The truth about energy - then and now

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
The truth about energy - then and now
As you read this, know that our 20 year old 1.6L car has just done another 820 km (512 M) on 52.5L of fuel (13.8 US gal).
Mike
 
from ASPO-USA PO Review
Commentary: 
Then and Now      by Roger D. Blanchard 
 
(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA’s positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators)
Recently a friend gave me a copy of a January 22, 1973 issue of Newsweek.  The cover title was
“The Energy Crisis”.  It’s interesting to look back and see how things have changed; or, to be more
accurate, not changed.  
Technological optimism prevailed back then as it does today.  Here are a few excerpts from the
article concerning nuclear power:
“Any crisis policy would eventually be doomed, of course, unless technology produces
important new energy sources.  And, happily, the outlook looks brighter after the ‘70s.  By
the mid-1980s, nuclear power, paced by the exotic fast-breeder reactor, will begin taking
the load off fossil fuels.  Nuclear energy may produce 13% of all U.S. power in 1985 vs.
less than 1% today and then is expected to boost its share to 26% by 2000”.
“The fast-breeder reactor will have a major impact because, in seeming defiance of the
laws of physics, it produces more atomic fuel-plutonium-than it burns.”
The article stated that experts in nuclear energy were confident in the success of fast-breeder
reactors. As of 2009, there are no fast-breeder reactors in the U.S. and it’s questionable whether
fast breeder reactors will ever provide energy for the U.S.  The Clinch River experimental reactor, in
Tennessee, was shut down years ago because of exorbitant costs and technical problems. Rather
than providing 26% of our energy needs in 2000, nuclear power provided about 8% of total U.S.
energy demand.

In terms of oil shale, the article stated: 
  “By 1985, rising prices of crude oil and natural gas may force two other promising
developments onto the market--oil produced from shale so abundant in the American
West, and gas produced from coal fields.  There are pilot plants using both processes,
but so far their output is too costly to compete.  Shale oil, for instance, would cost about
$7.50 a barrel vs. the present price of $3.25-$3.50 for a barrel of crude.”

Years ago I read congressional testimony from an executive of Exxon who at the time, ~1980,
expressed the belief that by 2000, the U.S. would be producing 2 mb/d of oil from oil shale and 8
mb/d by 2025. As of 2009, no oil is produced from oil shale and it’s likely that no significant amount
will be produced in the next 16 years.

The article mentioned atomic fusion and hydrogen, giving the impression that both would be a
possibility at some point in the not-so-distant future.  It’s not unusual to see similar statements today
in media articles about energy. 

It’s nice to be optimist, but it’s wise to be realistic when it comes to energy.  There is considerable
optimism these days, at least among some people, about cellulosic ethanol and oil from algae.  In
my view, these energy sources will only go as far as government subsidies take them.

There is also considerable optimism about electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.  Electric
vehicles have been around since ~1890 and were fairly common in the early 1900s.  The problems
that have historically dogged electric vehicles have not suddenly gone away and I think those
problems will limit their extent of market penetration in the future.

First, electric vehicles have been and continue to be expensive relative to petroleum-based vehicles. 
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will be expensive as well.

In a Time magazine article (Sept. 29, 2008), Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman at GM, was quoted as saying
that GM hoped to bring the cost of the Chevy Volt (plug-in hybrid electric) down to $40,000 or less. 
Even if GM gets the price of the Volt to less than $40,000 (assuming they ultimately produce it), it
won’t be much less.  When taxes, options and freight are added in, the price could be considerably
above $40,000.  

If we assume a price of $40,000 for a Volt, how does that compare to a Nissan Versa in economic
terms.  According to the Nissan website, the Versa can be purchased for $10,000 so there is a
$30,000 difference between a Versa and a Volt.  The government is supposed to give a $7,500 tax
credit for the Volt so a Volt would cost a buyer $32,500, or about three times that of a Versa.  

Let’s assume you buy a Versa and drive an average of 10,000 miles a year, the car gets an average
of 30 miles/gallon and the average price of gasoline over the time period you own it is $4.00/gallon. 
How long can you drive the Versa before you have spent $22,500 (the difference between $32,500
and $10,000) on gasoline?  The answer is nearly 17 years.  That’s considerably longer than most
people own a vehicle.

