Talk:Chem395:March 14 discussion

This will be the eighth in the discussion series. See Chem395:Unit_7 and the discussion topic for background.

Agenda

• In the coming years, how do you expect usage of fossil fuels to change? Will fossil fuels still dominate our energy production in 2030, as the US government predicts?

Discussion

I'm here. J-Fed 15:55, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

hello, folks! --JGrinst21 15:56, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey! J-Fed 15:57, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Howdy all Murphy44 15:58, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Welcome! We will start at 4:00 on my clock. Please can you make sure you read over the comments on the main article page first? Thanks, Walkerma 15:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, lets' start. Can we expect fossil fuel consumption to continue its growth, at least over the next 50 years, as Dorf predicts?

I feel that the government is correct in it’s predictions, providing that we don’t run out of oil before that date. This I feel is at the heart of the problem, this is a prediction that is in my opinion setting our goals to low. The technology is here for renewable energy and we need to be moving in that direction. Murphy44 16:02, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Well I believe it is a reasonable scenario. The numbers may be off somewhat in either direction but it will still negatively affect the environment. On the flip sides since the fossil fuels still exist it would be strange not to use them. However, there needs to be a larger shift to developing new and sustainable energy means/ methods. J-Fed 16:04, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I expect that the usage of fossil fuels will diminish somewhat over the next few years. They will still exist in the year 2030 and since the research and funding of several projects for alternative fuels is a very time consuming project they may still be the best source of energy. I do not think that fossil fuels are going anywhere soon. An article about such change is shown below through this link: J-Fed 16:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2006/06/19/story7.html J-Fed 16:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree I feel that they will be off the market anytime soon and they may be our best form of free energy, this still doesn't change the fact that they have huge negative effects on the environment and that if they are going to continue to be used their use needs to be monitored and made sure it is as clean as possible. This epically applies to nations like china that overt he next 50 years are going to be the greatest energy consumers in the world and most of this being produced from coal. Murphy44 16:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just an example of how changes need to be integrated on all levels in the community. J-Fed 16:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

That's a very interesting link, Jesse! I think other places around the world are trying similar initiatives. Are they realistic? Won't people baulk at the higher prices/tax hikes needed to replace the power stations? Walkerma 16:09, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. Yes many places are trying to do the same sort of thing. It's a great initiative! I do think people will baulk at higher prices and tax hikes. As I've said before though, and Lester Brown also states, that appropriating taxes and moving them around is the best way to (A) make them effective (B) utilize them to the fullest. It is necessary to look at long-term goals and outcomes, not short-term fixes. J-Fed 16:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Dorf (231) talks about the use of electric cars and other vehicles and that it is hard to store energy in them (let alone deliver it to a massive amount of consumers). “Gasoline has about four times the energy density of a storage battery per kilogram of weight added to the vehicle” (Dorf 231). I believe that electric cars are great and they have benefits, but the current set-up to provide energy for them needs work. I suppose people can just charge their cars at home, but what if you are traveling a long distance? What about planes? J-Fed 16:13, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Neat link!, yes they probably will complain, the general public is good at that. Everyone has an opinion and most of what they know is hardly factual and this is the problem. Perhaps an education campaign would be a smart course of action. Murphy44 16:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I expect that demand for fossil fuels will continue to increase despite any of these measures, though supply bottlenecks are already strangling the US and other industrialized nations. The biggest problem on fossil fuel independence is simply product availability. More traditional biofuels, ie soy and other vegetable oils, corn or cellulosic ethanols, are rapidly leading to disaster without ever solving any problems: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece --JGrinst21 16:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

That's true Jason. Thanks for sharing that article. And Chris I do feel that a better, more focused educational campaign would be beneficial. J-Fed 16:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Jason, Biofuels could be more problems then their worth, this article i found to be rather interesting: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E3D71F39F93BA35751C0A96E9C8B63&scp=4&sq=&st=nyt Murphy44 16:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's all very well to say "the public are stupid, they don't know what's good for them." But any politician with that attitude, plus the inevitable tax hikes, will not get elected. Also, we're not realistically going to be able to make much of our energy from sticking windmills in our back yardss. So I think the fossil fuel predictions are, if anything, too low. DevilsAdvocate 16:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

