America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I hope you know that my comment had nothing to do with ethanol?

Relax Dan, I am simply making the point that not even the Pentagon believe they will be able to secure their oil supply by 2050.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/25/2020 at 12:05 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The oil in ME is for USA's allies, not itself so... And ultimately humans do not play utopian Kum-ba-ya.  All goes back to WTO if you asked me.  Letting all the dictators trade on equal terms with democracies(allies).  SOrry, that is utopian foolishness of the highest order and until this aspect of trade/world order is rectified: Greed/Dictators will win as those who want freedom, can't get it as those who have freedom have pissed away all their advantages for short term GREED. 

The US still imports 6mb/d of mostly ME oil. Not just your allies that still need the stuff.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

The US still imports 6mb/d of mostly ME oil. Not just your allies that still need the stuff.

Can you be bothered to even use Bing or Google?  USA's "imported oil" comes from Canada(4M), Mexico(1M), Columbia, and used to be Venezuela, but since Ven has been nixxed, getting some from Iraq/Nigeria etc.  Saudi Arabia owns a refinery in the gulf they supply with product from themselves which then exports 10% of said product otherwise it would be zero.  Of course most of this oil is exported as refined products in the case of Canada/Mexico/Columbia, etc. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

footeab, u know damn well that the world is finite, and is running out of cheap oil. The Pentagon were not "forced" to look at alternative energy sources at the whim of some green politician, it is a national security issue. Instability in the Middle East, the rise of China, and dwindling resources are what is forcing the Pentagon to look for alternatives. They are simply trying to "future-proof" their fuel supply.

Also look at where many of the casualties were - in logistics hauling fuel to the bases. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Can you be bothered to even use Bing or Google?  USA's "imported oil" comes from Canada(4M), Mexico(1M), Columbia, and used to be Venezuela, but since Ven has been nixxed, getting some from Iraq/Nigeria etc.  Saudi Arabia owns a refinery in the gulf they supply with product from themselves which then exports 10% of said product otherwise it would be zero.  Of course most of this oil is exported as refined products in the case of Canada/Mexico/Columbia, etc. 

I thought that Canadian production had collapsed, as has US production?

[Wombat + 1,028]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Can you be bothered to even use Bing or Google?  USA's "imported oil" comes from Canada(4M), Mexico(1M), Columbia, and used to be Venezuela, but since Ven has been nixxed, getting some from Iraq/Nigeria etc.  Saudi Arabia owns a refinery in the gulf they supply with product from themselves which then exports 10% of said product otherwise it would be zero.  Of course most of this oil is exported as refined products in the case of Canada/Mexico/Columbia, etc. 

Looks like we both need to do some more research. In 2019, US imported 9.1 mb/d of heavy oil, about 6m from the sources you mention above, 2.5m from Saudi, Kuwait and emirates, and 0.5m from Russia. Basically, you would be stuffed without the 1m from Saudi, 1m from Kuwait, and 0.5m from the Emirates. Until Guyana and Suriname reach a couple mb/d each, you stuck in the ME along with the rest of us. By the way, Nigeria produces light oil and no longer exports to USA. Indeed, US production has hurt Nigeria more than any other country. You are now their main competitor in Asia.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Fuck electric, The United States has decades and decades of natural gas and fossil fuel, WHICH by the way is CHARGING ALL THE ELECTRICAL BATTERIES!!!!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

41 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Looks like we both need to do some more research. In 2019, US imported 9.1 mb/d of heavy oil, about 6m from the sources you mention above, 2.5m from Saudi, Kuwait and emirates, and 0.5m from Russia. Basically, you would be stuffed without the 1m from Saudi, 1m from Kuwait, and 0.5m from the Emirates. Until Guyana and Suriname reach a couple mb/d each, you stuck in the ME along with the rest of us. By the way, Nigeria produces light oil and no longer exports to USA. Indeed, US production has hurt Nigeria more than any other country. You are now their main competitor in Asia.

