Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/electricity.cfm
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/4340070
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1956/press.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/uran.htm
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/thorium.html
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Fossil-fuel_equivalency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_incidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_CANDU_reactor#Operational_cost
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-snf_hlw.html
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/thorium.html
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Gasoline in Turbines
Gasoline for Electricity Generation
Gasoline is an incredibly powerful fuel source, possessing around 21.5 million joules per pound, compared to coal at around 11 million joules. Gasoline, or petrol, is currently used in automobiles, planes, and other vehicles due to its raw power and high energy density. Electricity produced from gasoline currently costs X per kilowatt hour, compared to X for coal. However, a lot of gasoline is currently wasted; the efficiency of many automobiles is lacking as much of the gasoline is wasted generating heat. A typical internal combustion engine only possesses about 26% thermal efficiency and only about 20% mechanical efficiency.[3]
Comparatively, industrial steam turbines, such as those used in coal plants, generally have around 35-40 efficiency, and can theoretically be up to 60-90% efficient. If the energy generated from gasoline was produced more efficiently, from more efficient steam turbines, was converted to electricity and used in electric cars, it's easy to see how it could potentially be much more efficient than being used in standard automotive engines, and for other energy needs.
If this energy was stored as electricity, this means that the energy, over the power grid and through cars, could easily be 3 times more efficient when used in vehicles after the energy is generated with multi-million dollar steam turbines. This would mean that we would not only get three times as much energy from gasoline as we do now, but that the cost of gasoline would essentially drop by 1/3 its current amount, being, essentially, 3 times more efficient. If the energy was generated in a more efficient machine before being used in vehicles one could easily reduce the price of locomotion drastically and reduce emissions. In addition, the reduction in demand could also reduce prices, thus decreasing the cost of gasoline even further.
Demand
Additionally, much of the price of gasoline is due to demand and the difficulty of extracting it to meet that demand.[1][3] If demand fell, the supply and demand economic price floor would not only fall, but also it's price of recovery. While demand for oil spiked, due to the extremely fast paced growth of developing country's in the world, and oil productions inability to fully meet this demand, oil production prices themselves have to increase to meet the demand. Oil wells are often assisted with natural pressures or require very little pressure to get oil out of them; oil well depth and the amount needed to be obtained can increase the price of oil exponentially, as drilling requires progressively more oil out of an oil well to get more oil. If the oil is removed slowly, than the cost of oil from that well decreases exponentially; however, the same is true for extracting oil at much faster rates. Thus, supply and demand factors due to world economic growth has not only increased the price indirectly, but directly by requiring more oil to be drilled from wells than is economically feasible.
Diesel
Diesel fuel, in general, is more efficient in most engines than gasoline alone. With a longer stroke, more oxygen is allowed into the engine which increases the efficiency somewhat. A typical diesel engine can see up to 40% efficiency, which is roughly double that of standard gasoline engines. This makes it ideal for high efficiency; in used with turbines
Diesel can be refined from the same crude oil source as gasoline*
Turbine
The average coal turbine in the U.S. has approximately 35-40% electrical efficiency, or how much efficiency could be transformed into electricity; the average automobile has approximately 20% mechanical efficiency, which is around half of this level. The engine to electricity efficiency is*
Thus, in use with turbines, gasoline or crude oil based electricity could be substantially more efficient than converting it to mechanical energy in an engine alone, although there would be losses over the power grid and in electric cars, with electric cars typically being 80%+ efficient and power losses of 5-10% occurring over the power grid, thus losing no more than a quarter of the energy through this method from source to wheel on road.
Algae
Algae could be used to capture the exhaust from the steam turbines to prevent it from going into the atmosphere, and then use that algae could be used to produce ethanol. As of now the standard 5-10% ethanol gasoline fuel blend currently used in most unleaded standard gasoline seems to possess the equivalent fuel efficiency of gasoline, despite ethanol being somewhat weaker than gasoline. This means that burning ethanol in addition to gasoline in the right concentration seems to keep its power level at the same level as straight gasoline, and is basically like adding free fuel, simply by reusing previously discarded waste products.
Energy Independence
It would also make self-reliance on energy a much more feasible task. The United States in 2004 imported nearly 65% of its oil from other countries, and this was considered the peak import year for the 2000 onward period (foreign oil usage is expected to drop to 54% by 2030).[1][2] If the efficiency of the United States’ use of oil was increased by just 3 times its current amount, all the gasoline used in the United States could come from local sources. This means that a dependency on foreign imported oil, some of this oil that could potentially come from questionable sources, would be eliminated and the United States’ energy supply needed for daily expenses and even potentially economic prowess could be entirely in its own hands.[1][2] Additionally,
In conclusion
The price of practically everything could fall (given the costs of transportation and manufacture), various energy intensive products, pollution could be virtually eliminated and various dependencies on foreign oil could be removed, allowing country's to prosper without politically unfavorable conditions.
While we would still be reliant on gasoline, the said process would create a lot less pollution and would provide vastly more energy for no foreseeable increase in cost in regards to fuel consumption, being a good option for all of the United States’ and other affiliated countries’ energy needs.
Gasoline is an incredibly powerful fuel source, possessing around 21.5 million joules per pound, compared to coal at around 11 million joules. Gasoline, or petrol, is currently used in automobiles, planes, and other vehicles due to its raw power and high energy density. Electricity produced from gasoline currently costs X per kilowatt hour, compared to X for coal. However, a lot of gasoline is currently wasted; the efficiency of many automobiles is lacking as much of the gasoline is wasted generating heat. A typical internal combustion engine only possesses about 26% thermal efficiency and only about 20% mechanical efficiency.[3]
Comparatively, industrial steam turbines, such as those used in coal plants, generally have around 35-40 efficiency, and can theoretically be up to 60-90% efficient. If the energy generated from gasoline was produced more efficiently, from more efficient steam turbines, was converted to electricity and used in electric cars, it's easy to see how it could potentially be much more efficient than being used in standard automotive engines, and for other energy needs.
If this energy was stored as electricity, this means that the energy, over the power grid and through cars, could easily be 3 times more efficient when used in vehicles after the energy is generated with multi-million dollar steam turbines. This would mean that we would not only get three times as much energy from gasoline as we do now, but that the cost of gasoline would essentially drop by 1/3 its current amount, being, essentially, 3 times more efficient. If the energy was generated in a more efficient machine before being used in vehicles one could easily reduce the price of locomotion drastically and reduce emissions. In addition, the reduction in demand could also reduce prices, thus decreasing the cost of gasoline even further.
Demand
Additionally, much of the price of gasoline is due to demand and the difficulty of extracting it to meet that demand.[1][3] If demand fell, the supply and demand economic price floor would not only fall, but also it's price of recovery. While demand for oil spiked, due to the extremely fast paced growth of developing country's in the world, and oil productions inability to fully meet this demand, oil production prices themselves have to increase to meet the demand. Oil wells are often assisted with natural pressures or require very little pressure to get oil out of them; oil well depth and the amount needed to be obtained can increase the price of oil exponentially, as drilling requires progressively more oil out of an oil well to get more oil. If the oil is removed slowly, than the cost of oil from that well decreases exponentially; however, the same is true for extracting oil at much faster rates. Thus, supply and demand factors due to world economic growth has not only increased the price indirectly, but directly by requiring more oil to be drilled from wells than is economically feasible.
Diesel
Diesel fuel, in general, is more efficient in most engines than gasoline alone. With a longer stroke, more oxygen is allowed into the engine which increases the efficiency somewhat. A typical diesel engine can see up to 40% efficiency, which is roughly double that of standard gasoline engines. This makes it ideal for high efficiency; in used with turbines
Diesel can be refined from the same crude oil source as gasoline*
Turbine
The average coal turbine in the U.S. has approximately 35-40% electrical efficiency, or how much efficiency could be transformed into electricity; the average automobile has approximately 20% mechanical efficiency, which is around half of this level. The engine to electricity efficiency is*
Thus, in use with turbines, gasoline or crude oil based electricity could be substantially more efficient than converting it to mechanical energy in an engine alone, although there would be losses over the power grid and in electric cars, with electric cars typically being 80%+ efficient and power losses of 5-10% occurring over the power grid, thus losing no more than a quarter of the energy through this method from source to wheel on road.