• The allocation and partitioning of taxes is what needs to change in politics so that the projects / research / development / programs that matter are taken care of first. J-Fed 16:20, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

How does everyone feel about Bush's call for ethanol (which jason's article talked about) ?J-Fed 16:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I was more pointing out the non-viability of the alternatives at the moment. That may change, and there are still some promising contenders. for example: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=16840

this concept is also useful in bioremediation of contaminated water sources. I also do agree, J-fed that right now, we can only apply pressure, until something workable is presented, and ready to be deployed. We must buy time. --JGrinst21 16:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, in all honesty the environment in those cases Jason is being destroyed. Pressure must be applied and the timing must be right too. Here is an article from the NY Times (April 2007) about the projections of ethanol in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/business/17ethanol.html

I just thought that the push for corn ethanol is misguided because of land availability and such. Other alternatives - oranges or sugar cane for example can be used. J-Fed 16:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Summary so far

• Chris nicely set the tone by saying it may be realistic, but disappointing - we can do better.
• I think Jesse makes an excellent suggestion that taxation policy could help drive a move away from renewables.
• Jason hit the nail on the head in my personal opinion - this will be limited by supply more than anything. With the Chinese adding millions of new cars per year to their roads, and central heating/AC systems to their homes, and the Indians doing the same, we have flat production at the same time as a rapid increase in demand. That easily explains why oil prices are now about 3 to 4 times what they were when Dorf wrote his book (and US gas prices were <$1 per gallon ten years ago).
• Jason raised a nice point too about biofuels not being the answer. I think Bush is perhaps trying to get some votes from the corn farmers, who have benefited a lot from higher corn prices.

What do you think about the supply issue? Walkerma 16:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Here is an article about oranges:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265556/ 

This is really neat. I know that in Spain they are using this and there is a huge FORD plant there! Oranges are awesome! J-Fed 16:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

no way! I want my oranges peel and all! Actually, I think that could be very useful. I'll take every little bit I can get, as long as we're not setting aside arable land just when we barely have enough food as is. --JGrinst21 16:32, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I agree. Using agricultural waste is extremely effective; using arable land to grow things just for biofuel is not effective IMHO. Walkerma 16:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Thats a great move towards recycling and the way we are all going to have to think "out of the box" in the years to come. Murphy44 16:37, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Dorf (233) discusses the energy intensity of the United States. It simply states that “to reduce the nation’s energy intensity, the efficiency of major energy users must increase.” To improve efficiency more fuel efficient vehicles (less production or ban of certain ones0, electric motors / hydrogen fuel cells, better processing and waste management technologies and new heating and cooling systems can increase efficiency and reduce consumption.

The combined heat and power system (page 232 of Dorf) called the cogeneration system -is very efficient. They provide heat, cold water and electric power. If more plants / schools/ buildings were built that utilized this system energy efficiency would be much better. Investments in such systems could yield large returns and it would be stimulating the public (and private) sectors of the economy. J-Fed 16:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes! I'm very fond of cogeneration systems, myself. I really wish SUNY Potsdam had one. I wince every time I see how much fuel is wasted here with the inefficient heating/environmental control here, and I'm aware most colleges are just as bad, if not worse. --JGrinst21 16:36, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Me too - it would be some much better. Here is a link about another type of alternative fuel: http://news.ufl.edu/2007/10/24/new-alternative-fuel/ J-Fed 16:37, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

"The PAC-Car II set a new world record in fuel efficient driving during the Shell Eco-marathon in Ladoux (France) on June 26, 2005. Running on hydrogen, the PAC-Car II achieved the equivalent of 5,385 km per liter of gasoline (12,666 MPG!)" check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/mostEfficient.shtml

This is amazing! We have made a lot of progress through I must say. J-Fed 16:40, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Jason, look at page 5 of this report, you'll see that SUNY Potsdam is supposed to be getting a fuel cell based cogeneration plant fairly soon! If the state can afford to fund it... Walkerma 16:40, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Thats a great step in the right direction for Potsdam!! Murphy44 16:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)