Germinate new ideas

Comment

Comment by Lee Taylor on September 11, 2009 at 6:49am

A note to Richard Barnard, new Friend at Pickens Plan

Hi, Richard,

Re Pickens Plan, I spend some time thinking about what is happening in the world, and why.

The thing that comes across to me is that much of our world, as we now have it, just kinda "evolved", in the easiest way that was possible. And the thing that is the easiest, is to just improve on what we were already working on. Doesn't matter that much what it is, it is easier to "improve" on something, than to start over with something that makes more sense.

That is where I feel we are with energy. When motor vehicles started out, their energy needs were pretty basic, and the crude fuels for them came on line at just about the same time. Fuel technology developed at the same time as the needs, and it was both plentiful, and available, as long as we could produce enough of it to keep it cheap, and the economies of scale followed so that we could do that.
And an entire economy followed. One that has a tremendous investment financially and scale-wise. Half the world, one way or another, now depends on delivering that stinky stuff to our cars. AND KEEPING THAT SYSTEM WORKING, so that the investment can be recouped.
However, there are so many things that make that make petroleum fuels not overall desirable now. WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER ELIMINATE PETROLEUM FUELS, there are many, many uses that are not easily changable, (aircraft use, for one major application), but two things become so incredibly important now.
First, we are spending WAY too much of our money overseas to acquire the excess oil that we need to feed our totally petroleum-based economy. Sending money overseas, money that does not regenerate the American economy. Money that is just plain lost to us, and buying a product that is totally expended. That's just plain foolish, when, with some rather minor changes to the way that we utilize our energy assets, we can just about eliminate oil importation. And I am only concerned about supporting the American economy, not providing all our assets to an Arab world. Especially an Arab world that supports activities like 9/11. It is OUR money that supplied the money to support that activity. That's just plain stupid of us.
We have "enough" oil in the US to supply our necessary needs, if we can cut down on the overall usage. Only by restricting the growth of petroleum usage can we keep the costs of it under control. We are not doing that right now. Use is exceeding availability, and costs rise exponentially with that fact.

Second, petroleum fuels used to the extent that we use them now, have tremendously destructive side effects Incredibly complex, and environmentally, financially destructive. If you have ever actually looked at an oil refinery, you will be amazed to understand how gasoline and other fuels can possibly be produced by these unbelievably complex factories at anywhere even remotely affordable prices. It is all economies of scale----we can afford to build these kinds of incredibly complex systems, IF we continue to consume the quantities of fuels they are capable of producing.
But that kind of investment can be so much more efficiently utilized to produce other kinds of energy. It takes a windmill to produce electricity. It takes a filter, and a compressor to produce CNG. That statement is overly simplistic, but In comparison to what it takes to convert oil into its usable products-------------------------------There is no way in the world that an alien studying the Earth could ever comprehend why we would use petroleum as a fuel, when there are so many other, MUCH EASIER energy sources available. Cheaply, and cleanly.

The reason that we keep using petroleum as fuels is because the investments have already been made. The money has been spent, and now the profits from that money depend on continuing to use the volumes that make the profits possible.

My feeling is that we can no longer afford to keep increasing petroleum usage, when other much more practical energy sources are now available and do-able. And we need ALL energy resources, INCLUDING OIL, to continue increasing our lifestyle comforts.

And that's what it is all about. Making life as comfortable as we can, economically and in a manner that isn't so destructive to our environment.

Lee Taylor

Comment by Allen R. Gale on September 6, 2009 at 8:47am

This is good news - propane has long been an "alternate fuel", used by commercial and governmental fleets, industrial entities (forklifts, etc.) for some time. One advantage of propane is that it is already widely distributed as an industrial gas and vehicle tankage is established, if not DOT/EPA approved already (not that they woun't find some way to muddy the waters again). One disadvantage is that it is heavier than air and thus any leakage will settle rather than rise and be disseminated (?) which could be a negative for road use.

Comment by Lee Taylor on September 6, 2009 at 8:18am

News about a new Propane program in the Southeast:


OCEAN SPRINGS — Converting a vehicle to cleaner propane fuel saves money and the environment, and a coalition led by Blossman Gas of Ocean Springs has received $8.62 million in stimulus funds to bring the alternative fuel technology to the Southeast.

The grant, requested by Virginia's state energy department, will convert 1,500 vehicles to propane and create the country's first autogas corridor, where the vehicles can be refueled, from Washington, D.C., to Mississippi and Florida. The total cost of the project is $29 million.

Blossman Gas partnered with American Alternative Fuel to form Alliance AutoGas and roll out 1,500 vehicles that can run on propane. Another 3,000 will be retrofitted outside the grant, said Blossman President Stuart Weidie.