OH yea?  Imports EIA: half a million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia equal to that of... Russia? ...  😎https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

And export destination: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php

By oil only count: USA was a net importer requiring 6% extra, but when one adds in NGL's...

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Fuck electric, The United States has decades and decades of natural gas and fossil fuel, WHICH by the way is CHARGING ALL THE ELECTRICAL BATTERIES!!!!

Yes but it still needs to import a couple of million BPD and with the way the world is heading and the US balance of payments deficit I'd be looking to reduce that for energy security / economic reasons. Also reduce the income flow to the despots in the ME and Russia.  If I were American I would want to preserve some of that oil and gas for my children and grandchildren. 

Ok the US has a lot of scope to increase the efficiency of its vehicle fleet. However in  the absence of that obvious move a transition of part of the fleet to EV* will massively reduce the import bill and you have all the solar and wind you need to deliver the juice (supported by NG). 

* And of course while globally the US car industry been trashed the one very big rising star is Tesla - US owned. I wouldn't throw that baby out with the bathwater. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

22 minutes ago, NickW said:

Yes but it still needs to import a couple of million BPD and with the way the world is heading and the US balance of payments deficit I'd be looking to reduce that for energy security / economic reasons. Also reduce the income flow to the despots in the ME and Russia.  If I were American I would want to preserve some of that oil and gas for my children and grandchildren. 

Ok the US has a lot of scope to increase the efficiency of its vehicle fleet. However in  the absence of that obvious move a transition of part of the fleet to EV* will massively reduce the import bill and you have all the solar and wind you need to deliver the juice (supported by NG). 

* And of course while globally the US car industry been trashed the one very big rising star is Tesla - US owned. I wouldn't throw that baby out with the bathwater. 

Nick, I have a favour to ask. You seem to know a lot about nuclear so I was wondering if u could give me update on Hinkler station in uk? Is it complete yet, and if so, how much power does it produce?

[Wombat + 1,028]

24 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Nick, I have a favour to ask. You seem to know a lot about nuclear so I was wondering if u could give me update on Hinkler station in uk? Is it complete yet, and if so, how much power does it produce?

Just did a bit of googling, not ready till 2025, bloody expensive, but will produce 3.2GW = 7% of UK requirements. Still interested to hear from you on whether another plant would be worthwhile if u got better terms on the financing? EDF paying 9% when u could get 2%?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=hinkley+nuclear+power+plant&cvid=78ff1249bdb040449bfd96424bc61bd2&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

Can u pls explain the technical difference between this plant and the older ones? Seems to produce a sh**load of power for just 2 units? 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Yes but it still needs to import a couple of million BPD and with the way the world is heading and the US balance of payments deficit I'd be looking to reduce that for energy security / economic reasons. Also reduce the income flow to the despots in the ME and Russia.  If I were American I would want to preserve some of that oil and gas for my children and grandchildren. 

The fastest way for Americans to reduce their over-the-road fuel use is to drill big tunnels through the mountains where the Interstates do a major up-hill and downslope, particularly in the sharp folds found in the Appalachians, up the Eastern Plateau from Georgia to Maine.  For example, along the Interstate run from Baltimore Harbour to East Ohio (Morgantown, West Virginia), some 40% of the fuel burn is along only 30,000 ft of roadway. 

What is little appreciated is that most engines simply loaf along, when running on the flat. The fuel just gushe3s once they are under load.  So, if you build tunnels and remove that load, and change nothing else, you can easily bring the USA to self-sufficiency in transport fuels. 

You can also easily go to electric resistance heating for homes, OK it looks Neanderthal, no fancy heat pump apparata, but hey, it works.  You do need some nuke plants to make it all run, but once you get to the modular molten-salt units, that part is easy enough.  In the US context, it requires a committed Department of Energy and a motivated Secretary to push that through, but it gets you "off oil."  Yes, you could build new nat-gas pipelines and distribution webs, but that takes time and political will, both of which remain lacking, so I don't see it, especially in frosty New England  (where the rock makes blasting trenches for pipe so expensive and slow). 

