Money. You never saw that, you probably don’t even know about it. They started regulating it and it got better but it cost $ to keep it clean and eventually shipped it to other countries to let them pollute their country. Out of sight, out of mind. We traded industrial waste for consumer waste and the land fills and the cities boundaries grew. YOU got to grow up in a clean, safe, abundant world where money flowed like water.
In the 70’s during the oil crisis there was a saying… USA has 6% of the people and uses 40% of the oil. Sound familiar? The same phase is thrown around now. USA has 5% of the people and uses 25% of the oil. You might think we are making great advances in conservation, right? WRONG. In the 70’s we were the leading exporter of manufactured goods in the world. We used much of that oil to make things the world used. Now we are the leading importer of goods. I say we are still using 40% of the oil… we just have other countries burn it for us. (another original observation from sensemaker, hehe)
Now reality is working it’s way back into USA and everyone’s scared. Let me tell you, poor people don’t worry about being rich, rich people worry about being poor. And now a whole new set of perversions are coming to keep the money flowing. They are going to turn enormous quantities of corn into ethanol, then take the nutrient depleted mash, fortify it with cow bones and gristle and feed it back to cows. Because of corn prices I saw land being farmed that has been eroded down to hardpan… corn growing out of dirty white clay. This bio-engineering scares me, if USA starts to become desperate all the checks and balances will be ignored. Yes, things will change in your lifetime… you might see this area turned to desert. 30 years form now you might debate the morals of generically engineering humans.
I could go on and on… but I’ll stop with one of my favorite philosophical quotes: "Yeah but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should." Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park.
Haha, I crack myself up.
I have not been attacking machwing. Many times when I have said “you” I mean that figuratively as in anyone who thinks we will transition smoothly into renewable energies. When I say “SUV” I mean the general energy pig lifestyle of USA. I try to be accurate, but I’m not guaranteeing any accuracy… I’m not getting paid for this. I recall a lot from memory and try to quantify it by saying “I think” or (?). If I say “I heard” USA has 100 Million cars, I don’t know that for a fact, some other web site might say we have 150 million, maybe one figure is cars, the other includes trucks… but I’m in the ballpark… and I did the math, 100 million 8x20 spaces fit inside McDonough county. Even if in error, those numbers are immaterial, I provide them as a visual aid for the point that it is a gargantuan job to fill space with manufactured machines.
If you don’t know I’m wrong… then how do you know YOU are right? How about that for philosophizing.
Honestly, machwing, I don’t have a clue what you want to do. You’ve written pages of fancy fluff framing a very vague vision… make super efficient buildings and run everything off hydrogen made from renewables. Fine, do that. But for conversation sake, do you have anything more specific? I’m trying to expound on individual topics.
But just for the record, I don’t think it will do much for what Macomb faces in the next 20 years. Macomb is not Dubai, and WIU is not MIT. …”In my opinion”… Macomb is a peasant town. And WIU is a degree mill. The reason Macomb hasn’t decayed like Monmouth or Canton is because of WIU. And WIU has stayed strong because the kids, all jacked up on the promise that they can buy a good salary, have put themselves into great debt and Macomb has reaped the lions share of that debt. It’s hard to say how much more money USA can hallucinate. Or if the end of the baby boomers “mini boom” will significantly reduce the money coming into Macomb. Maybe high corn prices will bring new prosperity… or maybe the farmers have been set up for a big bust. But regardless of economic situation people will still be here. Got good soil, water, temperate climate. Macomb is very sustainable for those reason alone… As long as you don’t overpopulate which will ultimately cause terrible social turmoil… How comfortably sustainable depends on how you spend your money now, when there is plenty of energy, and you can buy anything from anywhere. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #48 on Mar 15, 2008, 11:52am » OK. Lets look at http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2008/id20080211_503795.htm
1st, I hate trennerdy (new word) terms like carbon neutral. They promote Bio Diesel as carbon neutral because burning it releases as much CO2 as the beans sucked up growing. But what base line are they working from? Not a natural baseline. Cause from pre-history to 100 years ago there was no co2 spewing engines and the farm land to grow those beans were densely covered with 6 foot tall grasses that converted CO2 to O2 9 months out of the year. That new bean field is sparsely planted with 18” tall plants whose mature life is 3 months. The ground is bare the other 9 months. “carbon neutral” is just a way to make you feel OK about the continued destruction of the planet.
2nd, these articles provide nothing. There is not one energy saving technique described. I have a very hard time reading crap like this cause it’s mostly fluff… proposals and inflated claims. I suppose it does give names you can search for more info.
3rd, forget about Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Whatever they are doing is just more fantasy creating. Like the indoor ski hill they built in the desert. Or those stupid islands that cost sooo much energy to suck sand off the ocean floor to build… and when the oil is gone and they can’t afford the constant maintenance they will be reclaimed by the ocean currents. I bet they are building the same kind of unrealistic “green” city. I applaud UAE for not turning to the dark side and spending their wealth on weapons, but they didn’t do the world any favors either.
4th, this is a cartoon. OK? A cartoon.
I bet china is doing some impressive things. An enormous population who have lived a mostly substance life suddenly prosperous in a very informed world. I bet craftsmanship is very high in China, like it was in USA before worthy people got funneled into money scam careers. Their surplus population is well controlled and life is cheap. This is just a hypothetical example of what you could do with cheap life… solar panels work best when perpendicular to the sun. Our ideal is to build an expensive closed loop feedback system to track the sun and adjust the panels automatically with motors. In china they could hire a guy to manually move panels. Lining them up by a simple sight. Caring for enough panels to take an hour to move them, then starting over, so all panels are adjusted every hour. And they do that sort of thing in China because people have to work for very little... and… every job has honor if done well. I could go on and on about that.
I also like the rooftop garden ideal. 3 foot of dirt provides total insulation. But building have to be built strong, we will not be able to put gardens on top of walmarts.
I want to talk about the picture of the English buildings. The BedZED project.
I recognize many features. The general shape is what I learned as a “salt box” design. Tall south facing glass wall to collect sun…. Sloping north wall to deflect winter winds. The glass wall needs to be a separate “sun room” cause it can get real hot in there and keeping it separate allows some control of the heat without affecting living space. On the BedZED it looks like the sun room is the walkway to the apartments. Best if solar room has big thermal mass to store heat. Stone is a slow thermal conductor, so slow you could think of it as a thermal battery. Otherwise you have to have supplemental heat at night and cloudy days. Stone is a slow thermal conductor, so slow you could think of it as a thermal battery. Thick stone mimics underground construction which is really the most efficient cause ambient temperature never exceeds 70 or drops below 50. I’ve been in old thick, un-insinuated stone houses that were naturally cool 75 deg inside when it was 95 outside... because they transferred cool from below grade 24/7. Stone efficiantcy can be dramatically improved with a thin thermal break… leaving thermal mass inside. People love insulated concrete houses. And there is nothing new about them. The first prog die I built as a diemaker 25 years ago made corrugated steel brackets to tie Styrofoam forms together. But no, instead of building solid efficient houses they built cheap high profit energy hogs. It is so funny (or sad) that we all learned the story of the 3 little pigs... yet very few buildings are made of stone. Stupid is as stupid does.