Algae
Algae could be used to capture the exhaust from the steam turbines to prevent it from going into the atmosphere, and then use that algae could be used to produce ethanol. As of now the standard 5-10% ethanol gasoline fuel blend currently used in most unleaded standard gasoline seems to possess the equivalent fuel efficiency of gasoline, despite ethanol being somewhat weaker than gasoline. This means that burning ethanol in addition to gasoline in the right concentration seems to keep its power level at the same level as straight gasoline, and is basically like adding free fuel, simply by reusing previously discarded waste products.
Energy Independence
It would also make self-reliance on energy a much more feasible task. The United States in 2004 imported nearly 65% of its oil from other countries, and this was considered the peak import year for the 2000 onward period (foreign oil usage is expected to drop to 54% by 2030).[1][2] If the efficiency of the United States’ use of oil was increased by just 3 times its current amount, all the gasoline used in the United States could come from local sources. This means that a dependency on foreign imported oil, some of this oil that could potentially come from questionable sources, would be eliminated and the United States’ energy supply needed for daily expenses and even potentially economic prowess could be entirely in its own hands.[1][2] Additionally,
In conclusion
The price of practically everything could fall (given the costs of transportation and manufacture), various energy intensive products, pollution could be virtually eliminated and various dependencies on foreign oil could be removed, allowing country's to prosper without politically unfavorable conditions.
While we would still be reliant on gasoline, the said process would create a lot less pollution and would provide vastly more energy for no foreseeable increase in cost in regards to fuel consumption, being a good option for all of the United States’ and other affiliated countries’ energy needs.
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium is already approximately 20% cheaper than coal. New reactor designs, such as CANDU reactors, promise to be approximately 60% of the price of regular uranium, or roughly half the price of coal. These reactors, in and of themselves, derive approximately 60-70% of their price from nothing but pure interest from bank loans. If that was removed, via low-interest loans by the government and the use of slightly enriched uranium, it could be an additional 3 times cheaper, or at least 6 times cheaper than coal. This by and large would be the cheapest electricity in the U.S., and so cheap in fact that carbon fiber or electric batteries could become on par with the price of automotive steel and it's engine, making electric cars possess roughly the same price as regular cars. These cars would not only be lighter weight and safer, but more fuel efficient, and allow for the use of electricity which would be, 6 times cheaper. This is in addition to other advanced technologies that consume large amounts of electricity in their production. On top of this Uranium is incredibly clean, producing little to no carbon emissions and it's nuclear waste can easily be stored and dealt with (contrary to some belief). By itself, it would be an ideal fuel source to meet America's energy need, and eventually, the world, getting them off of the use of fossil fuels.
Uranium currently comprises approximately 19-21% of the U.S.'s electricity generation per year, or around 8-9% of the U.S.'s total energy usage. [1] This is predominately powered by 104 U.S. nuclear uranium reactors, with a third of the power coming from just 10 of these reactors. [PDF][PDF]
There has never been a total melt down on U.S. soil, or in a U.S. military station.[4][5][6] Uranium produces little to no emissions (there may be some, for the initial power to get the plant running). substantial consistent power, and as of now there have been less fatalities and injuries with uranium usage world wide than coal, oil, or natural gas. The hazardous waste produced by Uranium can be easily isolated and relocated without much issue. Part of this comes from the unusable space that is naturally radioactive from the ambient uranium mined in parts of the world or at the nuclear facility itself in incredibly regulated airtight containers (where people are generally unable to live). Part of this is because the threat of Uranium waste has been exaggerated over the years, as Uranium fuel is only dangerous for about 50 years before cooling down to a much safer state. Thorium could also potentially reduce the price of nuclear waste clean up, by being polarized but substantially cheaper than the clay which is usually used to clean up nuclear waste.[1][2][3]
Costs
According to the U.S. department of energy's 2012 estimates, advanced nuclear reactors are predicted to cost approximately 112.7 dollars per megawatt hour, compared to advanced coal at around 112.2 dollars per megawatt hour, or 99.6 for current, conventional coal. This puts advanced nuclear (or new nuclear power plant costs) around the same cost as coal, per megawatt, or around 13% more expensive than current coal prices (although this may change in the future). Therefore it's costs are comparable to coal (unlike say solar costs, which could be approximately twice as expensive), although they are currently about 20% cheaper.
However, there are many potential ways to reduce costs. A large bulk of the cost of uranium comes from the cost of the reactor, the large down payment, and interest and insurance over time. Interest, on average makes up about 2/3rds of the cost; in some cases, the cost of interest can reach up to 70% of the cost of Uranium Power, and the return investment costs, that is large downpayments, typically make up 70-80% of the cost of nuclear power. [1][PDF] By using low-interest loans, such as those provided by the government, it would be theoretically possible to drop the price of Uranium by nearly two thirds or, make it 3 times cheaper. When coupled with the already low price of CANDU reactors, it is possible for Uranium reactors to be up to 6 times cheaper than coal, and potentially cheaper than that if smaller facilities and slightly enriched uranium was used.
Annually, roughly 6,000 tonnes of uranium are consumed in reactors by the U.S. [1][2][3]; the U.S. peaked uranium mining at roughly 16,000 tonnes in X year.[1][2] Uranium costs roughly 125 dollars per kilogram[1][2][3]; this means that for annual consumption, the fuel costs of Uranium are roughly 750 million to 2 billion dollars. Yet annually, from this uranium, the costs for uranium power was somewhere around 70 billion dollars.[1][2][3] The rest of the cost for uranium rests in processing, safety protocols, the breeding process, safe transportation, waste disposal, and various other costs, such as the large down payment for the reactors.
If the government provided cheap, low interest loans, not necessarily profitable for banks, but possible for the government, Uranium power could be substantially cheaper, not only more so than coal, but enough to make many energy intensive products significantly cheaper (such as carbon fiber or lithium ion). By reducing interests rates alone, uranium costs could be lowered by up to 70%, or over 2/3rds.
As a down payment, that, presumably, the uranium companies would repay, this would cost the government approximately X trillion dollars. Compared to the government bail outs of X and X, and the fact that these costs would be repaid, this issue seems manageable.
In return the government would have at least produced 3-6 times cheaper electricity, which in turn could produce more economical transportation, batteries, and many other benefits to society, potentially sparking a technological revolution. It as well, would at least reduce government spending by approximately without reducing coverage. It's easy to see that these benefits would be well worth the cost, and with the technology and capabilities well established, there are little issues present with the theoretical design. All that needs to be done is for government cooperation and bills to pass to support this.
Waste Reduction and Danger
CANDU and Advanced Reactors
Yeah!
Uranium is already approximately 20% cheaper than coal. New reactor designs, such as CANDU reactors, promise to be approximately 60% of the price of regular uranium, or roughly half the price of coal. These reactors, in and of themselves, derive approximately 60-70% of their price from nothing but pure interest from bank loans. If that was removed, via low-interest loans by the government and the use of slightly enriched uranium, it could be an additional 3 times cheaper, or at least 6 times cheaper than coal. This by and large would be the cheapest electricity in the U.S., and so cheap in fact that carbon fiber or electric batteries could become on par with the price of automotive steel and it's engine, making electric cars possess roughly the same price as regular cars. These cars would not only be lighter weight and safer, but more fuel efficient, and allow for the use of electricity which would be, 6 times cheaper. This is in addition to other advanced technologies that consume large amounts of electricity in their production. On top of this Uranium is incredibly clean, producing little to no carbon emissions and it's nuclear waste can easily be stored and dealt with (contrary to some belief). By itself, it would be an ideal fuel source to meet America's energy need, and eventually, the world, getting them off of the use of fossil fuels.