The solutions to get off-oil are out there, but you do need political will.  That's the hard part. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 9/22/2020 at 6:06 PM, Meredith Poor said:

The US Federal Government situation is unique since it 'prints the money'.

This statement demonstrates the economic illiteracy of the US. In point of fact, the US government has nothing to do with printing the money! Money (actually currency) gets created out of thin air by the Central Bank, which is called the Federal Reserve and has precisely as much to do with the Federal Government as Federal Express. I made a thread on this months ago. @Jay McKinseywas notably absent. 

[Meredith Poor + 894]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

This statement demonstrates the economic illiteracy of the US. In point of fact, the US government has nothing to do with printing the money! Money (actually currency) gets created out of thin air by the Central Bank, which is called the Federal Reserve and has precisely as much to do with the Federal Government as Federal Express. I made a thread on this months ago. @Jay McKinseywas notably absent. 

When Congress authorizes expenditures, it gives the executive branch 'permission' to spend money. The money is not actually created until it is spent. 'Spending' occurs when work is done to earn it. If Social Security deposits $2000 in a retirees account, and the 'money' sits (as savings), it hasn't incurred any work yet, so it technically isn't money. All it represents at that point is 'permission'.

Once the retiree pays a bill, such as for power, or food, or medical care, work is done and the money is now in circulation. Each time it passes through someone's hands, a bit of it gets hoarded, so over time, the money 'disappears' into some porous underworld. A lot of it goes offshore and makes up foreign central bank 'foreign exchange reserves'. Other money ends up in corporate cash accounts, and some ends up 'under mattresses'.

The Federal Government should be taxing the hoards that will never otherwise be used. If Warren Buffet has $136 billion (or Berkshire, more specifically), the feds should tax whatever money has been in that cash pile for more than 15 years, at a 4% per year rate. The reason for the 15 year interval is that corporations do not normally plan capital expenditures that take more than 15 years to complete. It might take 7 years to build a nuclear plant with all the cost and schedule overruns, but no normal corporate acquisition takes 15 or more. This would 'reduce the debt', since that cash would retire t-bills, and it would take cash out of circulation, which would lower the supply and therefore raise interest rates.

4% purges the cash pile over the span of one generation. The 'rich' would remain rich, because the new money coming in would probably exceed the old money going out.

The central bank can release or absorb money presently in circulation by buying or selling bonds. This isn't 'creating money', it simply makes minor adjustments in the cash in circulation.

[Meredith Poor + 894]

On 9/24/2020 at 11:31 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Maybe you do not realize the meaning of WEIGHT.  Today, the wings ARE the tanks.  LNG this is NOT possible unless a different solution is found.  Upwards of half the weight of an aircraft can be fuel.  EDIT: Looked up B52, and 60% can be fuel.  787 is +40%Yes, fuel.  Which means if you put that weight centrally in the fuselage instead of wing, the bending moment Trippled which means structural weight doubles for that extra support of weight required, and you probably now have an airfoil which is MUCH thicker = MUCH higher drag. 

Adding insulation on top is just worse yet regarding weight, along with now requiring extra structure for tank walls which used to be structural which CANNOT be structural anymore as you have to have insulation otherwise your airplane turns into a Popsicle.  Now since this is all under pressure, you cannot use the walls as bending moment.  Now you are probably thinking... rockets do this... why can't aircraft?  Because rockets tank pressure is TRANSVERSE to the acceleration direction/weight of the rocket in question.  Now you will get some added rigidity, which is a bonus, especially if you put this in the fuselage where the limit here is a 2g wind up turn(tail goes one way, nose goes the other), so you can actually gain SOME value from this extra weight/insulation, but this still means the the wings are either far less efficient at carrying fuel requiring far more volume, or are not used at all. Also, there is no such thing as insulation good for protecting -160C which will not transmit that cold to the exterior as popsicle wings = plummeting aircraft.  Sure, can go with vacuum insulation, but all those hoses attaching each cell to keep it a vacuum insulation... yikes, either that or you have to go with HEAVY steel... Which is not exactly lightweight, but then again, at least it would work and requires less volume. 