Heat loss thru the glass at night is terrible. The high tech glass are better, tripple pane, gas filled, phase change… but not great and expensive. Best would be a thermal shade that could be rolled down and sealed (somewhat) tight. Some houses were built so Styrofoam beads could be blown into the windows at night and sucked out when sunny. It was goofy but “high tech” ideal. Some built houses with few or only south facing windows… which sucks on nice days, but the ideal was to build a complete insulated envelope and kepp it climate controlled all year long by burning energy. BTW, I have never had AC in my house. Double hung and slider windows (the predominate type of window in USA) are physically bad sealers. French windows are the best. But have been so poorly designed in the USA (casement) they are not used. The BedZED has few and small windows on the sides. Solar houses often build big eaves to block the sun in the summer from hitting the glass… but that doesn’t work good because of seasonal lag. Best would be to make the solar room weather proof and take the glass out in the summer. Best would be double pane, light weight, shatter proof Lexan instead of glass.
On the BedZED, the top row of glass looks like louvers, the rest looks stationary. I bet on hot days the louvers open and hot air rises thru the roof and out the HUGE wind vanes on top… creating a vacuum to suck heat from the rest of the building. The vanes could also suck cool shaded ground air thru the sloped roof, also cooling the house. nothing new bout wind vanes. They got huge wind vains on 1920's barns around here that look very similar. Except the barn vanes were for sucking cow farts out of the barn. I bet the BedZED vains are controlled, maybe even powered… but the principle is the same, the vain rotates. An airfoil keeps the opening facing leeward so wind passing around it creates a vacumm.
Well, that’s about all I see from the picture. Everything I just said I learned 30 years ago when energy efficiency was in vogue. Then I went to the BedZED web sites to read about it and most what I said was mentioned. They also have solar panels and efficient lighting. Nothing new there. BTW, nothing uses less energy than a light that is not on, and that is an attitude problem. They also collect rain water… just like they did 100 years ago in cisterns.
And then they got a long list of what I consider, I don’t know… hallucinated efficiently. Like everyone has to drive an electric car. Or building materials were all produced within 35 miles of construction. Sure, that all reduces energy spent. But it’s more on my “attitude” thinking than high tech. They choose to go local, they choose to drive electric. BedZED will also use what they call “tree waste fuels” to produce electricity and heat. Boy this is the real ass biter for me. A tree has a lot of energy created from sunlight stored over years. But burning trees is “anti environment”. “tree waste” is green cause it implies your using something that would otherwise be thrown away. But there isn’t that much energy in branches and twigs… if they are going to burn tree “waste” for heat AND produce electricity… they are going to need and awful lot of it. That goes back to what I said about bio-mass, you spend more energy gathering than it produces. If the areas they get the “tree waste” from decide to use it for themselves, cause they also decided to go green, what’s BedZED going to use? I bet a huge factor in BedZED calling themselves green is from “tree waste” that is unsustainable once you scale it up to include everyone.
If you choose to drive 55 mph on the interstate you can be green. If you choose to turn the thermostat to 60 in winter and not use AC you can be green. I’m telling you… the energy problem is an attitude problem. And a big attitude problem is that we didn’t build these types of houses 30 years ago when we perfectly well knew how. And there is absolutely no reason we can’t build every single house that way from now on. There is a statement from Machwings article
“In some ways, it isn't rocket science," says Worldchanging.com's Steffen, pointing to Vancouver's achievements. "A lot of the time, we simply don't choose to plan smartly,"
Well, I say almost NONE of it is rocket science. As I just shown, much of the way a building is efficient is 30, 130 or 3000 years old. It was learned from necessity, and it was forgotten by choice. Creating new, feel good terminology is not a substitute for an attitude adjustment.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #49 on Mar 15, 2008, 5:48pm » What to say in response to two long posts???... I guess I'll answer generally.
Diemaker said
Honestly, machwing, I don’t have a clue what you want to do. You’ve written pages of fancy fluff framing a very vague vision… make super efficient buildings and run everything off hydrogen made from renewables. Fine, do that. But for conversation sake, do you have anything more specific? I’m trying to expound on individual topics.
[End Quote]
Here's what I wanted to do. I wanted to understand a variety of contemporary challenges facing local and global civilization, and I wanted to know how they interrelate. I found economic, social, environmental, political, religious/ideological, and local issues all tied to oil. I then discovered that oil production would peak, thus affecting and stressing all of these interrelated phenomena. Next, I started looking for solutions. New, sustainable energies and resources could help ease the mounting tensions. And new techniques and technologies could put these sustainable strategies into use. But how could such a process of transition be studied and managed on a feasible scale? A model city seemed reasonable, since the dominant mechanical form built by humans on the surface of the earth is the city. If we could understand, manage, and model the process at the small city level, then the process could be replicated at the larger city level. Is this vague? Is it fluff? Perhaps... But as vague or as fluffy as it may be, Macomb seemed plausible as a location where such an endeavor could be possible. (And yes, better locations for such a project likely also exist.)
I've been trying to build hope with a degree of technical plausibility. Perhaps flight was once thought to be vague and fluffy... Perhaps the walking on the moon was also vague and fluffy... but with enough hope and motivation, the resources were organized, many things solved by trial and error, and we did it... perhaps also wasting a little energy along the way. But we had hope and vision. And we learned along the way.
In some ways, I've needed to stay vague so that people could stay open to the conversation. Will hydrogen be the premier energy carrier? Maybe, maybe not. But the larger question of "what should Macomb's sustainable future look like?" remains incompletely answered. It may still be possible for Macomb to begin modeling a transition to sustainability, whatever integrative form it may take, and become economically better off in a variety of ways by doing so. There is opportunity in the necessity to become sustainable. Perhaps there may even develop a "sustainable tourism" industry, where people travel to locations to learn how to be green.
So, perhaps for now, no, I don't yet have anything as specific as you're looking for. I didn't grow up in the Carter era. And perhaps I don't have as much disgust (as you seem to have) about the missed opportunities of former years because I did not live through those former years. Perhaps I have a remnant of hope that things can and will be better, and MUST become better/more sustainable in order for my generation to survive this coming century... not to endorse any candidate, but Obama wrote something about the AUDACITY of hope. « Last Edit: Mar 15, 2008, 5:49pm by machwing »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #50 on Mar 31, 2008, 8:46pm » I threw in my 2 cents about Macomb as a model sustainable city at the Illinois State Republicans Capital Bill Round Table held at the City Hall community room today. State support would be helpful in getting a city wide project like this going. But of course, this is mostly looking at future capital bills, not so much the current one. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #51 on Apr 16, 2008, 2:36pm » I just discovered that GE has developed a plastic called Noryl(R) that could replace much of the metal in the electrodes of electrolyzers. The necessary metals would be plated on the plastic. This would reduce the overall capital cost to this component of the hydrogen and/or ammonia economy. I don't know if a similar solution could be developed for the metals in fuel cells. This article http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage6136.html only mentioned the electrolyzers. LOL - Here's to R&D! Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #52 on May 9, 2008, 12:47pm » As I continue to research sustainable energy, I continue to see that one question that needs to be answered is "Which is the best energy carrier for any given situation?" Renewable energy can be stored and transported in a number of forms. Hydrogen is one energy carrier often discussed. NH3 - Anhydrous Ammonia is another, less often discussed. Even less often discussed is Boron. Electricity is itself an energy carrier. (This is not an exhaustive list of energy carriers.) Storage and movement of each of these carriers have different advantages and disadvantages. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #53 on May 30, 2008, 2:31pm » “Perhaps flight was once thought to be vague and fluffy...”
Before the ICE flight was impossible. It only took 6 years from the first production car to Wrights flight. And that was in world of 2 billion people, mostly illiterate, where goods and information took along time to get. We probably would have been to the moon in the 40’s if we didn’t have a depression and 2 world wars.