* Gallery:TANK TECHNOLOGY

Some customers look at the economic advantages of autogas, the term given to propane fuel for vehicles. "It's economical," said Weidie, priced more than $1 per gallon less than gasoline. Autogas also keeps a vehicle engine running three times longer with fewer oil changes.

Weidie said more of their customers see converting to autogas as an opportunity to do their part for the environment. Propane fuel reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 28 percent and hydrocarbons by one-third, he said. Others appreciate that autogas reduces dependence on foreign oil. Nearly all of the propane used in the United States comes from within the country and Canada.

"This sounds too good to be true," one person told Weidie, who told him autogas is used extensively throughout Europe. The United States is behind in the technology because the country had such cheap energy. "It's just now evolving," he said. Autogas provides the same power and performance, and the vehicle can switch over to regular gasoline if a propane fuel tank isn't available.

Blossman introduced propane fuel in the 1980s, when fleets of police and school vehicles in Mississippi operated on the alternative fuel. That experience is one of the reasons the autogas corridor will run to the state.

"We're based here in Mississippi," Weidie said of Blossman Gas. "Ocean Springs is still our home office." The corporate office is in Ashville, N.C., in the middle of the company's territory of 64 stores from Washington, D.C., to coastal Mississippi.

The AutoGas Corridor Development Project has three components: the equipment, the conversion centers and the fueling network. Weidie said key to the program is installation of the Prins Conversion System by certified installers. Blossman Gas will build the refueling centers, including eight that will be open to the public. The pumps look like regular gas tanks but the nozzle screws into the propane tank that is installed inside the trunk of the car and is more impact-resistant than the car's regular gas tank. For large fleets, the refueling equipment will be installed at the company, school or police departments' sites, Weidie said.

Alliance AutoGas also will be available at the five Blossman Gas locations in South Mississippi, in Waveland, Gulfport, D'Iberville, Ocean Springs and Pascagoula, and 12 others throughout the state.

Weidie said they are primarily starting with fleet conversations under the Department of Energy stimulus grant, but personal vehicles also can be converted if Alliance AutoGas has the Environmental Protection Agency-approved systems for the vehicles. Crown Victorias, which are used for police cars and taxis, can be converted now and the equipment will be available in next 30 days for Ford 250 and 350 vans. Compact cars also will be able to be retrofitted, and Weidie said some of the automakers are building autogas fueled vehicles.

Weidie said the company has 12 employees solely focused on potential prospects for autogas, and its Alliance AutoGas partners were careful not going to the market too early. "We wanted to get it right the first time," he said.

Privately owned, Blossman Gas is the largest independent propane company in the United States and the 10th largest overall.
Add a comment (max 1000 characters)

Comment by Joseph Chiang on March 12, 2009 at 4:50pm

I've been thinking about blade configuration that would increase wind effectiveness.

Comment by Joseph Chiang on March 12, 2009 at 4:49pm

I was actually thinking along both. We could generate double the torque and/or double shafts. The generators I have seen so far only generate half the electric needed. Sooooo two generators double the power, yes, parallel, unless I can find a generator with double the capacity. The blade length is arbitrary on my part, based more on marketing ideas than efficiency.

Comment by Allen R. Gale on March 12, 2009 at 5:38am

J -

What do yo mean by "put them in sequence"? Do you mean drive them from a common shaft? No, not unless you increase the propeller size to develop twice the torque - you wuld be better off to use one unit of double the size. Or do you mean wire them in parallel? Yes, that is how all the systems are configured, through proper equipment to assure they are kept in phase and such. I can't spek to the blade length - that would have to come from the generator manufacturer or installer.

Hope this helps - good luck.

Allen Gale

Comment by Joseph Chiang on March 11, 2009 at 6:30pm

LOL

Comment by South Dakota Wind Energy on March 11, 2009 at 5:12pm

Joseph,

bang

Monty and Debbie

Comment by Joseph Chiang on March 11, 2009 at 5:10pm

If and this is a big if, the generators can be put in sequence and the amount of power is added, then I think I have the answers. Two 1000 KW/month and two blades on one tower no more than 30 feet tall and blade span of maybe 12 feet? I think it will work. Can these babies be put in sequence or is there a diminishing return? I'm not an electrician, what am I trying to do here? Got this idea and can't let go. Someone put me out of my miseries.

Comment by South Dakota Wind Energy on March 7, 2009 at 8:25pm

Joseph,

The estimated requirement to take our town off the grid is eight(8) 1.5MW windmills. We have just shy of 5,000 homes and small downtown with virtually no industrial base.

Monty and Debbie

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last