Uranium currently comprises approximately 19-21% of the U.S.'s electricity generation per year, or around 8-9% of the U.S.'s total energy usage. [1] This is predominately powered by 104 U.S. nuclear uranium reactors, with a third of the power coming from just 10 of these reactors. [PDF][PDF]
There has never been a total melt down on U.S. soil, or in a U.S. military station.[4][5][6] Uranium produces little to no emissions (there may be some, for the initial power to get the plant running). substantial consistent power, and as of now there have been less fatalities and injuries with uranium usage world wide than coal, oil, or natural gas. The hazardous waste produced by Uranium can be easily isolated and relocated without much issue. Part of this comes from the unusable space that is naturally radioactive from the ambient uranium mined in parts of the world or at the nuclear facility itself in incredibly regulated airtight containers (where people are generally unable to live). Part of this is because the threat of Uranium waste has been exaggerated over the years, as Uranium fuel is only dangerous for about 50 years before cooling down to a much safer state. Thorium could also potentially reduce the price of nuclear waste clean up, by being polarized but substantially cheaper than the clay which is usually used to clean up nuclear waste.[1][2][3]
Costs
According to the U.S. department of energy's 2012 estimates, advanced nuclear reactors are predicted to cost approximately 112.7 dollars per megawatt hour, compared to advanced coal at around 112.2 dollars per megawatt hour, or 99.6 for current, conventional coal. This puts advanced nuclear (or new nuclear power plant costs) around the same cost as coal, per megawatt, or around 13% more expensive than current coal prices (although this may change in the future). Therefore it's costs are comparable to coal (unlike say solar costs, which could be approximately twice as expensive), although they are currently about 20% cheaper.
However, there are many potential ways to reduce costs. A large bulk of the cost of uranium comes from the cost of the reactor, the large down payment, and interest and insurance over time. Interest, on average makes up about 2/3rds of the cost; in some cases, the cost of interest can reach up to 70% of the cost of Uranium Power, and the return investment costs, that is large downpayments, typically make up 70-80% of the cost of nuclear power. [1][PDF] By using low-interest loans, such as those provided by the government, it would be theoretically possible to drop the price of Uranium by nearly two thirds or, make it 3 times cheaper. When coupled with the already low price of CANDU reactors, it is possible for Uranium reactors to be up to 6 times cheaper than coal, and potentially cheaper than that if smaller facilities and slightly enriched uranium was used.
Annually, roughly 6,000 tonnes of uranium are consumed in reactors by the U.S. [1][2][3]; the U.S. peaked uranium mining at roughly 16,000 tonnes in X year.[1][2] Uranium costs roughly 125 dollars per kilogram[1][2][3]; this means that for annual consumption, the fuel costs of Uranium are roughly 750 million to 2 billion dollars. Yet annually, from this uranium, the costs for uranium power was somewhere around 70 billion dollars.[1][2][3] The rest of the cost for uranium rests in processing, safety protocols, the breeding process, safe transportation, waste disposal, and various other costs, such as the large down payment for the reactors.
If the government provided cheap, low interest loans, not necessarily profitable for banks, but possible for the government, Uranium power could be substantially cheaper, not only more so than coal, but enough to make many energy intensive products significantly cheaper (such as carbon fiber or lithium ion). By reducing interests rates alone, uranium costs could be lowered by up to 70%, or over 2/3rds.
As a down payment, that, presumably, the uranium companies would repay, this would cost the government approximately X trillion dollars. Compared to the government bail outs of X and X, and the fact that these costs would be repaid, this issue seems manageable.
In return the government would have at least produced 3-6 times cheaper electricity, which in turn could produce more economical transportation, batteries, and many other benefits to society, potentially sparking a technological revolution. It as well, would at least reduce government spending by approximately without reducing coverage. It's easy to see that these benefits would be well worth the cost, and with the technology and capabilities well established, there are little issues present with the theoretical design. All that needs to be done is for government cooperation and bills to pass to support this.
Waste Reduction and Danger
CANDU and Advanced Reactors
Yeah!
Renewable Energy in Antartica
Antarctica
Temperature, climate, sunlight, wind, etc.
Wind power
Works better in the cold
Winds
Solar Panels on the Poles
Solar power shows promising yield for the future. There was more solar energy absorbed by earth in one hour than the entire world's annual consumption of energy in 2002; Approximately 3,850,000 exajoules of solar energy reach the earth's atmosphere, clouds, and land mass every year. Since the sun is presumed to exist for at least a few more billion years, it presents itself as one of the most abundant, cleanest, and least resource constrained sources of energy available. With graphene solar cells, potentially flexible, incredibly tough (graphene has shown to be remarkably resilient, at around 200 times stronger than steel, and 1/10th the weight), and roughly 3-4 times more efficient than current solar cells (particularly if combined with UV or infrared/thermal cells), as well as being made from carbon, solar power is likely the inevitable future of earth.
However, currently solar panels pose many problems; many of these are currently economical. According to the Department of energy, solar panels are approximately blank cost, or approximately twice as expensive as coal, uranium, and blank. Solar panel capabilities depend on the local weather, recent phenomena, and generally tend to be inconsistent and at times random. Batteries that can store energy for long periods of times, to work out these kinks, or even wide spread solar panels to potentially compensate when certain areas of the world are under prolonged sunlight constraints, are all problems associated with solar panels. Expense, variability in power output, and longevity in equipment life are all important considerations for solar panels, many of which are still being addressed.
While solar power possess enormous potential for the future, there are issues that need to be resolved before every day solar panels are a practical reality.
That is why, I recommend putting solar panels on the poles and, specifically, Antarctica!
Solar Panels on the Poles
Solar panels on the poles of the earth promote several unique advantages. The poles are relatively cold, which present an ideal advantage for semiconductors such as solar panels, which perform well at lower temperatures. The area is mostly uninhabited, which means there's lots of open space, there's consistent, day and night sunlight, eliminating variability and even potentially day and night cycles (therefore eliminating the need for batteries, somewhat, or the need for their cycle life), and there's abundant light at the poles, potentially more so than at most places in the world.
It's generally well known that solar panels are best suited for cold, sunny days. Despite the increased sunlight generally experienced in warmer areas, usually on warmer days solar panel's effiencies are lowered somewhat. It's relatively well known that each degree past about 25 degrees Celsius lowers the efficiency of the solar panel by about .5%. It is also generally accepted that a solar panel will also be approximately 20 degrees warmer than the ambient temperature.
Steam Turbines
Accelerators
Computers
Temperature, climate, sunlight, wind, etc.
Wind power
Works better in the cold
Winds
Solar Panels on the Poles
Solar power shows promising yield for the future. There was more solar energy absorbed by earth in one hour than the entire world's annual consumption of energy in 2002; Approximately 3,850,000 exajoules of solar energy reach the earth's atmosphere, clouds, and land mass every year. Since the sun is presumed to exist for at least a few more billion years, it presents itself as one of the most abundant, cleanest, and least resource constrained sources of energy available. With graphene solar cells, potentially flexible, incredibly tough (graphene has shown to be remarkably resilient, at around 200 times stronger than steel, and 1/10th the weight), and roughly 3-4 times more efficient than current solar cells (particularly if combined with UV or infrared/thermal cells), as well as being made from carbon, solar power is likely the inevitable future of earth.
However, currently solar panels pose many problems; many of these are currently economical. According to the Department of energy, solar panels are approximately blank cost, or approximately twice as expensive as coal, uranium, and blank. Solar panel capabilities depend on the local weather, recent phenomena, and generally tend to be inconsistent and at times random. Batteries that can store energy for long periods of times, to work out these kinks, or even wide spread solar panels to potentially compensate when certain areas of the world are under prolonged sunlight constraints, are all problems associated with solar panels. Expense, variability in power output, and longevity in equipment life are all important considerations for solar panels, many of which are still being addressed.