“And perhaps I don't have as much disgust (as you seem to have) about the missed opportunities of former years…”
I don’t see it as “missed opportunities”. I see it as the natural greed and exploitive tendencies of man that circumvents obvious perils for a fast buck. And while the miniboomers, who were raised in dreamland, believe themselves to be above such selfish thoughts… that will probably change if dreamland disappears.
“I just discovered that GE has developed a plastic called Noryl…”
Good thing Macomb didn’t buy expensive platinum core H station, eh?
On the news I heard the ethanol makers are losing money because… cost have gone up. When gas spiked from $1.40 to $3 during Katrina, I heard ethanol was cost effective when gas cost $2.35. But $2.35 is the number with $1.40 gas and $2 corn. Now gas is $4 and Corn $6 and ethanol uses a lot of both, so proportional increase.
Yesterday on the radio (NPR) I heard H. Clinton say the world food crisis in not because of USA making ethanol. It was because of oil shortages. (and something else I didn’t hear). Hold on now, I’ve never heard any politicians talk about shortages. Just last week Bush went to Arabia to get them to increase production and they said NO… because they were meeting demand. Someones lying.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #54 on Jun 5, 2008, 8:58am » Hey Y’all. If you really want the scoop on energy… quit reading/watching/talking propagandizing opinions and watch the congress debate on Cspan. Congressional debates are usually boring but these guys are really going at it.
The basic debate is that the Dems want conservation, alt fuels and carbon tax.
The Pubs want to drill the strategic reserves. Anwar and the much of the coast.
I’m totally with the dems on this. I don’t mind so much if they drill cause they really don’t have many spills these days, I don’t see an environmental threat with drilling. Like one florida rep said: we have more oil spills from sport boats than oil riggs… and that’s why I’m for the dems. If we drill that last oil we have to keep gas cheap… we won’t conserve and we won’t develop alts. And the next generation will have even less time and energy to work with. The pubs are being very selfish.
I’m really sick of the pubs whining about how single moms have to, just absolutely HAVE to drive their kids 50 miles a day. High gas prices have forced USA to use 400K barrels less oil last year… none of that was absolutely necessary. Any truely necessary industry or service that uses gas will be able to pass the cost.
« Last Edit: Jun 5, 2008, 9:00am by diemaker »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #55 on Jun 10, 2008, 7:10am » The debate is over, the bill to conserve, research and protect... failed.
No one expected it to pass, this was just a rehearsal for later debates… to get people talking I guess. There was a lot of finger pointing and sob stories and debunking of scientific data. To summarize what I saw…
The dems firmly believe global warming is real and man made and very disturbing. And that oil is finite and will continue to get more expensive. To protect from a devastating future we need to act now with a “moon shot” effort to subsidize clean renewables. And to fund that with a carbon tax on dirty energy. (mostly oil and coal) The tax would increase price but high prices will cut down on waste. Those who choose to waste are funding the future.
The pubs think the bill would hurt the “economy” by adding another layer of taxes and regulations on energy which has already become expensive for many businesses. And that all of this is unnecessary because USA has (get this) 200 Billion barrels of oil that is in restricted coast line and they want that coast unrestricted. The pubs blame the dems for the restrictions.
Of course they are probably both right and wrong and you would think they could compromise… opening up a few areas to drilling in exchange for the carbon tax.
What confuses me is that the Pubs blame the dems for not lifting drilling restrictions. But the Pubs were able to kill the Dems carbon bill? (obvious not party parity, but still, why bring it up?)
The carbon tax does seem controversial… The right to buy and sell pollution. Looks like a lot of room for loopholes and hard to enforce. I know there are industries that consistently break EPA regulations and pay the fines as part of business simply because they physically cannot comply to produce their product… and the EPA agrees the product is needed and agrees to fine instead of shut down. Carbon tax would allow companies to pollute if they can afford it… I’m not sure there would be any other ethical scrutiny.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #56 on Jul 18, 2008, 8:23pm » Has anybody seen the Pickens Plan commercials? T. Boone Pickens, a oilman, says that we should use natural gas for transportation and wind and solar for electricity. He says that currently, about 22% of our electricity is produced from natural gas. But this 22% can be replaced by wind-generated electricity. Thus, this saved natural gas could be used in the transportation sector, to help reduce foreign oil dependence. I agree with his presentation that this would be a good strategy to begin our transition off of foreign oil. With $700 Billion going to foreign countries to pay for oil, I would prefer to buy domestically produced sources. After all, many of these oil producing countries are not friendly to the USA. In a way, we are bankrolling much of both sides of the war on terror. As many of these oil dollars end up finding their way into the pockets of our adversaries.
Of course, I'm in favor of a renewable hydrogen economy. And I still think Macomb has many characteristics that would be desirable in a location to develop a model sustainable city, a model hydrogen city. Whereas I've continued to receive more positive feedback to this idea from sources other than this message board, it's probably better not to list these praises before the idea gains more traction. But in any case, I continue to enjoy our discussions here. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #57 on Aug 9, 2008, 8:19am » If you had watched Cspan when I said you would have seen Pickens unveil his plan when he testified in front of congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOczaEzzxaM&NR=1
When I first heard his plan I was shocked because the peak oil guys have said Natural Gas was going to be the first energy source that disappears.
Assuming we really have enough NG to run autos for a few decades I guess his plan is pretty good. During the gas shortages of the 70’s a few people converted their cars to propane (methane converts to liquid propane easily) I worked with a guy who converted his truck and put a 30 gallon tank in the bed where most guys put a tool box. Propane is clean burning and power dense.
Some pitfalls I thought of…
All the stations would have to upgrade to more expensive pressure tanks.
NG generators are instant on. I bet a much of that 22% is only used during peak hours. Wind is steady at best so either extra capacity is needed or accept afternoon brownouts.
I don’t know, but I’d bet the power to generate 22% of our electrical won’t come close to running all our vehicles.
Replacing 1 trillion KWs with 3MW turbines requires 334,000 turbines. (I think that’s how it converts) Pickens said his plan would cost $1Tillion for the turbines. That’s about $3M apiece. So, for the big 300’ towers I’d say that sounds about right. One thing that upsets me is that Pickens provides almost no figures. Obviously Pickens doesn’t want to confuse people with data so all he offers is propaganda which always makes me suspicious. It also demonstrates just how much $1T is. And to think, next year USA will be $10.5T in debt. Pizzed away on the “audacious hope” that indulged people will change the world for the better.
I read a bunch of articles trying to find downsides but the only thing I found was that the wind corridor east of the rockies that Pickens want to cover in windmills has significantly less wind in the summer… when more electricity is needed.
So a few of these “cons” could change the required number of WM’s upward if extensive testing hasn’t been done. It’s tough to even build a road under budget, I would bet figures have been fudged or guessed downward to sell the ideal. Once the project is started we’re committed at whatever cost.
---------------
Cspan also had a couple of very telling interviews with Pickens. (I can’t fid vid) He said that there is not that much oil in the restricted offshore areas. He was also nailed with the fact that a few years ago Pickens predicted no oil problems and oil would be about $60 now. Pickens replied: “We were wrong. But now we are right.” I do like a man who says he was wrong instead of giving a 20 minute excuse. But why has he changed his mind so radically? Why dose he not believe we have enormous reserves off shore like congress says?
My thought… total speculation… is that Pickens, being a multibillionaire oil tycoon, knew USA seismic surveyed all the coast in the 80’s (to find out what we had incase we had to war with Russia) and the USGS predicted 85 Billion barrels in restricted off shore areas. Pickens saw the ensuing oil crunch and assumed congress would lift the off shore restrictions. Pickens then financed geologist with modern equipment to get accurate data on the most promising areas. Why? Cause this is how billionaires play the lottery… if congress opens virgin land for exploration he wants to be there the next day to lease the best claims. But the results were disappointing. So Pickens conceded the end of oil and came up with the NG plan.
Looks like Congress will soon open up restricted off shore drilling. One of the big hurdles is ANWAR. An enormous 7/8ths of USA coast is restricted but the Pubs are demanding access to the relatively tiny ANWAR. Why? Is it possible the Pubs also believe there is no oil offshore?
Like I said, just a guess.
-----------------------------
Oil price has dropped $30 last week. Part of congress extensive oil discussion was about how speculation was affecting price. Big name financial experts came in under oath with conflicting stories. From speculators had no effect… to adding up to $80 a bbl. It was very confusing. A bill to regulate speculators narrowly failed. Right after that bill failed… oil prices started down. News credits the fall to reduced consumption, increased production, the hype of off shore reserves… even Bush’s diplomatic efforts overseas… but I think the big financial firms got a firm warning about artificially jacking up the price of oil. Afterall, they are just now sending people to prison for the tech bubble bust 8 years ago. In a few years they will probably throw the sub-prime guys in jail. The oil speculators could have been threatened.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #58 on Sept 12, 2008, 8:24am » Something else. I don’t see Picken’s plan as just an energy plan, it is also a financial plan and ecology plan. That’s the reason his plan appears viable. The accountants are happy because NG is produced on this continent so the money spent stays here. A massive windmill project makes the renewable energy people happy. If all our autos ran on the much cleaner burning NG our pollution would significantly reduce and we could then agree to KYOTO treaties and put pressure on China to clean up too… then the environmental people would be happier.
The biggest part is the money part. The oil predicament… and the resulting financial and ecological devastation… has been obvious since the 1970’s. But it wasn’t until oil hit $130 a barrel that congress decided to get passionate. This caused USA’s energy trade deficit to jump from $200B to $700B in just a few years. USA is in financial trouble and doesn’t need to lose an extra $500B. More troubling is the likelihood that as USA prints money to replace the deficit… devaluation will snowball. To get rid of this climbing re-incurring expense USA seems willing to invest. What to invest in and how much it will cost is the question and this is where it becomes hilarious.
Picken’s says his plan will cost $1T for the windmills and another $200B for the grid. $1.2 TRILLION to replace 22% of our CURRENT electrical needs with renewable energy. He offers no figures for how much it will cost to change the fleet of autos and supply chain to Natural Gas. He does say NG cost less than $1/gal (in some areas)… well, I guarantee that will change.
Presidential candidate Obama stated in his nominee acceptance speech that he would make USA energy INDEPENDENT in 10 years by spending $150 billion. He’s going to do this while reducing taxes and giving everyone health care too.
Isn’t that hilarious?
So who’s right?
The businessman who says it will cost $1.2T to create 22% sustainability?
Or the politician trying to get elected who promises $150B will create total independence?
To me… all these schemes are BS if we don’t stop growth.
The real problem is the quintupling of the population in the last century. There are no shortages of energy… or food or water… there is a surplus of demand. And in USA people probably use 100x more energy than 100 years ago. Until the politicians stop this obsession with growth… and focus on sustainability and balance… demand will never be satisfied. If you haven’t seen “The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See “… watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
I think the most chilling example from that vid is the bacteria in the test tube. It's in part 3.
In the fairy tale land called USA many dispute that 2+2=4. But rest assured, it does. If USA continues with 3% growth then Pickens 22% windmills will only produce 11% of demand in 23 years.
Haw… it will probably take 23 years to implement Pickens plan. If they started now, they would have to erect 35 windmills a day to be finished in 23 years (based on my guess of 300,000 windmills)
BTW, I have a job where I can somewhat watch TV and watched many hours of the congressional energy debates. Renewable energy methods were tossed around often… Wind and solar of course, also solar thermal, geo thermal, ethanol, algae, tidal and wave… but hydrogen was almost never mentioned. Pickens was one of the few who even said Hydrogen.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #59 on Sept 15, 2008, 11:27am » Oh, something I just thought of that I haven’t read anyplace… Natural gas power plants are less than 25 years old. I bet many are not even paid for yet.
Whose gonna tell them to shut down?
They are basing abundant NG supply on a new shale extraction technique called Hydraulic Fracturing. Dirlling holes down and sideways through the shale… pumping it full of water and sand to 10,000 psi to crack the shale. Remove the water and the sand wedged in the cracks allows the gas to seep out. Amazing! But oh so much work compared to days when you could just drill into a pocket and the gas gushed out.
The more I read about it... the less I think it will happen. They may build the willmills but they won’t convert cars to NG. If things get ugly… we will take Iraq’s oil. We’re there, they owe us… right? With Iraq things can continue as is for another 20 years.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged«
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #60 on Sept 25, 2008, 10:44am » I guess you can think of shale fracturing as opening a bottle of pop and seeing all the co2 bubble out. But shale is solid so fracturing allows it to behave more liquid. Hydraulic fracturing can break up a wedge ½ mile wide and 1 mile or more long. If the fracture hits a fault or porous material the fluid leaks and they can’t develop pressure. They haven’t had problems yet but they are drilling virgin material and can choose the best areas for success. Diminishing returns and unforeseen consequences are inevitable.
If you watched the video I posted of pickens testifying for congress… near the end Pickens mentioned James Howard Kunstler’s advocacy of the railroads. I couldn’t agree more.
Railroads are 10x more efficient than trucking. We must stop long haul trucking. Oil cost are killing USA. Trains often haul semi trailers packed with goods from point to point then the truck move the goods the final few miles. If business stayed close to the tracks, or tracks expanded to existing shopping and industrial parks… expensive trucking could be minimized.
Many towns were built around the rails. The stations, warehouses and factories built around these attributes were inconvenient in the cheap oil economy. But they will be the towns’ asset in the future.
Which would you rather have… 8 trains passing through town on regular intervals every day… or 8000 semi trucks passing through town at all hours?
Trains were often hated for the accidents they caused… no car ever won a fight with a train. Many rural crossing had no signals, which has changed. I challenge someone to compare a decade of train accidents with a decade of trucking accidents and see which is worst.
Trains are slow. Yeah, sort of. Railroads have been crippled. Many multiple track lines have been reduced to 1 track forcing traffic to one direction at a time. Restore multiple tracks and fit locos with GPS reporting back to a central controller and that will significantly increase speed, efficiency and reduce accidents. If train traffic quadrupled in the next decade reliability and frequency will quadruple too.
Trucks destroy roads. Maintenance is a major cost. Get the trucks off and they will last longer. Without trucks we can drive lighter more fuel efficient cars safely.
Many tracks have been torn up… to sell the steel and avoid paying taxes on the tracks… but the land is still owned by rail companies. By this time the track would have needed replaced anyway, so half the job is already done. Have you seen the new tracks they lay? Concrete ties with track attaching clips cast integrally. They will last 200 years. The ties could be made anywhere concrete is made. No cutting 50 year old trees for a few ties that will rot in 40 years and disintegrate under bouncing 80 ton rail cars. And the rails are welded together making them seamless. Trains running on these tracks can go 70mph no problem.
Tracks have got to be less expensive than interstates. Look how much money went into the interstate between Macomb to Quincy. How long has it been under construction… 10 years? The transcontinental railroad laid 1800 miles of track… through the rockies… in the 1860's... with HAND TOOLS… in less time. Now they want to spend another $1/2B on an interstate to Peoria? What a waste.
