America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[J Santonas + 6]

And tell me how you are going to address the billions of dollars of coal and hydrocarbon electric generation that will need to be written off the balance sheets of all major utilities? 

You do understand that the utilities will be forced to go back to their respective Federal and State regulators to capture an increase of their rates for all users, don't you? Otherwise, utility socks will take a beating in respect to their price, which also means the utilities cost of capital will increase at an alarming rate, forcing many of them to seek bankruptcy protection in the absence of increasing their rates for electric. And what impact will that have on GDP going forward (hint: consumer spending is 70% of GDP)? Can you say Recession?

Welcome to the all electric payoff to the current generation.  It ain't about technical feasibility. It is about economic feasibility. You will most likely be dead and buried before an all electric future becomes feasible.

Get a clue, lib....

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

It makes sense countries like Japan do this first - they are almost entirely dependent on imported fuels so energy security is a significant issue that doesn't effect a country like America in the same way. 

As they have gone anti nuclear I assume their energy policy is based around solar and wind with some geothermal and Hydro thrown in. 

Their energy policy appears to be buying green hydrogen from Australia.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

15 minutes ago, J Santonas said:

And tell me how you are going to address the billions of dollars of coal and hydrocarbon electric generation that will need to be written off the balance sheets of all major utilities? 

You do understand that the utilities will be forced to go back to their respective Federal and State regulators to capture an increase of their rates for all users, don't you? Otherwise, utility socks will take a beating in respect to their price, which also means the utilities cost of capital will increase at an alarming rate, forcing many of them to seek bankruptcy protection in the absence of increasing their rates for electric. And what impact will that have on GDP going forward (hint: consumer spending is 70% of GDP)? Can you say Recession?

I agree with much of this. California will be running the grand experiment: lithium-ion ESS storage scattered up and down the state to store solar and wind energy, backed up by more lithium-ion ESS units and, of course, the 2M EV's needed to reverse flux and send electricity back into the grid during the hot days--thereby serving as the Peaker Plant. 

This sure looks pretty on paper but in reality is an experiment the likes of which the world has never seen. I never thought to see it because I always believed in the NG backup, if for no other reason than grid inertia. I understand that synthetic grid inertia can be installed. 

But many utility companies would go bankrupt trying to duplicate this scheme. Texas could go green before California, but likely won't due to oil and gas. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Sounds like a good reason to go to war!

They already did that because of us cutting off their oil before Pearl Harbor. I don't think they want a repeat. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I agree with much of this. California will be running the grand experiment: lithium-ion ESS storage scattered up and down the state to store solar and wind energy, backed up by more lithium-ion ESS units and, of course, the 2M EV's needed to reverse flux and send electricity back into the grid during the hot days--thereby serving as the Peaker Plant. 

This sure looks pretty on paper but in reality is an experiment the likes of which the world has never seen. I never thought to see it because I always believed in the NG backup, if for no other reason than grid inertia. I understand that synthetic grid inertia can be installed. 

But many utility companies would go bankrupt trying to duplicate this scheme. Texas could go green before California, but likely won't due to oil and gas. 

The consumers will pay the price for all oversteps in cutting out oil and natural gas. The whole plan requires a lot of time to do things in the most economical manner. California is BROKE. They can't get their rapid transit to Bakersfield even. They canceled plans for a new major irrigation plan after the last drought. No money. They have more homeless people than any other state. You should see the tents downtown and along the freeways. Bums living on the streets in the beach towns. People shitting in San Francisco. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

Trust me, I've seen it. I moved out of California last December--lived a mile from the beach but had fires south, north and east of my house the day we left. Beautiful state just totally ruined by government. 

Despite that, I don't want to see the state fail. And I think that the totally green energy plan they have is very likely to bankrupt the whole place. Seriously. 

The overall plan to use nothing but solar and wind feeding into lithium-ion battery dumps that feed out electricity as needed, with a couple million EV's reversing energy to take care of excess demand on the grid during demand surge is just a beautiful concept, but like most elaborate systems involving a total paradigm shift, it should be implemented piecemeal. 

The way they're going about it is dangerous and may either work, or it may result in loss of lives and horrendous consequences.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sorry, NO!  Emphatically NO!  Now if you wish to argue turning LNG into Kerosene, ok.  Nothing compressed will fly other than half distance of current aircraft.  Horrifically heavy due to tankage alone as it requires 2X the volume even before one talks requirements of the compressed volume stresses, and then you have the problem(overcomeable) of expanding gas at altitude in -80C conditions which must run continuously.  Talk about frost build up/cold soaking problems!  Woah!

EDIT: Fine: Liquefied H2 theoretically can fly as it has 3X the energy density of Kerosene but requires 4X the volume even when liquefied....  Let you find a material which can take the -270C continuous with wing flex, vibrations, for years upon years of reliable cycling.  Good luck

You need to research lng tank technology. It is up to date with modern aircraft technology, but stronger. There is a lot on the web about lng tank technology. Here is just one link.

https://www.gastechevent.com/media/41300/0103_lattice-technology-brochure_small-size.pdf

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lowering the temperature of structures down to -160C... Holy criminies sake man... the cost will blow up through the moon in materials handling/machining tolerances as embrittlement becomes very problematic.  Imperfections/materials perfectly acceptable for standard -40C flight operations will crack at lower temperatures.  Most aircraft only have to briefly withstand these lower temperatures a few times in their life, but now you wish to say ALL the structure has to land/takeoff at these temperatures constantly?  All the associated systems must likewise operate at -160C?  Embrittlement of all wires/fasteners/sensors, yadda yadda yadda and then warm up to 50C... to Temperature swing is ~200C for elongation and different materials?  Double what is done today... YIKES!

Volume increased by 50%.  Half of their associated "potential" volume... aka efficiency savings are based on laser based "guns" throughput.  The only truly gain in efficiency is ability to preheat the gas 200C extra compared to Kerosene as self ignition temperature is higher.  So, lets call it 40% more volume required for same amount of energy irregardless of increased weight of structure, etc. 

Likewise when reading your link, they are talking about military tank weights.  On a civilian aircraft there is no tank weight as the wing skin IS the tank weight.  Not true on fighter aircraft(partially true) as they have self sealing fuel tanks, which is where most of that weight they stated comes from.  Civilian airliner has no such requirement and now cannot use the wing skin as a fuel tank... This will lose an amazing amount of volume. Unless going to hold the stressing wing skin at -160C with its massive weight penalty as strain allowed with stress factors, fatigue factors, corrosion factors for an airliner at -40C are not the same as -160C.  So here will be a giant increase in weight and manufacturing cost. 

I used 50% below to make life easier, but frankly it probably needs to be 2X this as I cannot see how they would make a -160C wet LNG wing capable of thousands of fatigue load life tests at anywhere same weight as today. Not to mention the gargantuan icing issues... Holy Hell, how would that even work?  Just sitting on the ground even in perfectly good weather, the wing would grow ice like it was going out of style and heaven help you if you made the mistake of landing in the humid tropics... I frankly do not see how an LNG wet wing would be possible at all.  So, this would relegate 100% of ALL fuel into the fuselage which means gargantuan weight penalties which would essentially cut range in half. 

Lets go for an example: Short range 737-800 holds just shy of 30,000L, mostly contained in the wing and there is no spare room.  So, another ~15,000L of volume is required.  = 15m^3.  Its cargo hold is ~50m^3, so 33% just disappeared.  And the wing etc must all be much heavier using MUCH more costly materials.   Actually, not as bad as I first thought.  😃  Notice I am using a wet wing here which I frankly do not see as possible due to icing issues.

Lets go for an example: Long range 777-300ER  180,000L with cargo volume of 200m^3  Required volume goes up by ~100m^3 and cargo gets cut in half. 

Lets go for an example: Long range 787-9 126,000L cargo volume 175m^3  Required volume goes up by 60m^3 and it still has 110m^3... Hrmm, no wonder airlines love teh 787-9.  Jeepers, makes the 777-300ER look really old and bad... 😃

Half the airlines out there make just as much money on cargo as they do passengers... hrmmm.

Then the $$$ and above all the icing issues?  This will not get off the ground anytime soon. 

You do realize that I am talking about a flying wing type aircraft? There is nothing in an airplane much stronger than a spun fiberglass epoxy tank. They can take the road vibration of a semi for hundreds of thousands of miles, crashes, turnovers etc. They could be used in such a way to add strength to the airplane. There is also insulation involved so that the exterior of the wing need not be affected by the temperature. The same need is true in LNG ships.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

This is for Ron

Australia and Japan agree to hydrogen future

Australian and Japanese trade ministers met in Melbourne last week to sign a joint statement of cooperation. The agreement and collaboration between the two nations hopes to affirm Australia’s potential as a major exporter of hydrogen, with Japan as a key recipient.https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/01/24/australia-and-japan-agree-to-hydrogen-future/

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You do realize that I am talking about a flying wing type aircraft? There is nothing in an airplane much stronger than a spun fiberglass epoxy tank. They can take the road vibration of a semi for hundreds of thousands of miles, crashes, turnovers etc. They could be used in such a way to add strength to the airplane. There is also insulation involved so that the exterior of the wing need not be affected by the temperature. The same need is true in LNG ships.

