energy and enviroment (debate)

[geoexchangeman]

Does everyone agree it is never good to use Gas or Oil as the primary heat source for homes. I believe it is always better for the environment and energy to use heat transfer to heat home regardless of the upfront cost. Have you heard of the Koyto Protocal.

[jdenyer]

The Kyoto protocol has not and will not be adopted in the US. For one it would destroy the U.S. economy, basically the automobile would have to go, as well as 50% of our electricity generation. Home heating accounts for only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from industry and transportation. If global warming were being caused by mankind, the Kyoto protocol doesn't go far enough anyway, we would have to stop the use of all fossil fuels for several centuries before any effect could be seen. With new heating equipment being so efficient 80% or better and heating equipment only generation 2% of our greenhouse gas emmisions, there are better areas to make the cuts. The automobile only turns about 18-20% of the energy used into moving the vehicle. Getting the automobile to be 50-60% efficient would be a good start.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by jdenyer
The Kyoto protocol has not and will not be adopted in the US. For one it would destroy the U.S. economy, basically the automobile would have to go, as well as 50% of our electricity generation. Home heating accounts for only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from industry and transportation. If global warming were being caused by mankind, the Kyoto protocol doesn't go far enough anyway, we would have to stop the use of all fossil fuels for several centuries before any effect could be seen. With new heating equipment being so efficient 80% or better and heating equipment only generation 2% of our greenhouse gas emmisions, there are better areas to make the cuts. The automobile only turns about 18-20% of the energy used into moving the vehicle. Getting the automobile to be 50-60% efficient would be a good start.

I think you are right. But it was signed by others on FEB 16th and according to Whithouse news we will try to reduce greenhouse gases buy 18% bellow the 1993 levels by 2010. Everyone will need to do something to reach that. HVAC can and must do what we can. Using as much transfer of heat from GEO, Air and SUN will Help.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by geoexchangeman

Originally posted by jdenyer
The Kyoto protocol has not and will not be adopted in the US. For one it would destroy the U.S. economy, basically the automobile would have to go, as well as 50% of our electricity generation. Home heating accounts for only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from industry and transportation. If global warming were being caused by mankind, the Kyoto protocol doesn't go far enough anyway, we would have to stop the use of all fossil fuels for several centuries before any effect could be seen. With new heating equipment being so efficient 80% or better and heating equipment only generation 2% of our greenhouse gas emmisions, there are better areas to make the cuts. The automobile only turns about 18-20% of the energy used into moving the vehicle. Getting the automobile to be 50-60% efficient would be a good start.

I think you are right. But it was signed by others on FEB 16th and according to Whithouse news we will try to reduce greenhouse gases buy 18% bellow the 1993 levels by 2010. Everyone will need to do something to reach that. HVAC can and must do what we can. Using as much transfer of heat from GEO, Air and SUN will Help.

PS and making changes will help the econ.

[beenthere]

So does that mean you are in favor of building more nuke plants, so we burn less coal, oil, nat gas, and lp to generate electric.

The hybird autos are a start, for the auto industry.

[jdenyer]

What Washington says and Washington does are 2 different things If the U.S. does reduce emissions voluntarily, it won't effect the heating bussiness that much. Also it would not be cost effective to get much more efficiency out of heating equipment. That money would be better spent getting automobile efficiency up, and getting power distribution efficiencies higher. New technologies will help, but even if they could get 99% efficiency out of fossil fueled heating equipment, it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Heating equipment efficiencies won't be getting that much higher. Electric heat and electric heatpumps are actually worse, since so much energy is lost during the transmission of the power. A typical power plant can get 60% efficiency or higher, by the time it reaches your house it's something like 30%, not good The U.S. is looking into carbon sequestration as an option, basically taking the CO2 from power plants, liquefying it, and injecting it back into oil wells to make them productive again. The CO2 can also be injected deep into the ocean where it would remain for long periods. The U.S. depends on energy way to much to run it's economy to make any drastic cuts in use, without affecting our economy, or even our safety, after all a strong millitary requires a strong economy.