Now add the fact that your insulation cannot be permeable because if it is, it will collect water vapor and turn your insulation into an ice ball which defeats its insulation value and makes everything very heavy. This is not true on trucks or ships who DO NOT CARE about extra water weight. 

Conclusion: Your white paper link are 3 ignorant looney tunes who do not know basics of reality. 

Give you a hint: Anytime 3 academics write a paper?  RUN. Guaranteed to be ignorance splattered everywhere.  IF only 1 academic writes a paper, it at least has a high chance of having some common sense used. 

PS: As for flying wing... ?  So what?  This does not help you any as you still require 2 structural walls with insulation in between = much more weight.  As for flying wings and why they are not used is because exit problems for passengers.  Both Boeing/Airbus have had flying wings flying for a VERY long time, but the egress of passengers requirement of under 90's  rears its head along with longitudinal stability requirements which cannot be met by a flying wing.  I was part of the Boeing version in the 1990's but no one could figure out how to meet basic safety requirements to get it pre-approved by the FAA.  We even had a full scale mock up.  Not that this matters for this discussion. 

Just to mess up this conversation further:

Keyword search 'Lockheed Martin Fusion'.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Meredith Poor
Add a note on how I found this page.

[specinho + 459]

On 9/22/2020 at 10:06 PM, Meredith Poor said:

The 'average Joe' does not understand that trade deficits means that some foreign country busts their butt to make things and ship them overseas, while taking IOUs instead of buying imports for their immediate consumption. These IOUs (in the case of the US these are Treasury Bonds) pile up in foreign central banks 'forever'.

you might have a mixed up about budget deficit and trade deficit.

1. budget deficit

- allocate future money for current development projects

- print money to meet the needs and pay creditors with bonds............

there is a latest type of easy accounting for maths minors which is called "zero balance accounting system". Under this system, the end sum of each department by the end of the year must be ZERO in order to have new allocation in the up coming year....... uuhhh....... you know the story, right?

2. trade deficit

- import from a country more than export

- you import all essential parts from Japan, assemble in the US, right?

- you import cheap and inferior products from China and sell it in the US, right?

- your government owes the countries money and pays them with words of trust i.e. treasury bonds......... Smart, right?? (and slanders the creditor unabashedly.......)

On 9/23/2020 at 2:18 AM, Meredith Poor said:

Alberta: grain + water + cheap wind power + lots of free land + displaced oil workers. How would you turn those 'lemons' into lemonade?

uuhhh........... by adding carbon dioxide??............ Let there be oil, coal and gas and start burning.............😈

On 9/23/2020 at 3:45 AM, ronwagn said:

What do you think about inflation in America. ................. I recently read an article stating that real inflation has been 10% a year. 

It seems to be that most of the inflation comes from government spending and consumers paying the taxes.

Although you are not asking me, would like to improvise the info........

In a country somewhere, one container of dried prunes was 3.89 or 4+, more than ten years ago. The price jumped to 19.89 within six years or more. That might be closed to 400% of inflation (rough formula = change of price/ initial price*100%). Oil, 1.25 to 2.30 i.e. ~ 100%; electricity, 30 to 180, i.e. 500%........... Information provided by the usual sources might be a copied value from the past reports when the junior authors might have no time to investigate the changes of price in the market. ( I was once assigned to do a minor part of an Environmental Impact Assessment i.e. Biological part........... When I inquired if some of the animals are still available........ uuhhh........ you know how the story would go right......?? "Just copy everything"..........)

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

Just did a bit of googling, not ready till 2025, bloody expensive, but will produce 3.2GW = 7% of UK requirements. Still interested to hear from you on whether another plant would be worthwhile if u got better terms on the financing? EDF paying 9% when u could get 2%?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=hinkley+nuclear+power+plant&cvid=78ff1249bdb040449bfd96424bc61bd2&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

Can u pls explain the technical difference between this plant and the older ones? Seems to produce a sh**load of power for just 2 units? 