Your leaders have no vision.
SO… I’m doing a 120 on the Pickens plan. (I never fully endorsed it) N. Gas is too valuable for farming and heating to use on driving. Converting cars will be a wasteful shock on the system. If we really got so much N.G. then build the next generation of locomotives to use it. Build 80 mpg cars, build electric cars… and melt the trucks into rails.
« Last Edit: Sept 25, 2008, 10:56am by diemaker »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #61 on Oct 7, 2008, 9:05am » Since Pam Fontwell (?) mentioned James Kunstler on NPR yesterday I thought it fitting to post a paragraph from his recent blog.
“"$700 billion could completely rebuild the US passenger system! All the way to complete eletrification and to the same standards the French enjoy with their TGVs."
It’s enough money to bring service to every town of 5000 and up.”
I’m not sure Kunstler is sure of that figure… but yeah, $700B still buys lot.
I ask you, is it just a coincidence that the banks failed after a summer of $4 gas?
It’s pretty obvious now that USA was overbuilding (it was to me), and you should have sold your stocks at 14000. (I did) It’s just as obvious to me now that we have to stop trucking. We have to trade overnight delivery with a fuel efficient 1 week wait. And we have to stop driving long distances. We have to travel by train and use “smart car” like commuter cars. Instead of 1 airport serving millions, and the entire superstructure to handle the overwhelming crowds, train stations will be everywhere, just a few miles from the final destination. Taxi drivers will line up around train stations and car rentals will pop up nearby.
Focus that much touted technology on a system that is real and now and has a future. Use Lovin’s super plastic to build light weight passenger rail-cars so we can run smaller, more frequent trains that don’t wear the tracks. It’s not the big hulking loco pulling 100 cars that’s efficient… it’s the smooth, straight, level, low rolling resistance of the steel rails that provide the efficiency. Railroads don’t need breakthroughs but we could certainly apply all the EXISTING tech of aerodynamics and computer controlled monitoring to perfect the inherently efficient rails.
Restoration of the rail system is a realistic vision, not fantasy world built on “IF”. It would do a lot to extend the oil we have. And if these fantasy fuels do have their breakthroughs I guarantee they will not match the power of oil. Their benefit will be extended by transportation system built around rails.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #62 on Oct 11, 2008, 3:41pm » Here's an interesting link to an article from Reuters: "Hydrogen cities" seen driving fuel cell adoption. http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnvironment08/idUSTRE4960UY20081007 Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #63 on Oct 13, 2008, 9:56am » If the cars waiting at the train station were H powered… that would be OK by me. But let’s get those trains running NOW.
I bet Machwing thinks all that new N.Gas Pickens says we have should be converted to hydrogen.
One thing that really confuses me is why news articles always blame H problems on stations. No stations no cars, no cars no stations. News loves to call this chicken or egg. It’s hard for me to believe corporations and entrepreneurs aren’t fighting for the chance to get on the ground floor of what may be the energy of the future. USA makes it easy to start a risk-free business. California is the 13th largest economy in the world and they are pro H, so CA will make it as easy for H station startups. And CA has many rich enviromentalist who will pay extra for H. If H succeeds a small chain of stations could turn into the next “Standard Oil Co.”.
I find it hard to find real information on H stations. The impression I get is that CA’s 23 H stations are mostly funded by CA and Bush’s initial $2B H initiative.
http://www.cah2report.com/vault/lawa.htm
“The station is a jointly funded by BP, Praxair, LAWA, South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy, all of which helped fund the $1.5 million construction cost.”
6 partners for 1 station? 3 private (assuming LAWA is private) and 3 public? BP had $7B profit 1st quarter alone, they couldn’t spare $1.5M?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080113/ai_n21201101
“Each of the last three agencies that received state funding to build a fueling station has decided not to pursue the project, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co… PG&E officials said they've shifted hydrogen to the back stage and now consider it a distant technology, with electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids moving to the front of the line.”
I’m not trying to “get you”. I just really think USA will bankrupt itself trying to keep the cars going.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #64 on Jan 7, 2009, 6:02am » I had to post here to move this thread back to the front page of the message board, in case people were looking for it from my "Sustainable City Conference Call" post. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #65 on Jul 10, 2009, 6:04am » Have you seen Boone Pickens recently?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pickens_wind_energy
“In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.”
Once again, logistics proves to be the Achilles heel of an otherwise great ideal. If only Boone could pour electricity into a barrel or down a pipe… eh Machwing? Obama has a lot of work to make good on his campaign promise of making USA energy independent in 10 years by spending $150B. Maybe he should throw a billion to Texas to help build Boone’s transmission lines. Oh Wait… Texas just succeeded form the nation and won’t be accepting any Fed money. My-My… such interesting times.
If I ran the world, Boones wind farm, his problems and solutions would be splattered all over the media… and Wacko Jacko would be just an extra long paragraph in the obituaries.
Speaking of Boone… I remember him saying that it takes more oil to make diesel than gasoline and that “diesel will never be cheaper than gas from now on”. Well, diesel has been cheaper than gas for months. Was Boone wrong again? Maybe. I bet the bad economy has left a lot of trucks and bulldozers idle and a glut of diesel on the market. Diesel got real cheap in the recession of the late 70’s.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #66 on Jul 14, 2009, 11:43am » Yeah - I read through the news link you posted. Always good to see problems addressed before too much investment and work has been made... often cheaper to find the solutions this way, of course.
Indeed - hydrogen and/or ammonia might be approaching the idea of pouring electricity in a barrel or down a pipe - and each hydrogen and ammonia have different benefits and drawbacks as when compared and contrasted. But perhaps this might show different locations in the supply and consumption infrastructure where each chemical may be more appropriate. Ammonia will remain important for an agricultural fertilizer, whether or not it's adopted as a fuel or energy carrier. And there is an interesting case to be made for generating this fertilizer's required hydrogen renewably from water electrolysis as compared to using natural gas as the hydrogen source for the NH3 chemical structure of the ammonia.
Obama and the funding - yeah... lots to work out, for sure. Most I've paid attention to lately has been more local pieces of potential infrastructure - Dakotas, Iowa, Illinois, for instance.
Didn't Dave recommend a number of months ago that you run for some kind of office like that? Lol - You've got lots of good ideas, in any event.
Hmmm... interesting about diesel... maybe Boone was thinking about contrasts between gasoline and diesel for light vehicle transportation instead of diesel for heavy machinery as compared to gasoline for light vehicle transportation... just wondering here. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #67 on Jul 17, 2009, 9:23am » “Always good to see problems addressed before too much investment and work has been made...”
We seem to have different takes on the same text. Boone did NOT address all the problems before investing too much. He DID contract $2B in windmills, he DID lease 200,000 acres… but NOW… he can’t build the grid. (so he says) So he’s trying to find buyers for his windmills… you know, to keep from going bankrupt. I wish reporters (or the readers) weren’t so techno deaf. I’d like to know what the “technological problems” are to building transmission lines… because that’s the real story.
Dave nominated me for the position of “sensemaker”… there is no “Dept. of Sense” in USA. Case in point… Illinois interim Governor signed a bill to print $31B for the “Jobs Now” program (mostly for road construction), and now that’s done he can get back to the state budget which is $5B in the red and continue to ignore the $55B debt that has already been stolen.
One thing that does make sense to me…the preoccupation with finding an alternative energy source. We have used so much time, money, resources and energy to create a country that exists to use energy that there is no other concept to invest in.