[bornriding]

That we have a global warming problem or that the ozone is being depleted as they say.
Or maybe, its just a way for manufacturers to sell new equipment, recovery units. gages, etc.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by beenthere
So does that mean you are in favor of building more nuke plants, so we burn less coal, oil, nat gas, and lp to generate electric.

The hybird autos are a start, for the auto industry.

We are going west and build geothermal power producing plants. Read WhiteHouse news.

[Irascible]

Originally posted by geoexchangeman
Does everyone agree it is never good to use Gas or Oil as the primary heat source for homes.

Most definitely not. The science behind fearful predictions of what would result from rising CO2 levels is far from sound. Consider the following:

1) Warmer oceans would indeed melt the ice caps at a quicker rate. But warmer oceans also evaporate more quickly. The ice caps are replenished by freezing rain, snow, hail, etc. Sea levels could just as easily fall if things warm up. AND warmer weather during the El Nino years has been shown to cause the oceans to give up millions of tons less per year of CO2.
2) Plants respond most with the least amount of input to higher CO2 levels. IF CO2 levels rose as high as some predict, plant production (food) would increase substantially. AND increased plant production would mean more CO2 removed.
3) Historically humans have thrived during warmer periods. Less time fighting snow means more time to farm, invent, etc.

Of course, all of that assumes global warming is even happening. The idea that we can predict the interactions of various Earth systems twenty years out when we can't even predict the weather 20 days out is nuts. Non-water vapor green house gases make up 3% of the total effect. Of that, man made contributions are a minority. Man's influence on the total green house effect is estimated by some to be .28%. In other words, CO2 fear mongering is more a political football of the left than it is legitimate science.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by jdenyer
What Washington says and Washington does are 2 different things If the U.S. does reduce emissions voluntarily, it won't effect the heating bussiness that much. Also it would not be cost effective to get much more efficiency out of heating equipment. That money would be better spent getting automobile efficiency up, and getting power distribution efficiencies higher. New technologies will help, but even if they could get 99% efficiency out of fossil fueled heating equipment, it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Heating equipment efficiencies won't be getting that much higher. Electric heat and electric heatpumps are actually worse, since so much energy is lost during the transmission of the power. A typical power plant can get 60% efficiency or higher, by the time it reaches your house it's something like 30%, not good The U.S. is looking into carbon sequestration as an option, basically taking the CO2 from power plants, liquefying it, and injecting it back into oil wells to make them productive again. The CO2 can also be injected deep into the ocean where it would remain for long periods. The U.S. depends on energy way to much to run it's economy to make any drastic cuts in use, without affecting our economy, or even our safety, after all a strong millitary requires a strong economy.

You need to study more. Oil and gas is all ready about to pass the cost of electricity at 1 to 1 cop let alone 3 to 1 COP for ASHP and 5 to 1 COP for WSHP.

[nwgasman]

It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

[jdenyer]

Originally posted by nwgasman
It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

Well said nwgasman. Fuels cells would allow on site power and heat generation, but what would fuel the fuel cells? Direct hydrogen is to volatile and explosive. I think we will end up seeing NG, oil and coal gas being run through reformers to give up its hydrogen. Also biodiesel is one way that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut, both in transportation and heating.

geoexchangeman, cost and efficiency are two very different things. How is generating electricity 500 miles away at 60% efficiency, tranporting it and distributing it, loosing another 30% more effiecient than burning it directly on site with an 80% or better efficiency? In the northeast we pay about 12cents a kwh, and $1.79/gallon for oil. For me to use electricity to generate 100,000 btu's it would cost me about $3.63. I could generate 112,000 btus of heat from one gallon of oil costing me $1.79, and that includes losing 20% of it's heat value up the stack. Hmmmm, which form of heat do you think I should use? Geothermal is not accesible in all areas, and on a residential scale would be very cost prohibitive. Sure geothermal would be great to produce electricity, but it alone will not solve our thirst for energy.