I expect a practical electric vehicle to cost at least $35,000-40,000, if not more.  Electric vehicles will
be out of the price range for a significant portion of the American population.  There will be relatively
wealthy people who will buy electric vehicles and rave about how wonderful the vehicles are, but
be out of the price range for a significant portion of the American population.  There will be relatively
wealthy people who will buy electric vehicles and rave about how wonderful the vehicles are, but
that won’t convince those individuals who can’t afford an electric vehicles to buy one.
Many people who buy motor vehicles buy them with some expectation that they can use them for
carrying and towing purposes.  Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will not be vehicles you’ll
want for towing purposes because of a lack of power, and their carrying capacity will be seriously
limited.  I may change my view of the towing capacity of electric vehicles when I see one pulling a
snowmobile trailer with 6-8 snowmobiles up to the UP from southeastern Michigan as I often see
with diesel-powered vehicles.

 

There are also the problems of range, especially when various electrical accessories are used, and
battery charging time.

Whether people want to accept it or not, oil has significant advantages compared to alternatives. 
Two advantages that most people aren’t aware of are that oil distillates have very high enthalpy of
combustion values and that distillates have high energy densities.

Enthalpy of combustion is an important factor related to the energy density of a fuel and the fuel’s
power capacity.  Energy density is an important factor in defining how far a vehicle can go on a tank
of fuel and how large the tank has to be.

Table 1 displays enthalpy of combustion values for various fuels.
Fuel  Enthalpy of Combustion (Kilojoules/mole)
Octane  -5103
Ethanol  -1278
Methanol  -638
Hydrogen  -286
 
Based upon the data in Table 1, it would take about 18 times more hydrogen molecules, 8 times
more methanol molecules and 4 times more ethanol molecules to obtain the same amount of energy
as obtained from a molecule of octane.

Table 2 displays energy density values for various fuels. The high energy density of oil components
makes them particularly valuable as transportation fuels due to the small volume required for
containing high energy content.  

Table 2: Energy Densities for Common Fuels
Fuel Source  Energy Density (kJ/gallon)  % Relative to Octane
Octane      118,690  
Ethanol    82,958        
Methanol     59,579           50.2
H2          6,020           12.8    (at 5000 psi and 25.0°C)
CH4         16,888          35.5    (at 5000 psi and 25.0°C) 
 

The energy densities of H2 and CH4 are much lower than octane because they are gases.  In gases,
the molecules are much farther apart than in a liquid, even when gases are compressed to very high
pressure.  The low energy densities of gaseous fuels make them poor choices for transportation
applications even if they are compressed to very high pressures.  For gaseous-fuel-powered
vehicles, the fuel tanks must be much larger, the vehicle must get much better mileage per unit of
fuel, the vehicle must be refilled more frequently or some combination of the three must be used.   


There is considerable talk now about making the U.S. energy independent.  Although it’s a laudable
goal, I don’t see that happening without major changes in the American lifestyle.  With declining
future U.S. oil production, it would not be surprising to see the percentage of U.S. oil imports
increase even if we manage to reduce our oil consumption rate in coming years.  That is a problem
that most, if not all, politicians would prefer not to admit to the American public.

Roger Blanchard teaches chemistry at Lake Superior State University and authored book The Future of Global Oil Production: Facts, Figures, Trends and Projections by Region, McFarland & Company (2005).  He also grows fruit trees and hay on acreage outside Sault Ste. Marie (MI).
SteveS's picture
SteveS
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2008
Posts: 358
Re: The truth about energy - then and now

Good perspective from the 70's. Shows how hard it is to predict the future.

On EVs; I think they can have a significant impact if they are built small, for local use. They would be a perfect second car for most households. Take a look at the i MIEV. It will be in the mid-twenties - expensive for it's size, but affordable if you look at total cost of ownership.

Another problem is that as we gain efficiency we end up using more energy. I think the only solution that will work is for energy cost to increase substantially. Of course eventually it will, but we are squandering away a lot of resources in the meantime...

SPAM_angelina's picture
SPAM_angelina
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 13 2010
Posts: 4
Re: The truth about energy - then and now

By 1985, rising prices of crude oil and natural gas may force two other promising
developments onto the market--oil produced from shale so abundant in the American
West, and gas produced from coal fields.  There are pilot plants using both processes,
but so far their output is too costly to compete.  Shale oil, for instance, would cost about
$7.50 a barrel vs. the present price of $3.25-$3.50 for a barrel of crude.”

 

[url=http://www.sterling-energy.com]Technical Consulting Services[/url]

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: The truth about energy - then and now

 Informative (albeit simplified) overview of the potential of renewables... particularly like the human-friendly units...(kWh) good for getting a "feel" for the scales involved..

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE

 The conclusions I drew were that the most *significant* gains to be had (individually / collectively) are in heat-pumps, and smart metering/lifestyle changes..

 quickie version...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8wRSp2IXs

 

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments