[Donaldson Tan]

How would you define the energy challenge?

[billnotgatez]

Are you asking about energy sources or energy emissions?

[Donaldson Tan]

I guess you either have to take in account of one or both.

[Yggdrasil]

I think there are two main goal of the "energy challenge."  Broadly defined, I think the challenge will be to design, develop, and implement alternative sources of energy and fuel which produce energy in a way that 1) does not harm the environment/lessens our impact on climate change and 2) reduces a country's dependence on foreign products and increases reliance on domestically produced material.  Note that an important implication of goal (2) is that the energy challenge will mean something different in each country and different countries (and different regions of a country) may require different solutions to the energy challenge (e.g. bioethanol may be a good solution in Brazil, but not elsewhere; hydrogen may be a good solution in Iceland, but not elsewhere).

Phrased differently, two criteria for alternative energy/fuel advancements are that the energy produced is 1) green and 2) economically favorable.  (Of course, these terms still need more definition.  What does green mean?  Less damaging than fossil fuels?  Carbon neutral?  Do you look only at air pollution/carbon emissions or other factors such as water pollution?)  Meeting these two criteria simultaneously is a problem because sometimes often a solution can effectively address one problem but not the other. 

This definition of the energy challenge, however, ignores the social and policy aspects of the energy challenge, for example, how to fund the infrastructural changes needed to implement an alternative energy/fuel technologies.

[Donaldson Tan]

I agree with the general definition outlined by Yggdrasil, but I believe this outline has to be furthur broken down into 2 categories - electricity and transport. This is because the demand for energy for these 2 areas are firstly substantial on its own, but they are not relative to each other. For example, the electricity consumption in the UK is approximately 42GW (2004), in comparison the weighted average consumption of energy for transport, ie. 531GW (2005).

Note that an important implication of goal (2) is that the energy challenge will mean something different in each country and different countries (and different regions of a country) may require different solutions to the energy challenge (e.g. bioethanol may be a good solution in Brazil, but not elsewhere; hydrogen may be a good solution in Iceland, but not elsewhere).

Are we looking in the global diversification of transport fuel?

Check out the lovely Saab Biopower Concept Car

[Yggdrasil]

A lot of the times, the solutions for transport and electricity are connected, however.  For example, in the example of a theoretical hydrogen economy, you must consider the effects in both the transportation and electricity sectors.  If one uses electrolysis to produce hydrogen, then this requires a green, cost-effective source of electrical power.  If one uses methane to produce hydrogen, then one needs to consider the effects on the electricity and heating sectors since many power plants use methane to generate electricity and many homes use it for heating.  If hydrogen production raises the demand for methane and supplies of methane are limited, then this could have adverse economic and environmental effects (since more power plants would be forced to use coal, a much less environmentally friendly source of power than methane).

Although both sectors require different technologies to be developed, ideally the technologies chosen for each sector should act synergistically.

[billnotgatez]

The reason I asked whether you were talking source or emissions is that there are plenty of sources if one ignores the emission or environmental impact.

One should ponder that with all the alternatives throughout history we have chosen carbon-based energy as our primary source. What chemistry makes the carbon system win over all the rest?

[lemonoman]

What chemistry makes the carbon system win over all the rest?

Because it's about money, not about preserving the environment.  If someone wants to talk about this particular point, start a new thread, private-message me, and I'll change this post to link to it...but for now, let's stay on topic

Continuing this point, please check out:

billnotgatez's "Points to Ponder"
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=14160.0

lemonoman's "All About the Carbon System"
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=14164.0

[billnotgatez]

I was applying the Socratic method in answer to previous posts. Is not the economics of the situation a challenge to energy production?

Are economic factors going to prevail and one of the solution will be to synthesize liquid fuel from coal which would keep much of the industry and private use methodologies intact.

geodome-
Maybe I do not understand the gist of your question. Let me know and I will stand aside and watch.

[Donaldson Tan]

Because it's about money, not about preserving the environment.  If someone wants to talk about this particular point, start a new thread, private-message me, and I'll change this post to link to it...but for now, let's stay on topic

Please start a new thread in this forum. It would be pretty interesting.

I was applying the Socratic method in answer to previous posts. Is not the economics of the situation a challenge to energy production?

LOL. This is a discussion for concerned citizens, not an academic query.