You can see the breakdown of $31B that they hope you will pay for through increased taxes and fees:
http://www.illinois.gov/publicincludes/s....0Packet%202.pdf
There is $400M (contingent on fed funding) for a train (efficient) but $500M for airports (inefficient). There’s about $1B more for projects that are labeled “efficiency”… but generally, this is growth funding. When the money is gone you will have more roads, more buildings, more programs, more people that will demand more maintenance and more energy.
That’s your inheritance.
You always talk of ammonia (NH3). What do I know about ammonia… it’s a great glass cleaner. It burns your eyes, nose and skin. Enormous amounts are used by farmers on fields and when rain comes at the wrong time the ammonia washes into the rivers where it froths into chunks of dirty yellow foam, contaminating the drinking water of millions until finally reaching the Gulf of Mexico where it feeds algae blooms whose ultimate decay depletes the water of oxygen and has created immense regions where no life can exist called Dead Zones.
I did some research of ammonia as an energy carrier…
NH3 takes more energy to produce. The first step is to make Hydrogen. Refine the H and combine it with nitrogen. The extra step uses energy.
Using NH3 in a fuel cell requires the inverse action, first the nitrogen must be removed to use the H to make electricity. So NH3 will be less efficient than H fuel cells… coming and going.
NH3 liquefies at 150# so it’s much easier to transport than H. It has problems though. Expands greatly with temperature. Highly corrosive to many metals and plastics but not steel… except, a little contamination with regular oxygen makes NH3 eat steel.
Burning NH3 makes water, like burning H dose. There is one chemical by product, I forget what it is.
NH3 burns slow. It’s actually classified by the Department of Transportation as nonflammable. So I don’t know how good it will be in engines. One site said it takes 2 gallons of ammonia to equal the power of 1 gallon of gas.
I’m done, too nice outside to do this now. Honestly, I think all this is all BS. No alt is sustainable once you amortize construction and maintenance energy used. Some where I read the 300 foot windmills use 250 tons of steel. That sounds right. It takes 100 pounds of ore to make 1 pound of steel and digging the ore is just the first step in a long energy intensive process to final product. Once windmills have to provide the energy to make windmills… game over. No one is working towards or even thinking about true sustainability. Everyone is working to create the next best “thing” that will command and conquer and enslave the planet.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged baffledinbushnell
New Member
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 9
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #68 on Jul 21, 2009, 2:07pm » Wow. I don't understand much of this. The terminology, etc. is confusing. I guess the whole gist is that we need less gas and more renewable forms of energy. The types of energy are apparently debateable. Much like everything else the government is trying to do. All this talk and no action. Reminds me of the Glenwood Pool controversy. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City
« Reply #69 on Jul 22, 2009, 8:18am » Hey baffledinbushnell -- Thanks for chiming in and giving us another good summary. I'm glad that you and hopefully a few others are also getting some good out of the ongoing conversation in this thread.
I hope that the most that government does is support those initial activities (such as research and development, feasibility studies, and pilot projects) that will help the private sector envision and build profitable, sustainable businesses. From my impression of the information out there, there ARE profitable new business models that are also sustainable -- but it's not "business as usual" -- so it's difficult to make change.
A couple links that might be helpful for this thread that I don't believe have made it here are for one, my comment over at WIUM's "Speak Your Piece" website about our community going "green." http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/wium/posts/list/2124518.page
And a reference to one white paper called the "National Renewable Ammonia Architecture." http://www.strandedwind.org/node/4130 Link to Post - Back to Top Logged«
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Thread Started on Dec 11, 2007, 7:33pm » This is the same post as "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" with a different subject. I am wondering if a different set of readers will be attracted to comment with this different subject. After all, everybody's interested in the economy. But not everybody would have any idea what a "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" is. Original post is below.
I hope to hear some responses to an opinion piece I wrote for Sunday, Dec. 2nd's Journal regarding Macomb's economic potential. I believe that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable/hydrogen city. The Op-ed is below.
Macomb's economic potential
To the Editor:
A few months ago, William Bailey, chairman of the department of agriculture at Western, wrote in a local column about Beardstown’s economic potential. I believe that a similar line of reasoning could display more of Macomb’s economic potential. The following quote can be found online at the Illinois Farm Bureau’s FarmWeek archive of “Perspective” columns. See July 25, 2007 “Perspective -- Ports of Beardstown, Los Angeles, Singapore share traits” http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=10558&drvid=108&r=0.161297
"It is a bit more of a stretch to think of Beardstown as an international port through which containers of agricultural products could move to anyplace in the world. But that is certainly possible and is well within the grasp of a number of businesses who are attempting to make Beardstown into an international port."
Now, I propose that Macomb would be an ideal location to develop a model sustainable city. Perhaps this is also a stretch. But let me build the beginnings of my case.
What does such a city look like? Let me briefly describe a few techniques that could be integrated into a sustainable city. Buildings could be built or retrofitted to become hyper-efficient, using energy from their surroundings for heating and cooling and sometimes even lighting and electricity. Buildings so designed often return energy to the electrical grid. Hydrogen could serve as the premier energy carrier. It could be used as a fuel for transportation in fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines (H2ICE’s). Hydrogen might also heat homes by combustion or by fuel cells producing electricity for heating and other household applications. The hydrogen will be produced from renewable resources such as biomass conversion or from the electrolysis of water using wind or solar energy. Before all our fossil fuels are consumed, they can be reformed to produce hydrogen as a steppingstone toward fully renewable sources of hydrogen.
Why would Macomb be a good place to accelerate our transition? First, other cities are already pursuing the goal of becoming sustainable. For instance, Columbia, SC is seeking to become “Hydrogen City.” A smaller city of 14,000 in Lolland, Denmark is also hoping to become the world’s first hydrogen city, H2PIA. So, there is precedent for bodies politic on the municipal level to spearhead this kind of economic development.
Second, leaders in the state of Illinois are already pursuing other projects in sustainability. Most of us are keenly aware of the importance of Illinois ethanol as a step toward sustainability. Similarly as in other states, northern Illinois is developing a hydrogen highway. This is in accord with the vision for the eventual national transition to a hydrogen-based economy.
Third, any time one wants to build a large, complex machine, one starts by building a smaller model, a prototype. If cities are large, complex machines, smaller cities could be developed that model the vision for the future development of the larger cities.
Are there any cities in Illinois aiming to become fully sustainable? Are there any locations in Illinois where there could be built a locally functioning, model hydrogen economy?
Let me be specific about Macomb’s characteristics that I believe make it an ideal place to build one such model economy. Macomb is both large enough and small enough to qualify as a model city. Macomb can be described as “micropolitan.” It has mechanics, movement patterns, and other qualities similar to a metropolitan area, except on a smaller scale. For instance, the satellite towns in McDonough County are to Macomb as Chicago’s suburbs are to the larger Chicago.
Next, Macomb is a city of learning. WIU is a primary economic engine. Much of Macomb’s core population is in the education industry. An excellent teaching opportunity exists for a community to develop itself as a model for sustainability. It would be like a giant field exercise or scientific experiment in research and development.
Third, Macomb’s rural setting with low population density is an advantage. Our agribusiness people understand the cyclic nature of agricultural production patterns. These patterns are very similar to sustainable energy production and consumption patterns. Also, our low population density will make it easier for the older technologies to be upgraded or replaced by the newer technologies. Think of it like the difference between the traffic jams around construction in metropolitan areas versus the only slightly more congested traffic around construction in smaller cities and towns.
