Heat pumps only make sense for a portion of the US.  Even with the higher COP that is possible with newer designs, they don't do well in cool moist winter environments.  They spend too much time defrosting.  

By seamless, do you mean that any vehicle is switchable between gasoline and methane?  Do they have one injection system for gasoline and another for NG/methane?  

The point I was making is that this is not a substitution.  Robbing the NG from electric generation from high efficiency pre-mix NG turbines to burn in vehicles means that turbines must burn something else (distillate oil with diffusion combustion rather than pre-mix).  Unless consumption is reduced, you end up with "no solution."

First a simple, high pressure quick connect would be possible for changing tanks, similar to how we currently fill these vehicles.  

Second, a typical FRP tank (which is what our vehicles contain) take more vehicle volume than a gasoline tank.  We can get about 200-250 miles per tankful.  Even though methane is highly compressible (I mean that in the sense that it does not follow the ideal gas law), the combination of methane (at pressure) and tank weight required for a vehicle provides a limit to moving tanks around.  You and I are not going to hoof one of these tanks around (even dividing the current single high pressure tank into two or three smaller tanks might make the individual tanks more manageable, though the total weight will increase and increases the number of connections required).  Even an automatic "bottle replacement system" would require some sort of universal system for vehicles.  

Third, bottle storage and inspection.  It's one thing to have various LPG bottle redistribution points for gas grills and even for those systems that use a larger amount of LPG with larger truck transported replaceable bottles.  But think of the footprint required for a typical "gas station" to store full, empty, and those bottles being refilled for the number vehicles served.  Thats much different than underground storage tanks for liquid fuels.  

VERY interesting for those that suppose that we can substitute (conversion losses like CTL up "consumption").

Renewables ARE needed !

Thanks,

Alan

Down in Texas there's apparently 1000's of acres of mesquite that thrive in the low mositure environ and actually choke off the creation of natural water reservoirs.

There's been no way to harvest the mesquite until just recently as an outfit down there have created the first ever designated mesquite harvester.

The potential exists (and groups are working on it as we speak) to turn this unique and most unanticipated feedstock source into ethanol.

The 2008 electoral map is VERY friendly to the Dems in the senate. It is going to be very difficult for them to avoid picking up a seat or two. In the house, even if they lose a fair number of seats, barring some sort of tidal wave, they'll still have the majority. For state houses and governorships, they have a solid majority now that will last until 2010 (4 year terms), which means they automatically get to do redistricting in 2010 throughout most of the country (30 states, roughly, with the majority of the country's population, and thus House seats).

This means that in 2010, they will pretty likely gerrymander the remaining blue state republicans straight out of existence. This is exactly what gave the republicans their current majority, lots of (in their case mid-decade) redistricting. The Dems get to redistrict now, and the results will probably not be pretty.

In addition, we have two more years of bush being a total ass.

I think in 2008 the Dems will actually gain seats in both houses, and the white house.

Check your dictionary and a good history book.

Byzantine means 'complex and deceitful'.

Libertarians would simplify, but some of the problems are by their nature complex.

For example Global Warming: an unpriced economic externality with disastrous consequences for all.

Overfishing falls into the same camp.

Then there is nuclear terrorism, the dependence of the US on foreign oil, global problems like AIDS and flu.

OR

one votes for one of the 2 main parties, and tries to work within the system for change.

Something like Richard Pombo losing his seat in CA was a big win for the environment, everywhere, not just in the USA.  Taking out James Inhofe is as likely as a blizzard in mid August in New York City, but would have similar benefits.

Another important thing to do is to learn the issues and become an advocate for them.  The internet allows a lot of grass roots communication to take place-- odd though it may sound, there are lots of people who think global warming is a distant problem that scientists are in disagreement about.

Because of the internet, it is possible to access directly the scientific knowledge and debate, and understand how wrong that viewpoint is.

So, while you might not know where to begin, I'll just right you off as hopelessly naive.

Why did Republicans lose this time?  A lot of polling data suggests its because Conservatives either didn't Vote(in disgust with the Republicans), or voted third party libertarian etc.  Its a way to show that while a voter isn't ready to switch sides to the other major, they are dissastisfied with the current job.

Secondly, Independents and Libertarians have won seats.  I think even a Green has been in Congress before too, but I'd need to double check that.  Also many lower level government seats can often be picked up by third parties.  They have a harder time, but it can be done.

Thirdly, Politcal Parties have been upended and phased out in our past.  Where are the Whigs?  They were a major party for a portion of American history.  Eventually enough people are going to get tired to this never ending pendulum(sp?) of the Dems and Repubs.  When that happens a new party will have a chance to emerge and become viable against the current 2 majors, or replace one of the 2 majors.