A lot of the times, the solutions for transport and electricity are connected

I beg to differ. Using the UK as an example, it would be so much easier to solve the electricity problem on itself than an integrated solution with transport. The electricity demand is 42GW versus 531GW for transport demand. An integrated demand would require at least 574GW if no substantial improvement in engine efficiencies are made over the next decade. It is too much to deal with. However, if we were to isolate electricity demand from transport demand, it is possible to deduce a 2-part commercially viable solution. Electricity demand can solve via Cogeneration or Trigeneration plants that maximise the thermal efficiencies of fossil fuels such as coal and gas, and also reduce the consumption of gas for domestic heating. There would limited centralised production of electricity from nuclear power plants. Meeting that 42GW is indeed plausible.

However, the challenge of meeting that 531GW for transport is enormous. Reforming coal, gas and bitumen is energy intensive and it reduces the overall calorific value transferred to the transport fuel. Secondy, the direct fuel synthesis is exothermic. Heat management would be key to ensure minimal loss of energy during the transformation of non-liquid fuel to liquid fuel. However, key system engineering challenges still exist. Heat integration would not be possible if there is insufficient cold stream to couple with the hot streams, or that the temperature of the hot stream does not allow heat transfer. Essentially, we are looking into thermal fluid technologies that can directly make use of the heat to meet process requirement such as compression.

[Donaldson Tan]

Attached please find the Working Paper for Open Debate of the Security Council on 17 April 2007 on Energy, Security and Climate

[Yggdrasil]

I beg to differ. Using the UK as an example, it would be so much easier to solve the electricity problem on itself than an integrated solution with transport. The electricity demand is 42GW versus 531GW for transport demand. An integrated demand would require at least 574GW if no substantial improvement in engine efficiencies are made over the next decade. It is too much to deal with. However, if we were to isolate electricity demand from transport demand, it is possible to deduce a 2-part commercially viable solution. Electricity demand can solve via Cogeneration or Trigeneration plants that maximise the thermal efficiencies of fossil fuels such as coal and gas, and also reduce the consumption of gas for domestic heating. There would limited centralised production of electricity from nuclear power plants. Meeting that 42GW is indeed plausible.

However, the challenge of meeting that 531GW for transport is enormous. Reforming coal, gas and bitumen is energy intensive and it reduces the overall calorific value transferred to the transport fuel. Secondy, the direct fuel synthesis is exothermic. Heat management would be key to ensure minimal loss of energy during the transformation of non-liquid fuel to liquid fuel. However, key system engineering challenges still exist. Heat integration would not be possible if there is insufficient cold stream to couple with the hot streams, or that the temperature of the hot stream does not allow heat transfer. Essentially, we are looking into thermal fluid technologies that can directly make use of the heat to meet process requirement such as compression.

I think our opinions aren't as different as we think.  I too agree that it is much easier to solve the electricity problem than the transport problem.  In fact, since most solutions to the transport problem look like they will be energy intensive, solving the electricity problem is a necessary prerequisite to solving the transportation problem.  This is what I mean by a connection between the two.  Many solutions to the transport problem will be green and economically viable only if green, cheap sources of electricity exist.




Edit: Quote Tag Fixed (Geodome)

[Donaldson Tan]

Reforming coal, gas and bitumen is energy intensive and it reduces the overall calorific value transferred to the transport fuel. Secondy, the direct fuel synthesis is exothermic. Heat management would be key to ensure minimal loss of energy during the transformation of non-liquid fuel to liquid fuel.

Below is my quote from another thread. It talks about energy balance in a synthetic fuel plant. It further elaborates the point I am bringing across.

Half the amount of gas coming into a synthetic fuel plant is burned to generate energy to reform the remainder natural gas into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. On top of that, hydrocracking, an energy intensive process, is employed to convert the parrafins formed from the Fischer-Tropsch Process into iso-parrafins. In the end, the total calorific value of the synthetic fuel will be at most 25% of the total calorific value of the natural gas entering the Synthetic Fuel Plant. On top of that, vehicle engines are at 30-40% efficient, so the total energy from the natural gas feedstock being utilised by our transport vehicles would be 8-10% of the total natural gas feed into the synthetic fuel plant.

Many solutions to the transport problem will be green and economically viable only if green, cheap sources of electricity exist.

Can you imagine the impact on electricity prices if transport runs on electricity too?

[lemonoman]

Can you imagine the impact on electricity prices if transport runs on electricity too?

If transport ran on electricity, and electricity prices increased because of it, there would be more incentive for homeowners and businessowners to find their own electricity sources (for example, wind)

But again, I digress.

I've really gotta be more careful 

[Gerard]

Oil prices are up these days...and still Bioethanol is not so popular as a fuel alternative...
for me the real energy challenge should be finding the alternative source of energy which is:renewable,cheap and economical and emits less pollutnant,easy to produce and less toxic and also can be verstile to be used in many types of engines