[billygoat22]

I believe this has come up over on heatinghelp.com. Nuclear vs fossil fuel, etc.
Yesterday I heard that most of man's pollution doesn't even come from the US, but from all those home cooking fires in Eastern Asia/China.
Direct use makes sense, no transmission losses. But 50% eff on transmission? Come on. They boost the power to 770kV to drop the amperage, Power loss is porportional to the square of amperage so 1/2ing the amperage cuts losses to a quarter, right?
AT one time all that fossil fuel was plants and animals, which used solar energy to convert carbon dioxide in the air into carbon for living cells. Its not like the stuff was NEVER there to begin with.

[jdenyer]

Originally posted by billygoat22
I believe this has come up over on heatinghelp.com. Nuclear vs fossil fuel, etc.
Yesterday I heard that most of man's pollution doesn't even come from the US, but from all those home cooking fires in Eastern Asia/China.
Direct use makes sense, no transmission losses. But 50% eff on transmission? Come on. They boost the power to 770kV to drop the amperage, Power loss is porportional to the square of amperage so 1/2ing the amperage cuts losses to a quarter, right?
AT one time all that fossil fuel was plants and animals, which used solar energy to convert carbon dioxide in the air into carbon for living cells. Its not like the stuff was NEVER there to begin with.

Actually I believe about 30% is lost during transmission. Transformers are also inefficient, and loses occur when you bring that 770kv done to household voltage.

[pstu]

For transmission losses, 30% is a lot closer than 50%, and the true average is probably lower. It depends on how far it is transmitted, and the types of step-up and step-down transformers, and even the outdoor temperature. I used to work for a utility and have seen its reports with far lower transmission losses than those two figures.

Sad to say, a lot of enviro issues are really a smokescreen for trying to stop the Western world from doing anything. It becomes a religious issue that mankind must stop whatever it is doing. It has also applied to the Communist world, but their tendency to shoot into crowds limits its usefulness. Still, some of the subversive organizations within the former Communist empire, tried to center their image around environmentalism.

I'm definitely in favor of cleaning and preserving the environment too. But I have cynical ideas about what the enviro-wackos are really aiming for.

If you are serious about getting energy without adding any to CO2 output and presumably man-made climate change, then nuclear energy is the obvious answer. The deaths and pollution are nothing compared to coal, for example. Even the radioactivity is less than coal burning, think about that.

If you want to make our fossil fuels go as far as possible, then there is a lot to be said for on-site burning of natural gas instead of using electricity for heat. Yeah I hear that "cost no object" will lead you to heat pumps, but that's really too elitist for the majority of people. I am a skeptic, a cynic too, but do enjoy reading people trading opinions on this subject.

One last thing... North America has a supply problem for natural gas. The rest of the world has no such problem, there are out-of-the-way places swimming in the stuff with no way to get it to market. At current prices you can expect LNG imports to limit future price rises.

Best of luck -- P.Student

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by jdenyer
What Washington says and Washington does are 2 different things If the U.S. does reduce emissions voluntarily, it won't effect the heating bussiness that much. Also it would not be cost effective to get much more efficiency out of heating equipment. That money would be better spent getting automobile efficiency up, and getting power distribution efficiencies higher. New technologies will help, but even if they could get 99% efficiency out of fossil fueled heating equipment, it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Heating equipment efficiencies won't be getting that much higher. Electric heat and electric heatpumps are actually worse, since so much energy is lost during the transmission of the power. A typical power plant can get 60% efficiency or higher, by the time it reaches your house it's something like 30%, not good The U.S. is looking into carbon sequestration as an option, basically taking the CO2 from power plants, liquefying it, and injecting it back into oil wells to make them productive again. The CO2 can also be injected deep into the ocean where it would remain for long periods. The U.S. depends on energy way to much to run it's economy to make any drastic cuts in use, without affecting our economy, or even our safety, after all a strong millitary requires a strong economy.