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. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You need to research lng tank technology. It is up to date with modern aircraft technology, but stronger. There is a lot on the web about lng tank technology. Here is just one link.

https://www.gastechevent.com/media/41300/0103_lattice-technology-brochure_small-size.pdf

Since when is very basic mechanical engineering "modern" technology?

Ships are not aircraft.  Ships do not give a tinkers damn about weight.  Ships are required by law to have a double hull anyways.  So for ships, using this double hull as a tank is what they have been doing for a VERY long time.  Nothing new here...

Trucks do not give a damn about weight for the most part either.  If they did, they would NOT have thick steel everything... they would have been made from aluminum long long ago. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/24/2020 at 10:44 AM, Dan Warnick said:

You're right.  The bottom line is the bottom line:  IF airlines could fly with cheaper fuel options, believe me they would do so.  If cheaper means simply a cheaper fuel source or technology, they would do it.  If cheaper means no carbon tax, they would do it.  I doubt any industry has studied alternate fuels as much as aviation, although I could be wrong.  Nobody would need to convince them, not governments or greenies, they would do it in the name of cold hard cash.

I hope you know that the USAF has been flying on 10% ethanol blend for several years without any issues?

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Their energy policy appears to be buying green hydrogen from Australia.

Blue H2 as well!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 minutes ago, Wombat said:

I hope you know that the USAF has been flying on 10% ethanol blend for several years without any issues?

 

Only because they were forced to do so... Same reason they have flown on biokerosene.  Same reason they moved an entire carrier task group around on biodiesel/kerosene(once).  Works just like the real stuff, IF and only IF it is refined to high tolerance so it does not leave residue.  You will note that the domestic biodiesel is light years closer to kerosene today than the original garbage.  The extra refining requires a lot of extra energy. 

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

On 8/13/2020 at 5:20 PM, Meredith Poor said:

"Complete electrification and close to 100 percent renewable energy generation: this is a vision of the United States 15 years from now."

I'm not sure where the 15 years came from, 10 years is more likely. Right now all of this is being framed as a 'possibility'. Even minor decreases in cost will make it a 'certainty'.

"Although it may sound counterintuitive at first, despite this greater electricity demand, total energy demand would fall substantially, the report’s authors say."

If one burns coal or splits atoms, the 'efficiency' is around 30%. 3X thermal watts go in for every electrical watt that comes out. Wind and solar produce electricity from the outset, so there is no thermal conversion. Natural gas combined cycle is a bit better at 60% to 80%, but there is still 'waste heat'. If our peak consumption is around 600Gw (summer day, 5:00 PM), then our thermal conversion at that point is 1800 Gw, or the equivalent in BTUs.

"And it will all cost as much as Joe Biden plans to spend on addressing climate change: some $3 trillion over a decade." $3 trillion / 10 years = $300 billion per year, or essentially 300Gw of new power plant investment each year (assuming utility costs of $1 per watt). Most of this, of course, is storage and transmission capacity, rather than outright generation.

Nuclear is not an option - existing plants aren't competitive. Anything with a boiler is uncompetitive. There are reasons we don't use steam locomotives, and they are similar to the reasons coal and nuclear plants are phasing out.

"Existing technology" of course is a laughable metric, since efficiencies, energy densities, and costs are changing fast. It might still cost $3 trillion due to f***ups. S*** happens. We'd spend the money anyway, even if it was to preserve the status quo. Power plants depreciate over 30 years.

As the great Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov said, Socialism is Electrification. We are indeed pretty close to 100%.

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Their energy policy appears to be buying green hydrogen from Australia.

 

As a dual citizen I am pleased to hear this. Got to have something to sell in return for the tat we import. 

Will be interesting to see how they plan to ship it. Personally Id focus green hydrogen on converting into ammonia for fertiliser before shipping it in elemental form as a fuel. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

They already did that because of us cutting off their oil before Pearl Harbor. I don't think they want a repeat. 