Fourth, the use of economic cooperatives such as the electric and telephone cooperatives show that our people have a history of working together to bring to us goods and services difficult to procure by other methods. This is a kind of cooperation similar to the lifestyles that will eventually be necessary for life among the future’s sustainable energy infrastructure.
Finally, we are already connected to or near enough to companies who would likely be interested in cooperating in this project. For instance, large equipment manufacturers John Deere and Caterpillar are each only two hours away. These are only a couple possibilities of which I have personal knowledge.
How do we get started? I would suggest an expanded feasibility study. I have tried to show above some of the factors that make the project feasible. But there are professionals, such as Teska Associates, who could work together to develop a more comprehensive plan. Consider Macomb’s Comprehensive Plan, p. 65, Figure D – Action Plan Table, Line Four: “Action Step: Promote the use of green technology and clean energy. Purpose: To become a sustainable City and to reduce green-house gas emissions.”
With a little vision, we could tell a grand story, invite the investment of cutting edge technology, and develop an already great city into a model city. People will flock to Macomb to see how we did it. Students will live the future at WIU. And people will learn from our model in order to improve their own cities.
Daniel Miller
Colchester Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #1 on Dec 23, 2007, 12:50pm » I've been developing a website to promote this vision. See www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com for my blog and a growing list of helpful links. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #2 on Jan 3, 2008, 12:16am » I just discovered that the Illinois legislature has passed a law enabling the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to fund Smart/Green City Grants. Check out HB3394 at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0170 There will be Illinois funds available for visionary planning and development that integrates green/sustainable technology. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #3 on Jan 9, 2008, 11:22am » Next Tuesday, Jan. 15 at 1:30 PM, there will be a small group meeting at New Copperfield's Book Service to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #4 on Jan 12, 2008, 12:40am » Meeting Location Changed: Tuesday's meeting will be held same time at a local citizen's house. Please leave me a personal message under the "Members" menu for more details. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Macomb's Economic Potential (New Title)
« Reply #5 on Jan 27, 2008, 1:59pm » We plan to meet with a couple local business leaders tomorrow, Mon. Jan. 28 to discuss Macomb's economic potential as a model sustainable or model hydrogen city. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: Sustainable City Conference Call (Read 165 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Sustainable City Conference Call
« Thread Started on Dec 23, 2008, 1:03pm » I'm starting a new thread here instead of posting this at the end of the "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" thread because this is a bit of an announcement.
There are a handful of folks beginning to organize a conference call for round table discussion and networking concerning evaluation of the feasibility of Macomb as a model sustainable (and/or hydrogen and/or ammonia) city. The time and date have not yet been set, but it will likely be in January after the 6th. Keep an eye out for future additional information from community sources. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Sustainable City Conference Call
« Reply #1 on Jan 8, 2009, 2:09pm » I've posted a preliminary schematic of the overall system that the interested parties are hoping to discuss. www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com.
We're still working on finalizing the details of the netmeeting. It does look better to have a netmeeting than a conference call. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Sustainable City Conference Call
« Reply #2 on Jan 21, 2009, 2:11pm » I'll take it as a sign of progress that interested or curious parties desire to have a meeting with high quality content and communication. This would require more preparation than would be possible by January and more preparation than would a meet and greet type of round table discussion. So, there will be no meeting here in January. We may yet see what develops in the future. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: Electric Interurban Railways (Read 210 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Electric Interurban Railways
« Thread Started on Jul 23, 2009, 2:49pm » I thought of posting this under the "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" thread, since the topic has been referenced there. But this topic is also unique enough to warrant its own thread, I believe. I hope it's also timely, since the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs at WIU has just published a policy brief paper entitled "IIRA Policy Brief: Connecting the Spots: Twenty-First Century Electric Interurban Railways to Meet Strategic Transportation Goals" It can be found at their www.iira.org website or directly at http://www.iira.org/pubs/ruralpolicy/Pol....%20Railways.pdf
Speaking with Alderman Dave Dorsett (a regular contributor to these message boards, as well), I learned that Mayor Wisslead will be meeting soon with folks in Chicago to discuss high speed rail service. The IIRA paper recommends electric interurban rail as a service to go hand in hand with new high speed service - serving different markets and locales as appropriate to engineering and budgets.
I look forward to seeing how the discussions progress, especially as I believe there can also be synergies among renewable electricity/hydrogen/hydricity/ammonia and also smart microgrids. I believe that one such node of synergy might be possible at the geographical location of Macomb, IL. See my "Model Sustainable Cities" website at modelsustainablecities.weebly.com and also the "Model Sustainable/Hydrogen City" thread for a somewhat stream-of-consciousness style rendition of the possibilities. (A thread that's been running for about 2 years, now.)
Cheers Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #1 on Jul 29, 2009, 1:51pm » When I heard the governor say they would build a High Speed Train so Cardinal fans could watch a game at Wriggly field… I was disappointed at many levels. Least of which is that we need trains for sports enthusiast. I know he was being quip, but I’m not… why do we need HST?
Really… is this a deeply conceived vision to preempt future problems? Does it solve some real inconvenience or suffering need? Is it just a small but highly visible slice of well rounded stimulus spending? Is it just that we have everything else, now we want this too?
This is a rhetorical question… I know the answer. Obama told us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu4aQTexL-U
May honor and respect bestow anyone who has courage to answer… but extra points goes to the right answer.
Hint, it’s a foundation thingy.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged pjd
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 225
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #2 on Jul 29, 2009, 10:35pm » I think one theory behind it is that it would take more cars off the road thus less pollution. Now whether this would pan out off paper remains to be seen. I can see where there could be some benefit to it if planned and implemented correctly and it could possibly open up job markets for people in places that before would have been too far to commute. Just possibilities. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #3 on Jul 30, 2009, 7:23pm » In accordance to the terms of the question, Honor and respect is cast upon PJD. However… NO EXTRA POINTS. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #4 on Aug 11, 2009, 9:13am » Since I’m here… How about you Machwing? Don’t you want some extra points? Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #5 on Aug 11, 2009, 12:07pm » To earn the extra points, it seems I would need to anticipate the answer that agrees with your answer. I could attempt to do so, but I was thinking I would wait for you to go ahead and let us hear your perspective. You asked "why do we need high speed rail?" My interest is in interurban electric rail more than high speed rail. I think we would get better return on our investment and serve more markets with interurban rail development than high speed rail.
It's just that HSR gets more attention - so, yes, there are social and political factors here - not just simply technical. I'm guessing that the answer that you would like to award extra points is one that says something like "whose pocketbook will be filled" or "who will get political points". I know these things influence what goes on in the world. But it's been my hope to find technical solutions that can benefit our overall material resource efficiency (money is not itself a physical/material resource) and begin to set in place the infrastructure that will be needed for a post-peak oil future. It appears to me that interurban rail would be more useful in a post-peak oil future than high speed rail. But HSR may have some helpful functionality in certain places in that future, as well. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Electric Interurban Railways
« Reply #6 on Aug 12, 2009, 7:53am » In accordance to the terms of the question, Honor and respect is cast upon Machwing.
However… NO EXTRA POINTS. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microgrid? (Read 173 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microgrid?
« Thread Started on Aug 8, 2009, 4:44pm » Here's an interesting article that has attracted some attention and gotten some comments at the Macomb Journal website already.
Ameren calls for stimulus money
http://www.macombjournal.com/newsnow/x1558729215/Ameren-calls-for-stimulus-money
The article mentions smart grid improvements.