You need to read some on the department of energy website to increase your study on the energy of the future. The gas and oil we know today are going to be price out of exsistance for energy. the Oil and Gas we know has been more than doubling ever 20 years and beleive me it will in the next 20 also. If nothing else it will cut down on its use which without a dought we must do.

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by nwgasman
It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

That is not the second best choice Biomass, wind, solar are in there but burning gas is not a choice of the future. Go to the DOE website.

[pstu]

Geo, you need to revisit the idea that gas and oil are two different commodities. Worldwide oil depletion is probably about to become visible, but gas depletion is on an entirely different curve. We have maybe 20 years more gas than we have oil, and that buys a lot of time to create further solutions. There is every reason to expect LNG shipping to create a worldwide market for gas, as opposed to pipeline markets which are relatively local. While I would expect price to be on a new higher plateau compared to the past, I would not expect prices to move only upward for this commodity.

In the longer run I do expect oil pricing to move upward, marking a transition from a BTU commodity to a more specialized commodity.

With higher pricing for competing alternatives, it is reasonable to expect better use of *every* energy saving technology, including yours. Do not forget coal, if we can learn how to burn it cleanly this would be a big North American energy source for quite a number of years into the future.

Best of luck -- P.Student

P.S. The DOE has careened from forecasting plentiful natural gas at a cheap price, to the opposite forecast. The 1990's gas power plant building boom was encouraged by DOE forecasts which we now know were highly unrealistic. Does that tell us anything about forecasting by the DOE?

[Edited by perpetual_student on 03-15-2005 at 12:01 PM]

[jdenyer]

Much of the stuff coming out of the DOE is still in the development stages, it's too early to predict which ones will be the winners. Also new energy technologies like wind power are now being fought by some environmental groups, they claim the blades kill migrating birds. Hydro power is claimed to disrupt fish spawning. Fact is no matter what energy source is used, there will be environmental impacts. Even hydrogen energy is not without serious environmental problems. Even if hydrogen could be produced from water by using solar energy cheaply, all those fuel cells require platinum as a catalyst. Platinum must be mined, mining is very ecologically unsound. So you see even "clean technologies" are actually dirty once you see what's truly behind them. JMHO

[geoexchangeman]

Originally posted by jdenyer

Originally posted by nwgasman
It won't happen... unless more hydro or nuke power generation is built. NG is now becoming the fuel of choice for electric generation here in the west and is one of the demand forces that is causing the cost to rise.

As mentioned before, from a macro view, electric transmission loss is very high and doesn't make much sense to use NG to produce electricity. Direct use of NG is preferable.

Until fuel cell technology comes of age, NG is one of the best fuels we have.

Well said nwgasman. Fuels cells would allow on site power and heat generation, but what would fuel the fuel cells? Direct hydrogen is to volatile and explosive. I think we will end up seeing NG, oil and coal gas being run through reformers to give up its hydrogen. Also biodiesel is one way that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut, both in transportation and heating.

geoexchangeman, cost and efficiency are two very different things. How is generating electricity 500 miles away at 60% efficiency, tranporting it and distributing it, loosing another 30% more effiecient than burning it directly on site with an 80% or better efficiency? In the northeast we pay about 12cents a kwh, and $1.79/gallon for oil. For me to use electricity to generate 100,000 btu's it would cost me about $3.63. I could generate 112,000 btus of heat from one gallon of oil costing me $1.79, and that includes losing 20% of it's heat value up the stack. Hmmmm, which form of heat do you think I should use? Geothermal is not accesible in all areas, and on a residential scale would be very cost prohibitive. Sure geothermal would be great to produce electricity, but it alone will not solve our thirst for energy.

I can produce that some 112,000 btus with my GEO exchange unit for $.78 using your electricity prices. You are right GEO alone will not solve our thirst for energy, but it is the best we have for cooling and and heating and couple it with hydro heat using 90% gas fired units is the best we have.