If you only think you have 2 choices all the time, then this country is really screwed.  New ideas have to be brought into the fray, and a lot of times the two majors look at the surge in a particular minor party's popularity, and steal the idea that led to that popularity.  Hurts the small party, but ultimately the idea gets pushed forward.

(gas tends to be peaking plant only).

however there is also carbon sequestration.  Which will come, and will be important.  Like nuclear, it leaves a long term waste problem, but hopefully if the CO2 leaks in 100 or 200 years, we will be able to deal with it.

On wind, all forms of power are intermittent.  There haven't been 5 days in the last 20 years in the whole UK where the wind hasn't blown.  So whilst wind has a considerable thermal backup requirement (or more pumped storage) intermittency is not the obstacle it is sometimes portrayed.

It's also worth knowing that the wind is much more constant offshore, any place on the planet.  And you can build really big turbines there (wind is more constant away from the ground).  This means there are substantial wind power opportunities in the South East USA, even though the onshore wind potential (except in the mountains) is relatively poor.

In the case of the US the US has a number of different 'wind basins'.  This is very powerful, because when the wind is not blowing in one, it may well be blowing in another.

The energy treasure of the USA is the Great Plains-- fantastic and regular winds.  A resource, in its own way, as rich as that of the Texan oilfields.  The challenge is to harness that, and ship the power south to Texas and east to the Midwest.

I don't disagree that it is hard to see with current technology getting above 20-30% renewables.  But there are some tweaks (using mines for pumped storage) that will help, as well as more advanced storage technologies (superconducting rings, flywheels etc.).

The future electric power system will be founded on a mix of renewables, and coal with carbon sequestration (capture and storage).

I can't see nukes ever being more than 30% of US consumption.  Replace the 84 existing reactors (which has to be done over the next 25 years or so), maybe build a net 60 more, so 144 reactors or say, 4 a year* for 36 years.  That is as fast as the US nuclear industry ever commissioned plants, even in the heights of the 60s and 70s.

* the new plants will average 1350MW, say, v. 750MW now, but total power consumption will also have risen.

Installed US wind at the end of the this year should = roughly 5 average US nukes.  Add another 2 or so for 2007 installation.

Best Hopes,

Alan

If there is a major heat wave and wind isn't blowing, I could be certain that the sun is shining which means the solar systems could be kicking in to provide the lack from Wind.

If its cloudy and solar is running at efficiency, then chances are good, the wind is blowing those clouds in somewhere.

The trick with renewables is not to have a combined renewable package that equals 100% of our need.  The trick is to have a combined renewables package that equals 150% or more of our need depending on conditions.  You want overlapping coverage.  Somedays you might be getting the bulk of your power from solar cause the sun is out, and on other from wind.

On top of that, our storage abilities need to improve.  If we are in a season of abundant solar or wind, we need to come up with ways to take that excess and store a portion of it.  It might be in the form of batteries, capitors or some other electrical storage device, or it might be in the form of pumped storage.

And even with all that, yes I fully expect we will need fossil/nuclear sources of energy, but if we can reduce the need for fossil energy to be even 50% of the total need, that would be a huge improvement over our current path.

I think too many people focus on the effort to just somehow instantly (and 20years is basically instantly when talking about civilizations) stop using all fossil fuels.  Its not going to be like that, we will shift gradually from one to the other.

Anyhow, the dogging on renewables when you are considering them in isolated systems, is a stupid excercise.  The solution is not a 1 size fits all type of thing.  And so when looking at wind, yes look at the shortfalls, but then also include a realistic view of alternatives which could fill in when wind is down.

"The two are complementary"

I would argue that the two are very similar, and therefore in competition with each other.  Both are capital intensive, with very low operating costs;  both generate electricity over 24 hours.  When both are generating during baseload periods there will be conflict, and you're likely not going to want much more than about 35% of your generation from wind and nuclear combined.  You can see this conflict from the steady stream of criticism of wind from nuclear advocates - just look at the Nuclear Energy Institute website, especially the blog.

Wind's disadvantage is intermittency. Wind's advantages are: wind is much faster to install;  has much smaller increments; and installation costs are much more predictable than nuclear; and nuclear has externalities: radiation hazards, both during operation and after, and from weapons proliferation (which I feel is by far the most important).

In the long run Alan Drake feels that over 50% wind is possible.  I think he's right, but I think the point of diminishing returns will be about 35%, with solar, nuclear, hydro and biomass providing the rest.

I think wind's intermittency won't be that hard to deal with - 20% will be pretty easy, but more will require some work and expense which will require a comittment to CO2 reductions.