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You need to research lng tank technology. It is up to date with modern aircraft technology, but stronger. There is a lot on the web about lng tank technology. Here is just one link.

https://www.gastechevent.com/media/41300/0103_lattice-technology-brochure_small-size.pdf

I looked through the file you linked Ron.  I don't see anything that makes me believe they could get anywhere near the requirements for installation on commercial passenger aircraft.

Current fuel tanks for commercial aircraft are bladder tanks that fit inside the wings and across the belly:

Adding LNG tanks would also add a lot of weight, compared to wing bladder tanks, and would not appear to fit in the wings.  IF you install them in the cargo hold, they will take up luggage and cargo space.  These days cargo on commercial flights is a big revenue generator.  Here's a quote for the Boeing 787-9 passenger aircraft:

"With a maximum range of 14,140km (7,365 nautical miles), Boeing classifies the B787-9 as having “More seats. More range. Cargo capability”. Its cargo capacity is revealed by the US manufacturing giant to be 154.4 cubic metres."

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You do realize that I am talking about a flying wing type aircraft? There is nothing in an airplane much stronger than a spun fiberglass epoxy tank. They can take the road vibration of a semi for hundreds of thousands of miles, crashes, turnovers etc. They could be used in such a way to add strength to the airplane. There is also insulation involved so that the exterior of the wing need not be affected by the temperature. The same need is true in LNG ships.

You're going to have to show me something that makes me believe LNG tanks could be swapped out for the current wing tanks.  Otherwise, it's a no go.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

I hope you know that the USAF has been flying on 10% ethanol blend for several years without any issues?

 

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

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Dont flying V have very poor low speed performance also. Probably a saftey issue landing at windy airports and can they be scaled to size of current fleet? ( I'd assume them to be smaller)

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Dont flying V have very poor low speed performance also. Probably a saftey issue landing at windy airports and can they be scaled to size of current fleet? ( I'd assume them to be smaller)

Just my opinion, but I don't see them passing flight tests for FAA and EASA safety through all modes of flight.  We'll see if they've worked out the kinks, such as you mention and many more.  I believe they are just eye candy to show the industry is doing its part, AND needs government money!!!

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Dont flying V have very poor low speed performance also. Probably a saftey issue landing at windy airports and can they be scaled to size of current fleet? ( I'd assume them to be smaller)

On the contrary, flying V have far superior low speed performance. If you have ever seen how slow a B2-bomber can fly, you quickly realise that is a major element in their stealth capacity. You don't even hear it coming until the last 3 seconds because the engines so quiet. I had one fly past my house on dusk one evening and it was almost silent, even though it was only 60 feet above my head and was travelling so slow it was almost hovering. I estimate it was doing just 50mp/h. There is no way any radar can pick up an aircraft travelling just above the tree-tops. Mr Xi needs to watch his step if Trump wins the election and recognises Taiwan.

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Only because they were forced to do so... Same reason they have flown on biokerosene.  Same reason they moved an entire carrier task group around on biodiesel/kerosene(once).  Works just like the real stuff, IF and only IF it is refined to high tolerance so it does not leave residue.  You will note that the domestic biodiesel is light years closer to kerosene today than the original garbage.  The extra refining requires a lot of extra energy. 

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.

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

 

As a dual citizen I am pleased to hear this. Got to have something to sell in return for the tat we import. 

Will be interesting to see how they plan to ship it. Personally Id focus green hydrogen on converting into ammonia for fertiliser before shipping it in elemental form as a fuel. 

My understanding is that is precisely what is happening. Most green H2 will be converted to green ammonia, initially for fertiliser, but then when the costs come down, the ammonia will be exported and cracked in Japan etc.

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/green-ammonia-plants-in-chile-australia-new-zealand/#:~:text=The world’s largest green ammonia plant powered by,support from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/04/29/australias-biggest-green-hydrogen-plant-secures-initial-investment/#:~:text=However%2C the current green hydrogen production in Australia,tonnes of green hydrogen per annum by 2025.

I am not sure if the Japanese plan to burn ammonia to produce electricity, or if they will keep burning coal to produce the electricity to crack the ammonia back to H2, to replace oil only. All I know is that they plan to go big on off-shore wind so I am guessing they will want the ammonia/H2 for both oil replacement PLUS as storage/backup for their renewable energy. From a Japanese national security perspective, I can see why they are in a hurry