While solar power possess enormous potential for the future, there are issues that need to be resolved before every day solar panels are a practical reality.
That is why, I recommend putting solar panels on the poles and, specifically, Antarctica!
Solar Panels on the Poles
Solar panels on the poles of the earth promote several unique advantages. The poles are relatively cold, which present an ideal advantage for semiconductors such as solar panels, which perform well at lower temperatures. The area is mostly uninhabited, which means there's lots of open space, there's consistent, day and night sunlight, eliminating variability and even potentially day and night cycles (therefore eliminating the need for batteries, somewhat, or the need for their cycle life), and there's abundant light at the poles, potentially more so than at most places in the world.
It's generally well known that solar panels are best suited for cold, sunny days. Despite the increased sunlight generally experienced in warmer areas, usually on warmer days solar panel's effiencies are lowered somewhat. It's relatively well known that each degree past about 25 degrees Celsius lowers the efficiency of the solar panel by about .5%. It is also generally accepted that a solar panel will also be approximately 20 degrees warmer than the ambient temperature.
Steam Turbines
Accelerators
Computers
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction (and thus is incapable of exploding), is only mildly radioactive, can produce a significant amount of power (it can theoretically produce 200 times more power than uranium, per kilogram), produces little to no greenhouse emissions from energy production, produces short lived and difficult to weaponize nuclear waste, and because of these features and more would make an ideal fuel source. [1][2][3] Fissionable Thorium releases approximately the same amount of energy as Uranium per kilogram, but as nearly 100% of Thorium found in nature is fissionable (99.98% being Thorium 232) in comparison to only .7% of Uranium (U-235), and more usable thorium can be extracted from the source material than from Uranium, Thorium possesses approximately 140-200 times the power of uranium for each kilogram of the fuel found in nature. As Thorium is approximately 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, it provides the potential for energy for thousands of years, securing sufficient power production until fusion energy can be perfected. The primary issue of Thorium rests in creating reactors which can reliably produce the energy, which while a small handful exist, is a less developed technology than Uranium-based reactors. Particularly, Thorium requires an external high energy neutron source, such as from an accelerator to accelerate the particles, other nuclear reactions including uranium, plutonium or fusion, or a neutron reflector, making it's inherent safety and stability it's key detriment for easy power generation. As it is difficult for Thorium atoms to be split on their own, it requires constant external output to produce power, which while guaranteeing high stability, makes it difficult to use as a power source.
Thorium is an abundant element, roughly 3 times more abundant than tin and uranium, and approximately as abundant as lead.[1][2][3][4] Found in nature in almost 100% pure concentrations of Thorium-232, or the stable fissionable type of Thorium, there is a higher quantity of usable Thorium available, and no required breeding process, allowing for 140-200 times more usable Thorium than Uranium. Thorium is present in ordinary soil, on average, at about 6 parts per million, or about 1 in 166,000, making it's presence on earth widespread. [1][2][3] Thorium is only mildly radioactive, so it doesn't present a significant radiological threat despite it's naturally wide spread abundance. There is an estimated 1.6-2.8 million tonnes of Thorium in the world, with approximately 400-440,000 in the United States alone. [1] This is in theory sufficient to power the world's energy needs, at it's current rate of consumption (which is subject to change), for several thousand years, presuming most of the energy from the Thorium could be extracted.
The key component to Thorium's safety, and difficulty for use, is in low reactivity and high stability. With a half-life of approximately 14 billion years, or roughly the life of the universe, and difficulty in creating a self sustaining reaction, it cannot be used in a weapon or go critical accidentally, however given it's stability it is difficult to use for power generation, as it is difficult to extract power from as it will not start a self sustainable chain reaction. Thorium requires an external neutron source to be powered, as it is fertile, but not fissile.[1][2][3] It can be used as fuel, under the right conditions, but it does not support a self sustaining reaction (like uranium-235 or plutonium-239) and cannot be used in an atom bomb or similar weapon, or result in a catastrophic melt down. In order for Thorium to operate it must be continually fed high velocity, high energy neutrons from an outside source, to break down the bonds of the atom and subsequently cause fission, which is the splitting of the atom to produce energy. The fission of U-235 for example, a fuel source commonly used in atom bombs and light water reactors (common in the U.S.), releases 2-3 neutrons capable of causing fission, meaning that each U-235 atom concurrently releases 2-3 more neutrons, and each of those neutrons release 2-3 more until an exponentially accelerating chain reaction occurs. Unlike uranium or plutonium, Thorium does not release neutrons during fission, nor do the majority of it's by products (U-233), disallowing the fission of Thorium to initiate the fission of another Thorium atom.[1][2][3] Thorium is therefore functionally incapable of supporting a nuclear chain reaction, and so energy cannot be released exponentially in an uncontrolled manner, or go critical, and thus cause a melt down or be weaponized. With a subcritical reactor, the reaction will cease unless continually fed neutrons from an outside source.[1][2][3] This means that if the mechanism shuts down or fails, it will not be able to release energy, making the design inherently safe, but also difficult to maintain. The crux of current Thorium power generation is this key issue, which can be resolved potentially in a number of ways, of which no large scale power plants exist, with only small, experimental reactors being used.
In addition to this, Thorium is only mildly radioactive and thus generally safe to humans[1][2][3], as it produces alpha particles, which are incapable of getting through human skin.[1][2][3] With a half life of roughly 14.05 billion years, or over the estimated length of the life of the universe, thorium is unlikely to produce significant amounts of radiation or by products when compared to other comparable fission fuel sources such as uranium.[1][2][3][4] Thorium was used frequently, and still is used commonly in gas mantles or lanterns, giving the lanterns a distinctive appearance, and was also used in the production of crucibles and various kinds of clay. [1][2][3] Despite recent concerns of potential health risks, even in relatively high concentrations Thorium poses little if any major health risk unless inhaled or consumed in abundant quantities. As it has low biological toxicity in addition to it's low radiotoxicity, it would take extremely high concentrations to make Thorium dangerous. [1][2][3][4] However when powered Thorium metal is pyrophoric, which means it can spontaneously combust in mid-air, making it a fire hazard risk.
Potential Reactor Designs and Costs
There are many potential reactor designs for Thorium, ranging from plutonium initiated designs, to fusion initiated, to accelerator driven "sub-critical" designs, and heavy water reactors. Thorium offers promising features over uranium reactors, as it would be able to produce over 200 times the power of Uranium, per kilogram, has short lived weakly radioactive waste, and wouldn't require the proliferation of dangerous or hazardous materials such as P-239. In all systems, regardless, they have the potential to produce cheap, clean power for many hundreds to thousands of years. These systems do not require a breeding process like with uranium, nor expensive safety restrictions and protections due to their inherent safety. The cost of the fuel, reactor, power plant, are all that are required to determine the cost of Thorium, which removes much of the insurance and interest costs of uranium, which are also likely excessive for Uranium. With a higher degree of inherent safety and a greater abundance of fuel, Thorium offers the potential for cheaper power, in addition to a long term solution for global energy needs.
Since the energy levels of Thorium are comparable to Uranium, and the primary costs from uranium come from the breeding process and safety issues, it's conceivable Thorium could be substantially cheaper for the same power output. Uranium powers roughly 20.9% of the nation's energy[1][2][3], with approximately 104 reactors[1][2][3]. Annually, roughly 6,000 tonnes of uranium are consumed [1][2][3]; the U.S. peaked mining at roughly 16,000 tonnes in X year.[1][2] Uranium costs roughly 125 dollars per kilogram[1][2][3][4]; this means that for annual consumption, the fuel costs are only roughly 750 million to 2 billion dollars. Yet annually, from this uranium, the costs for uranium power were around 80 billion dollars. [1][2][3] The rest of the cost for uranium rests in processing, safety protocols, the breeding process, safe transportation, waste disposal, and various other issues.[1][2] Since much of this could be eliminated with Thorium, it is conceivable that Thorium could be significantly cheaper based on these features alone.
This means that Thorium is not only safe, clean, and abundant, but potentially an incredibly cheap power source as well, like Uranium. The primary issue is that Thorium depends on high energy neutrons in order to operate. In theory this can come from another fission process, such as with plutonium or uranium, however this will have the side effect of decreased safety and higher levels of radioactive waste, negating much of the advantage of Thorium, and be more difficult to produce. Hybrid fusion reactors hold a considerable amount of promise, as fusion produces very little waste but is not economically viable on it's own, producing less energy than is put in to it, and thorium being added to the fuel cycle could increase efficiency and total energy output than fusion alone. As modern fusion reactors waste most of the energy on the reactor walls, creating a modern fusion reactor with it's walls made out of Thorium may alleave this issue to some extent, capturing the stray neutrons and producing energy instead. However, fusion reactors also are an underdeveloped technology, hindering this process somewhat. Accelerator driven reactors hold a large amount of promise in that they simply accelerate particles to the velocity needed to cause sub-critical Thorium fission, however the spallation material makes the neutron bombardment inconsistent as particle accelerators can generally not accelerate neutrons, but only charged particles such as protons, making the proccess inefficient.
In Short
In short, Thorium, even with the most promising, and most ambitious accelerator driven designs, could reduce energy costs substantially, potentially 10's of times that below current energy costs, which could help out the U.S. in a variety of ways. With it's short lived waste, no emissions, and potential for thousands of years worth of electricity, it is a suitable replacement for energy levels of the U.S. and potentially the rest of the world.
Thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction (and thus is incapable of exploding), is only mildly radioactive, can produce a significant amount of power (it can theoretically produce 200 times more power than uranium, per kilogram), produces little to no greenhouse emissions from energy production, produces short lived and difficult to weaponize nuclear waste, and because of these features and more would make an ideal fuel source. [1][2][3] Fissionable Thorium releases approximately the same amount of energy as Uranium per kilogram, but as nearly 100% of Thorium found in nature is fissionable (99.98% being Thorium 232) in comparison to only .7% of Uranium (U-235), and more usable thorium can be extracted from the source material than from Uranium, Thorium possesses approximately 140-200 times the power of uranium for each kilogram of the fuel found in nature. As Thorium is approximately 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, it provides the potential for energy for thousands of years, securing sufficient power production until fusion energy can be perfected. The primary issue of Thorium rests in creating reactors which can reliably produce the energy, which while a small handful exist, is a less developed technology than Uranium-based reactors. Particularly, Thorium requires an external high energy neutron source, such as from an accelerator to accelerate the particles, other nuclear reactions including uranium, plutonium or fusion, or a neutron reflector, making it's inherent safety and stability it's key detriment for easy power generation. As it is difficult for Thorium atoms to be split on their own, it requires constant external output to produce power, which while guaranteeing high stability, makes it difficult to use as a power source.
Thorium is an abundant element, roughly 3 times more abundant than tin and uranium, and approximately as abundant as lead.[1][2][3][4] Found in nature in almost 100% pure concentrations of Thorium-232, or the stable fissionable type of Thorium, there is a higher quantity of usable Thorium available, and no required breeding process, allowing for 140-200 times more usable Thorium than Uranium. Thorium is present in ordinary soil, on average, at about 6 parts per million, or about 1 in 166,000, making it's presence on earth widespread. [1][2][3] Thorium is only mildly radioactive, so it doesn't present a significant radiological threat despite it's naturally wide spread abundance. There is an estimated 1.6-2.8 million tonnes of Thorium in the world, with approximately 400-440,000 in the United States alone. [1] This is in theory sufficient to power the world's energy needs, at it's current rate of consumption (which is subject to change), for several thousand years, presuming most of the energy from the Thorium could be extracted.
The key component to Thorium's safety, and difficulty for use, is in low reactivity and high stability. With a half-life of approximately 14 billion years, or roughly the life of the universe, and difficulty in creating a self sustaining reaction, it cannot be used in a weapon or go critical accidentally, however given it's stability it is difficult to use for power generation, as it is difficult to extract power from as it will not start a self sustainable chain reaction. Thorium requires an external neutron source to be powered, as it is fertile, but not fissile.[1][2][3] It can be used as fuel, under the right conditions, but it does not support a self sustaining reaction (like uranium-235 or plutonium-239) and cannot be used in an atom bomb or similar weapon, or result in a catastrophic melt down. In order for Thorium to operate it must be continually fed high velocity, high energy neutrons from an outside source, to break down the bonds of the atom and subsequently cause fission, which is the splitting of the atom to produce energy. The fission of U-235 for example, a fuel source commonly used in atom bombs and light water reactors (common in the U.S.), releases 2-3 neutrons capable of causing fission, meaning that each U-235 atom concurrently releases 2-3 more neutrons, and each of those neutrons release 2-3 more until an exponentially accelerating chain reaction occurs. Unlike uranium or plutonium, Thorium does not release neutrons during fission, nor do the majority of it's by products (U-233), disallowing the fission of Thorium to initiate the fission of another Thorium atom.[1][2][3] Thorium is therefore functionally incapable of supporting a nuclear chain reaction, and so energy cannot be released exponentially in an uncontrolled manner, or go critical, and thus cause a melt down or be weaponized. With a subcritical reactor, the reaction will cease unless continually fed neutrons from an outside source.[1][2][3] This means that if the mechanism shuts down or fails, it will not be able to release energy, making the design inherently safe, but also difficult to maintain. The crux of current Thorium power generation is this key issue, which can be resolved potentially in a number of ways, of which no large scale power plants exist, with only small, experimental reactors being used.
In addition to this, Thorium is only mildly radioactive and thus generally safe to humans[1][2][3], as it produces alpha particles, which are incapable of getting through human skin.[1][2][3] With a half life of roughly 14.05 billion years, or over the estimated length of the life of the universe, thorium is unlikely to produce significant amounts of radiation or by products when compared to other comparable fission fuel sources such as uranium.[1][2][3][4] Thorium was used frequently, and still is used commonly in gas mantles or lanterns, giving the lanterns a distinctive appearance, and was also used in the production of crucibles and various kinds of clay. [1][2][3] Despite recent concerns of potential health risks, even in relatively high concentrations Thorium poses little if any major health risk unless inhaled or consumed in abundant quantities. As it has low biological toxicity in addition to it's low radiotoxicity, it would take extremely high concentrations to make Thorium dangerous. [1][2][3][4] However when powered Thorium metal is pyrophoric, which means it can spontaneously combust in mid-air, making it a fire hazard risk.
Potential Reactor Designs and Costs
There are many potential reactor designs for Thorium, ranging from plutonium initiated designs, to fusion initiated, to accelerator driven "sub-critical" designs, and heavy water reactors. Thorium offers promising features over uranium reactors, as it would be able to produce over 200 times the power of Uranium, per kilogram, has short lived weakly radioactive waste, and wouldn't require the proliferation of dangerous or hazardous materials such as P-239. In all systems, regardless, they have the potential to produce cheap, clean power for many hundreds to thousands of years. These systems do not require a breeding process like with uranium, nor expensive safety restrictions and protections due to their inherent safety. The cost of the fuel, reactor, power plant, are all that are required to determine the cost of Thorium, which removes much of the insurance and interest costs of uranium, which are also likely excessive for Uranium. With a higher degree of inherent safety and a greater abundance of fuel, Thorium offers the potential for cheaper power, in addition to a long term solution for global energy needs.
Since the energy levels of Thorium are comparable to Uranium, and the primary costs from uranium come from the breeding process and safety issues, it's conceivable Thorium could be substantially cheaper for the same power output. Uranium powers roughly 20.9% of the nation's energy[1][2][3], with approximately 104 reactors[1][2][3]. Annually, roughly 6,000 tonnes of uranium are consumed [1][2][3]; the U.S. peaked mining at roughly 16,000 tonnes in X year.[1][2] Uranium costs roughly 125 dollars per kilogram[1][2][3][4]; this means that for annual consumption, the fuel costs are only roughly 750 million to 2 billion dollars. Yet annually, from this uranium, the costs for uranium power were around 80 billion dollars. [1][2][3] The rest of the cost for uranium rests in processing, safety protocols, the breeding process, safe transportation, waste disposal, and various other issues.[1][2] Since much of this could be eliminated with Thorium, it is conceivable that Thorium could be significantly cheaper based on these features alone.
This means that Thorium is not only safe, clean, and abundant, but potentially an incredibly cheap power source as well, like Uranium. The primary issue is that Thorium depends on high energy neutrons in order to operate. In theory this can come from another fission process, such as with plutonium or uranium, however this will have the side effect of decreased safety and higher levels of radioactive waste, negating much of the advantage of Thorium, and be more difficult to produce. Hybrid fusion reactors hold a considerable amount of promise, as fusion produces very little waste but is not economically viable on it's own, producing less energy than is put in to it, and thorium being added to the fuel cycle could increase efficiency and total energy output than fusion alone. As modern fusion reactors waste most of the energy on the reactor walls, creating a modern fusion reactor with it's walls made out of Thorium may alleave this issue to some extent, capturing the stray neutrons and producing energy instead. However, fusion reactors also are an underdeveloped technology, hindering this process somewhat. Accelerator driven reactors hold a large amount of promise in that they simply accelerate particles to the velocity needed to cause sub-critical Thorium fission, however the spallation material makes the neutron bombardment inconsistent as particle accelerators can generally not accelerate neutrons, but only charged particles such as protons, making the proccess inefficient.
In Short
In short, Thorium, even with the most promising, and most ambitious accelerator driven designs, could reduce energy costs substantially, potentially 10's of times that below current energy costs, which could help out the U.S. in a variety of ways. With it's short lived waste, no emissions, and potential for thousands of years worth of electricity, it is a suitable replacement for energy levels of the U.S. and potentially the rest of the world.
The Impact of Energy Costs
The Impact of Energy Costs
Energy costs, whether directly or indirectly, influence the cost of nearly everything in the market and our general lives today. From transportation costs, to recovering resources, to manufacturing, energy forms a significant cost of nearly all goods on the market.
Specific goods, such as carbon fiber and lithium ion, which possess predominately energy costs, can have their costs reduced to economical levels, to replace gasoline for transportation in electric vehicles, and generally be useful. By generally reducing the cost of electricity, you can reduce the cost of everything, and some materials substantially more than others, allowing for the creation of economical products otherwise not possible before.
As long as there is energy, fertilizer, clean water, basic appliances and modern living can continue. As ammonium nitrate fertilizer makes up 2% of our energy consumption, water x %, and concrete 7%, basic things we need to live such as homes, water and food are all dependent on our energy production, as is their price. We need energy to power our modern society, and any increase in price isn't just felt at the pump or the meter, but all across society, in nearly every venue. Furthermore, most advanced electronics require signification energy investment, such as computers or cellphones, and thus their price is dependent on the price of electricity. Reducing these prices not only means cheaper products in general, but certain options becoming a practical reality that were not before.
For instance, due to cheaper batteries, carbon fiber and electronics, electric cars could be nearly the same price as regular cars or even cheaper, meaning they would become practically affordable. While batteries, such as lithium titanate, are extremely expensive due to their high energy costs, they can be recharged to 90% of their capacity in about 10 minutes, and can store almost as much energy as lithium ion. They also have approximately 20 times the cycle life, meaning they last much longer and be charged and recharged much more frequently. This would allow electric cars to compete against gasoline cars, and with the cheaper electricity itself which it runs on could allow for even cheaper transportation. As electric cars are already approximately 4-5 times more efficient than gasoline cars, and electricity could be over 6 times cheaper with certain methods (Thorium, uranium etc.), transportation costs could be easily 20-30 times cheaper. This would benefit the average person in the U.S., but it could also benefit the transportation industry, such as 18 wheelers shipping cargo or trains, and significantly reduce our pollution. Roads that powered cars as they traveled would become a practical reality, not requiring recharging until you got off of a main road, allowing for nearly limitless travel. Combined with automated driving, this could allow for cars to practically drive themselves, with few inputs or need to stop by their human users.
With cheap enough energy, gold could be made from lead or mercury, and actually turn a profit, meaning we could mass produce it Diamonds, sapphire and other expensive minerals all similarly consume large amounts of energy and with cheaper energy costs, would all become less expensive. In fact, materials such as graphene, capable of filtering water, conducting heat as well as electricity or being bulletproof could be mass produced as cheap enough prices to become practical. From mitigating pollution to simply meeting our energy needs, energy is a primary concern for the U.S., and substantially cheaper, as well as cleaner, energy is not only beneficial to our society, but necessary for it's continuation. Without it, we simply cannot exist. Government intervention, subsidies and low-interest loans (particularly for nuclear power) are not only desirable, but ultimately a necessity to continue our standard of living, and to continue on in to the future.
General Market Costs
U.S. spends approximately 400 billion dollars on electricity, and approximately 1.2 trillion on energy in total. The U.S. annual GDP is somewhere around 15 trillion dollars annually, so this equates to approximately 8% of total GDP on energy alone. The cost of transportation contributes to approximately 5-6% of the cost of most items on the market,while being substantially higher for milk and other kinds of food. However, reduces in the price of certain goods dependent heavily on the price of electricity, such as electronics or electric cars, could allow for drastically cheaper products in certain areas.
The average American family of five spends approximately 2200 dollars on utility bills, while the average person spends X, most of which is based directly on electricity costs. The average American pays approximately 2,000 to 4,000 dollars for gasoline to get to work annually, while the average American family pays X. By themselves, these basic costs could be alleviated if energy cost themselves were reduced, only depending on how much, such as if reduced by a 1/3rd, 1/5th, 1/10th etc. This in turn would allow the average American to save potentially thousands of dollars, and thus spend thousands of more dollars in the market that was otherwise occupied by energy costs, thus increasing the average standard of living, market GDP, and reducing the base cost of living. Uranium for instance could potentially reduce the price of electricity by up to 6 times, with proven technology, and Thorium could result in over 10 times cheaper electricity prices, where as gasoline or coal at best might be 2-3 times cheaper with modern technology than it currently is. The impact of the price of electricity and energy can also have the reverse effect, with solar panels being twice the price of coal, and thus having a negative impact on the economy, the standard of living and technological development.
However, industry and business make up the bulk of energy usage in the U.S.; Civilian based energy expenses formulate only approximately 10% of the entire nation's energy usage, with the bulk of transportation, X percent, being associated primarily with business, that is the transportation of goods. Approximately 70% of our gasoline for instance is consumed by big rigs and oil tankers for cargo transportation, meaning that cutting down on civilian spending would only reduce a fraction of our energy needs. As a result, reduced energy prices could reduce the price of nearly every product in the market by some margin, as all things need to be shipped. Furthermore, reduced energy costs could substantially reduce the cost of industrial products.
On average, electricity contributes to the X percentage of the total cost of goods. This means that, in general, your average good could fall X amount. This would not only help out business, being able to sell more products at a lower price, but also help out consumers who could consume it at a cheaper price. As a result of cheaper prices the GDP would not increase as much, but the standard of living would rise.
Carbon Fiber
Carbon fiber has the potential to be cheaper than steel if the energy costs were lowered by just a third their current amount.
Carbon fiber's cost is currently around 15 dollars per pound, while steel is around 1 dollar per pound. However, carbon fiber is approximately the same strength as steel, although 5 times lighter weight, in terms of volume. With a density of approximately 7.85 grams per cubic centimeter, compared to approximately 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter for carbon fiber, it is around 5 times lighter weight than steel, in terms of volume or over-all strength. Therefore, the same amount, to say form a body of a car, would only be approximately 3 times more expensive than a similar steel car. So, if carbon fiber costs were alleviated by approximately three times their current amount, carbon fiber could compete with steel, or be around the same price.
Carbon fiber is significantly lighter weight than steel, while around the same strength. For cars made predominately out of steel, this could mean significant reduction in weight without reduction in size or safety. By reducing the weight of a vehicle, for instance say, three times the amount, the vehicle could use three times less fuel, or be three times more fuel efficient.. In 2004, oil consumption was blank, this means that if cars were just three times more fuel efficient, we could kick out all foreign oil usage, reduce the annual cost for the consumption of gasoline to the equivalent of around a dollar per gallon, or even potentially switch to electric cars if the increased range of a more efficient vehicle warranted it. Since carbon fiber is approximately 5 times lighter weight than steel, at the same strength, cars could be even lighter than three times the weight, and thus similarly more fuel efficient.
Carbon fiber's substrate material, Polyacrylonitrile, or PAN, is a common precursor to many textiles, and acrylic materials. PAN is approximately 3 dollars per pound. Carbon fiber is usually created using PAN as a precursor, n stuff. Due to intense, and precise heat and pressure treatment, carbon fiber's cost increases to somewhere around 15 dollars dollars per pound. Since is also dependent on energy intensive processes for creation, being created from rayon, the predominate cost of PAN as well comes predominately from energy costs.
Since most of this cost is in the use of electricity, or energy, by alleviating these costs, say a fourth their amount, carbon fiber would be at least three times cheaper than it is now, allowing it to compete with steel. As a result, more fuel efficient, yet not more expensive, smaller, or less safe vehicles, could exist.
Electric cars might have a significantly further range, as well. According to the Department of energy's fuel economy website, the average electric car has a range of some 100-200 miles per charge, while gasoline is around 300 miles. If 3 times more efficient, the vehicles could theoretically have three times range, or 300-600 mile ranges, therefore giving electric vehicles compatible, if not superior range to current gasoline cars. Combined with reduced electricity costs, electric cars could be considerably cheaper to drive, per mile, than standard gasoline vehicles, and yet potentially be practical.
Even if three times more efficient, your average car would go from, on average, 20 miles per gallon to approximately 60 mpg. Extra aerodynamic features, usually only providing a minimal advantage (such as 20% increased fuel efficiency only going from 20 mpg to 24 mpg, compared to 60 to 72) may become more useful, and cars may become significantly more efficient, not only reducing the cost of transportation of your average person, but potentially for all goods as well.
Lithium ion and other Batteries
Lithium ion is currently fairly expensive. Car batteries made of lithium ion range from 10,000 to 15,000 dollars in their own right, complicating the economics of long ranged electric vehicles.
Lithium ion is made from potassium chloride and lithium chloride, through electrolysis. Electrolysis is an incredibly inefficient process, in this case intended to electrocute, transmute and ionize salts. Lithium ion, industrially is generally made from the lithium chloride and potassium chloride. Since lithium chloride and potassium chloride are both roughly a dollar per pound or less, when in industrial use, and lithium ion is roughly 30-40 dollars per pound, lithium ion's primary costs rest in manufacture. Electrolysis works by bathing these materials in enormous amounts of electricity until the chemical bonds of each material are broken down and changed; if electricity costs were alleviated, say to being 10 times cheaper, it's easy to see how the nearly negligible lithium chloride and potassium chloride cost would allow a previously 40 dollar per pound battery, to be roughly 4-5 dollars per pound. At 1/10th the cost, an average 10-15,000 dollar lithium ion battery could be reduced to around 1000-1500 dollars. At 1/5th the cost, it could compete with the price of nickel metal hydride, while possessing a substantially lower self discharge rate. This might make long range, easily rechargeable batteries a feasible reality, allowing for a non-polluting, and allow for a significantly cheaper, long range highly efficient emission free electric car.
Other batteries, such as lithium titinate and lithium "carbonized" batteries, could be recharged much quicker. Since both use lithium ion as a base material, and these costs could be alleviated, the over-all cost of the battery could be greatly reduced.
Lithium titanate costs come in large part from chemical costs. Utilizing vaporized titanium, the
In the case of the graphite based "carbonized" battery, the battery could be recharged 30-120 times faster, or in minutes rather than hours; this might make recharging at a "pump" a tad more realistic for long range travel. These batteries would need to be carbonized, essentially use an energy intensive method, pyrolysis or destructive distillation, both of which require large volumes of electricity. By reducing the base cost of electricity, the costs for these batteries could be reduced, as well, in addition to reducing the cost of lithium ion, their precursor cost. This alone would allow for cheaper, easily recharged batteries, making convenient electric cars an affordable reality.
Computers
Solar panels
Water
Food
High Strength materials
Graphene.
Government Spending
Social security, medicare etc.
Energy costs, whether directly or indirectly, influence the cost of nearly everything in the market and our general lives today. From transportation costs, to recovering resources, to manufacturing, energy forms a significant cost of nearly all goods on the market.
Specific goods, such as carbon fiber and lithium ion, which possess predominately energy costs, can have their costs reduced to economical levels, to replace gasoline for transportation in electric vehicles, and generally be useful. By generally reducing the cost of electricity, you can reduce the cost of everything, and some materials substantially more than others, allowing for the creation of economical products otherwise not possible before.
As long as there is energy, fertilizer, clean water, basic appliances and modern living can continue. As ammonium nitrate fertilizer makes up 2% of our energy consumption, water x %, and concrete 7%, basic things we need to live such as homes, water and food are all dependent on our energy production, as is their price. We need energy to power our modern society, and any increase in price isn't just felt at the pump or the meter, but all across society, in nearly every venue. Furthermore, most advanced electronics require signification energy investment, such as computers or cellphones, and thus their price is dependent on the price of electricity. Reducing these prices not only means cheaper products in general, but certain options becoming a practical reality that were not before.
For instance, due to cheaper batteries, carbon fiber and electronics, electric cars could be nearly the same price as regular cars or even cheaper, meaning they would become practically affordable. While batteries, such as lithium titanate, are extremely expensive due to their high energy costs, they can be recharged to 90% of their capacity in about 10 minutes, and can store almost as much energy as lithium ion. They also have approximately 20 times the cycle life, meaning they last much longer and be charged and recharged much more frequently. This would allow electric cars to compete against gasoline cars, and with the cheaper electricity itself which it runs on could allow for even cheaper transportation. As electric cars are already approximately 4-5 times more efficient than gasoline cars, and electricity could be over 6 times cheaper with certain methods (Thorium, uranium etc.), transportation costs could be easily 20-30 times cheaper. This would benefit the average person in the U.S., but it could also benefit the transportation industry, such as 18 wheelers shipping cargo or trains, and significantly reduce our pollution. Roads that powered cars as they traveled would become a practical reality, not requiring recharging until you got off of a main road, allowing for nearly limitless travel. Combined with automated driving, this could allow for cars to practically drive themselves, with few inputs or need to stop by their human users.
With cheap enough energy, gold could be made from lead or mercury, and actually turn a profit, meaning we could mass produce it Diamonds, sapphire and other expensive minerals all similarly consume large amounts of energy and with cheaper energy costs, would all become less expensive. In fact, materials such as graphene, capable of filtering water, conducting heat as well as electricity or being bulletproof could be mass produced as cheap enough prices to become practical. From mitigating pollution to simply meeting our energy needs, energy is a primary concern for the U.S., and substantially cheaper, as well as cleaner, energy is not only beneficial to our society, but necessary for it's continuation. Without it, we simply cannot exist. Government intervention, subsidies and low-interest loans (particularly for nuclear power) are not only desirable, but ultimately a necessity to continue our standard of living, and to continue on in to the future.