 

Hinkley is 2 x 1650MW European Pressurised Water Reactors (AREVA design)

Being built by EDF,  the agreed strike price is Gods Gift - to the French taxpayer for the next 50 years. 

Our best reactor is Sizewell B commissioned in 1995 - a 1200MW Westinghouse design - should have carried on building one of them every 2-3 years. 

Older units are Advanced gas cooled reactors (AGR's) which are much more efficient with fuel than PWR's but more complex. Most are being run at 50% design output in their final years. I think all of the UK's Magnox reactors are decommissioned now. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by NickW

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Meredith Poor

I'm curious. What size solar system experiences costs of $1.00 per watt and under?

 

[Meredith Poor + 894]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Meredith Poor

I'm curious. What size solar system experiences costs of $1.00 per watt and under?

 

Gigawatt size (1000 Mw). Generally covers 4 square miles or more.

[Meredith Poor + 894]

6 hours ago, specinho said:

1. budget deficit

- allocate future money for current development projects

- print money to meet the needs and pay creditors with bonds............

there is a latest type of easy accounting for maths minors which is called "zero balance accounting system". Under this system, the end sum of each department by the end of the year must be ZERO in order to have new allocation in the up coming year....... uuhhh....... you know the story, right?

With respect to the US Federal Government, explain to me what 'future money' is. Are we talking about tax revenue?

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Hinkley is 2 x 1650MW European Pressurised Water Reactors (AREVA design)

Being built by EDF,  the agreed strike price is Gods Gift - to the French taxpayer for the next 50 years. 

Our best reactor is Sizewell B commissioned in 1995 - a 1200MW Westinghouse design - should have carried on building one of them every 2-3 years. 

Older units are Advanced gas cooled reactors (AGR's) which are much more efficient with fuel than PWR's but more complex. Most are being run at 50% design output in their final years. I think all of the UK's Magnox reactors are decommissioned now. 

Thanks for the info, I wish it were politically feasible to build some nuclear here in Australia, but the ALP and the Greens are not exactly the rational type, and the Libs/Nats have always been more interested in class warfare than actually building any national infrastructure. Thankfully, we are blessed with superb wind and solar resources as you know, but the govt is playing footsies with the gas industry when it comes to back-up, rather than creating a "National Battery Company" or putting serious cash into pumped hydro. The utility companies are ready to go, but the govt keeps holding them back. Amazing how powerful the coal-miner vote is here in Australia. The CFMEU announced last week that they will not be backing the QLD Labour govt due to it's green policies, so I am thinking about voting Labour for the first time in decades

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

10 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Just to mess up this conversation further:

Keyword search 'Lockheed Martin Fusion'.

 

There is no such thing as "compact fusion". That really is "Pie in the Sky"!

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

With respect to the US Federal Government, explain to me what 'future money' is. Are we talking about tax revenue?

Aha, you seem to be figuring it out! Yes, budget deficits are just consumption of future tax revenues. The "alternative" is higher future inflation, which is just another tax (on savings and income) in the future. There is no free lunch Meredith.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Gigawatt size (1000 Mw). Generally covers 4 square miles or more.

Makes sense. I've been quoted $2.00/W for my 440kW project. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

Thanks for the info, I wish it were politically feasible to build some nuclear here in Australia, but the ALP and the Greens are not exactly the rational type, and the Libs/Nats have always been more interested in class warfare than actually building any national infrastructure. Thankfully, we are blessed with superb wind and solar resources as you know, but the govt is playing footsies with the gas industry when it comes to back-up, rather than creating a "National Battery Company" or putting serious cash into pumped hydro. The utility companies are ready to go, but the govt keeps holding them back. Amazing how powerful the coal-miner vote is here in Australia. The CFMEU announced last week that they will not be backing the QLD Labour govt due to it's green policies, so I am thinking about voting Labour for the first time in decades

 

The Rolls Royce Modular reactors look like a potential option for Australia and its relatively small Grid. 400MW per reactor. You also get the reactor built by a firm that's been building pressurised water reactors for Submarines for the past 60 years, not some shoddy piece of crap from Chyna with numerous bits of built in spyware.