One approach to smart grid deployment is the microgrid approach. A number of weeks ago, a number of local folks were close to generating some interest in Macomb as a potential location for a smart microgrid. This energy management system could also, I believe, integrate with some other electrical, transportation, and agricultural infrastructure and markets. I've posted some of my layman's thinking at this message board and at my "Model Sustainable Cities" website.
There could be some interesting benefits for Macomb, McDonough County, and West Central Illinois if enough interest from the community is expressed in these energy possibilities. A number of the Macomb city government officials and staff and other local professionals have lent ear to my suggestions. If there is additional interest in what ideas have been kicked around, I'm sure these leaders would be glad to hear that community members are interested in developing more of, what I believe is, a unique potential node for economic development of new synergies among energy and transportation technologies.
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in the community and in the democratic and entrepreneurial processes. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged matkin
New Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 47
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #1 on Aug 10, 2009, 1:35pm » Ameren gave us record rate increases and they are making record profits. The government should not give them a penny. Let them use their profits to pay for the projects. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged pjd
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 225
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #2 on Aug 10, 2009, 11:57pm » I agree, matkin. I am so sick of Ameren. They keep crying about how they have to raise rates to make a profit, that producing electricity is more expensive, blah blah blah. While that may very well be so, it is no different for the rest of us. It is taking more and more of our money just to get by nowadays as the price of everything goes up, but we just have to buckle down and deal with it....we can't march up to our boss and tell him he has to pay us more because we're not making enough. We can't petition the govt. to make our boss give us more money.
There was a time when electricity was a luxury, but nowadays, it's pretty much a necessity...to keep your food from spoiling, to wash your clothes, to be safe from heat related conditions, even to earn your livelihood if you work out of your home or telecommute, and for many other reasons. Now of course I know there are people like the Amish that live without it and people lived without it for thousands of years, but the world has changed and unless you live in an Amish community where no one uses it and your lifestyle and livelihood is not dependent on it, you must have it.
The way Ameren keeps raising rates is bad for businesses, bad for consumers (since rate hikes get passed on to them), bad for families, and bad for the economy in general. It irritates me that state governments keep approving these hikes with little to no argument.
Pretty soon if they keep raising rates (and people, including my family, are not seeing cost of living raises in their salaries to compensate due to the economy and in some cases the state budget) I'm afraid that we're going to have to start rationing the use of things and breaking out the oil lamps at night. We conserve electricity as much as possible already by making sure lights are turned off when the room isn't in use or when they're not needed, unplugging things that aren't being used, etc. My thermostat is set so high that even on hot days it rarely turns on...sometimes I think what's the use of even having AC (or heat in the winter as there are many days I sit in my own home shivering under two or three blankets). To be honest, we're better off than many....I can't imagine being an elderly person on a fixed income for example. « Last Edit: Aug 11, 2009, 12:00am by pjd »Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #3 on Aug 11, 2009, 9:10am » Do any of you know what smart grid is? Huh? How bout you Machwing?
They want to be able to shut down your appliances to avoid brown outs.
Oh goodness, why would they need that?
Give them the smart grid… but insist they start a buy-back or banking program so people can generate their own electricity without the tremendous cost of trying to store it.
That would be… Smart.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #4 on Aug 11, 2009, 11:56am » There are indeed a number of visions about what a completed smart grid would look like. But I'm looking primarily at the perspectives from the Galvin Electricity Initiative. They are taking a smart microgrid approach and are advocating for a consumer-friendly policy structure that would create new business opportunities for entrepreneurs -- not just to benefit the current business models of the existing utilities. A network of smart microgrids that can island themselves and manage themselves to prevent more widespread system failure is part of the vision from Galvin. The Galvin Electricity Initiative is beginning work in Illinois, so this is why I have looked most specifically at their approach.
So yes and no -- I do know but I don't know what a smart grid is. The term is used differently by different people. So, this is why I was more specific about saying "smart microgrid" since this is slightly more specific and similar to the terms used by Galvin. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #5 on Aug 12, 2009, 8:02am » Uh-huh… a number of visions.
Or you could say a smart grid allows digital signals to run through the power lines to monitor and control power flow remotely. Reading your meter from the office instead of sending a meter reader is a smart grid example. It would allow them to isolate and reroute breaks almost instantly, instead of waiting for customers to call. They could get detailed power consumption readings for neighborhoods allowing them to fine tune the amperage needed, possibly varying the amperage hourly and adjusting for weekends… and ultimately they could turn off your appliances to avoid blackouts during peak use.
Appliance control is not a sinister plan. Would you rather your fridge go out for 3 hours or all power to off for 3 hours. It’s a choice they feel you will have to make in the future.
It’s already being done some places… not shutting off appliances, but shutting down whole industries. I was at Finkle Forgings during a hot summer day when suddenly sirens went off. They had to shut down the electric furnaces in 15 minutes. In order to get a discount rate on electricity they agreed to shut down in a moments notice when the power company decided the grid was in danger of overload, preventing a city brown out and a bunch of pjd’s screaming and biching about things they no nothing about.
Have you ever seen the power company offer rebates for Energystar appliances? Did you think that’s odd? Whatcha wanta bet… those appliances are smart grid ready.
-------------
I have no ideal what a micro grid is. I read Galvin site and I thought it read like a business plan. And the plan is… we are entrepreneurs who have found a way to charge people for something they already have. The IMPRESSION I get is… contract with Galvin and they will rebuild your grid to their standards and maintain it. Galvin will buy power and resell it to you though their grid.
Maybe Galvin has figured out a superior system that allows them to pocket the savings… or maybe… USA has gone through a massive expansion that has left many communities with a grid that has been patched and patched. Apparently some places are experiencing LOTS of interruptions, the History channel did a show about failing infrastructure and they highlighted a city in IL, I think it was DesPlains, where the average power interruption was 200 times a year, all blamed on the physical failure of the grid. If Galvin went to DesPlains and said: sign with us and we guarantee uninterrupted power… DesPlains might sign. No superior tech, just modern tech. If the overwhelmed power company did the work they would have to hire and train employees they can’t fire and provide life long benefits for. If Galvin does it they can sub contract and hire temps. And if Galvin ultimately fails… it can go bankrupt and walk away.
Like I said, I don’t know. But Galvin sounds like a third party contractor. Instead of paying for 1- 7 figure CEO, Galvin wants you to pay for 2- 7 figure CEO’s.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged diemaker
Full Member
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Ameren calls for stimulus money - Smart/Microg
« Reply #6 on Aug 14, 2009, 10:06am » DEERFIELD… It was Deerfield, IL, a Chicago suburb that has had so many power problems. It was 200 average interruptions per year. I’d be surprised if Deerfield had any deer or fields. A lot of Chicago area was named after things that were destroyed.
That was a great show on History channel. “The Crumbling of America”, if you get a chance to see it. There’s a lot of real world horror entertainment out there but this looked factual. The show reorted a Gov survey gave USA’s infrastructure a “D” grade and it would cost $2.5 trillion to raise that level to a B. I see a lot of companies forming to grab a piece of that pie.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
AuthorTopic: McDonough County Comprehensive Plan Survey (Read 62 times) machwing
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
McDonough County Comprehensive Plan Survey
« Thread Started on Sept 28, 2009, 9:00pm » McDonough County is now conducting a public survey that will help in the development of a new Comprehensive Plan. Here's a link to the WIUM news piece.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wium/n....or.County.Plan
Here is a direct link to the survey itself.
http://www.wiu.edu/wsrc/countysurvey.htm
In responding to the survey, I of course referenced my ideas about new energy systems for the area. I'm sure the questions in the survey could create lots of discussion for the message boards here. Link to Post - Back to Top Logged