General Market Costs
U.S. spends approximately 400 billion dollars on electricity, and approximately 1.2 trillion on energy in total. The U.S. annual GDP is somewhere around 15 trillion dollars annually, so this equates to approximately 8% of total GDP on energy alone. The cost of transportation contributes to approximately 5-6% of the cost of most items on the market,while being substantially higher for milk and other kinds of food. However, reduces in the price of certain goods dependent heavily on the price of electricity, such as electronics or electric cars, could allow for drastically cheaper products in certain areas.
The average American family of five spends approximately 2200 dollars on utility bills, while the average person spends X, most of which is based directly on electricity costs. The average American pays approximately 2,000 to 4,000 dollars for gasoline to get to work annually, while the average American family pays X. By themselves, these basic costs could be alleviated if energy cost themselves were reduced, only depending on how much, such as if reduced by a 1/3rd, 1/5th, 1/10th etc. This in turn would allow the average American to save potentially thousands of dollars, and thus spend thousands of more dollars in the market that was otherwise occupied by energy costs, thus increasing the average standard of living, market GDP, and reducing the base cost of living. Uranium for instance could potentially reduce the price of electricity by up to 6 times, with proven technology, and Thorium could result in over 10 times cheaper electricity prices, where as gasoline or coal at best might be 2-3 times cheaper with modern technology than it currently is. The impact of the price of electricity and energy can also have the reverse effect, with solar panels being twice the price of coal, and thus having a negative impact on the economy, the standard of living and technological development.
However, industry and business make up the bulk of energy usage in the U.S.; Civilian based energy expenses formulate only approximately 10% of the entire nation's energy usage, with the bulk of transportation, X percent, being associated primarily with business, that is the transportation of goods. Approximately 70% of our gasoline for instance is consumed by big rigs and oil tankers for cargo transportation, meaning that cutting down on civilian spending would only reduce a fraction of our energy needs. As a result, reduced energy prices could reduce the price of nearly every product in the market by some margin, as all things need to be shipped. Furthermore, reduced energy costs could substantially reduce the cost of industrial products.
On average, electricity contributes to the X percentage of the total cost of goods. This means that, in general, your average good could fall X amount. This would not only help out business, being able to sell more products at a lower price, but also help out consumers who could consume it at a cheaper price. As a result of cheaper prices the GDP would not increase as much, but the standard of living would rise.
Carbon Fiber
Carbon fiber has the potential to be cheaper than steel if the energy costs were lowered by just a third their current amount.
Carbon fiber's cost is currently around 15 dollars per pound, while steel is around 1 dollar per pound. However, carbon fiber is approximately the same strength as steel, although 5 times lighter weight, in terms of volume. With a density of approximately 7.85 grams per cubic centimeter, compared to approximately 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter for carbon fiber, it is around 5 times lighter weight than steel, in terms of volume or over-all strength. Therefore, the same amount, to say form a body of a car, would only be approximately 3 times more expensive than a similar steel car. So, if carbon fiber costs were alleviated by approximately three times their current amount, carbon fiber could compete with steel, or be around the same price.
Carbon fiber is significantly lighter weight than steel, while around the same strength. For cars made predominately out of steel, this could mean significant reduction in weight without reduction in size or safety. By reducing the weight of a vehicle, for instance say, three times the amount, the vehicle could use three times less fuel, or be three times more fuel efficient.. In 2004, oil consumption was blank, this means that if cars were just three times more fuel efficient, we could kick out all foreign oil usage, reduce the annual cost for the consumption of gasoline to the equivalent of around a dollar per gallon, or even potentially switch to electric cars if the increased range of a more efficient vehicle warranted it. Since carbon fiber is approximately 5 times lighter weight than steel, at the same strength, cars could be even lighter than three times the weight, and thus similarly more fuel efficient.
Carbon fiber's substrate material, Polyacrylonitrile, or PAN, is a common precursor to many textiles, and acrylic materials. PAN is approximately 3 dollars per pound. Carbon fiber is usually created using PAN as a precursor, n stuff. Due to intense, and precise heat and pressure treatment, carbon fiber's cost increases to somewhere around 15 dollars dollars per pound. Since is also dependent on energy intensive processes for creation, being created from rayon, the predominate cost of PAN as well comes predominately from energy costs.
Since most of this cost is in the use of electricity, or energy, by alleviating these costs, say a fourth their amount, carbon fiber would be at least three times cheaper than it is now, allowing it to compete with steel. As a result, more fuel efficient, yet not more expensive, smaller, or less safe vehicles, could exist.
Electric cars might have a significantly further range, as well. According to the Department of energy's fuel economy website, the average electric car has a range of some 100-200 miles per charge, while gasoline is around 300 miles. If 3 times more efficient, the vehicles could theoretically have three times range, or 300-600 mile ranges, therefore giving electric vehicles compatible, if not superior range to current gasoline cars. Combined with reduced electricity costs, electric cars could be considerably cheaper to drive, per mile, than standard gasoline vehicles, and yet potentially be practical.
Even if three times more efficient, your average car would go from, on average, 20 miles per gallon to approximately 60 mpg. Extra aerodynamic features, usually only providing a minimal advantage (such as 20% increased fuel efficiency only going from 20 mpg to 24 mpg, compared to 60 to 72) may become more useful, and cars may become significantly more efficient, not only reducing the cost of transportation of your average person, but potentially for all goods as well.
Lithium ion and other Batteries
Lithium ion is currently fairly expensive. Car batteries made of lithium ion range from 10,000 to 15,000 dollars in their own right, complicating the economics of long ranged electric vehicles.
Lithium ion is made from potassium chloride and lithium chloride, through electrolysis. Electrolysis is an incredibly inefficient process, in this case intended to electrocute, transmute and ionize salts. Lithium ion, industrially is generally made from the lithium chloride and potassium chloride. Since lithium chloride and potassium chloride are both roughly a dollar per pound or less, when in industrial use, and lithium ion is roughly 30-40 dollars per pound, lithium ion's primary costs rest in manufacture. Electrolysis works by bathing these materials in enormous amounts of electricity until the chemical bonds of each material are broken down and changed; if electricity costs were alleviated, say to being 10 times cheaper, it's easy to see how the nearly negligible lithium chloride and potassium chloride cost would allow a previously 40 dollar per pound battery, to be roughly 4-5 dollars per pound. At 1/10th the cost, an average 10-15,000 dollar lithium ion battery could be reduced to around 1000-1500 dollars. At 1/5th the cost, it could compete with the price of nickel metal hydride, while possessing a substantially lower self discharge rate. This might make long range, easily rechargeable batteries a feasible reality, allowing for a non-polluting, and allow for a significantly cheaper, long range highly efficient emission free electric car.
Other batteries, such as lithium titinate and lithium "carbonized" batteries, could be recharged much quicker. Since both use lithium ion as a base material, and these costs could be alleviated, the over-all cost of the battery could be greatly reduced.
Lithium titanate costs come in large part from chemical costs. Utilizing vaporized titanium, the
In the case of the graphite based "carbonized" battery, the battery could be recharged 30-120 times faster, or in minutes rather than hours; this might make recharging at a "pump" a tad more realistic for long range travel. These batteries would need to be carbonized, essentially use an energy intensive method, pyrolysis or destructive distillation, both of which require large volumes of electricity. By reducing the base cost of electricity, the costs for these batteries could be reduced, as well, in addition to reducing the cost of lithium ion, their precursor cost. This alone would allow for cheaper, easily recharged batteries, making convenient electric cars an affordable reality.
Computers
Solar panels
Water
Food
High Strength materials
Graphene.
Government Spending
Social security, medicare etc.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)