Wind energy was too expensive to develop, research wise in the 70's. On the other hand, once paid-down, providing the equipment is robust, it begins to make sense. I don't think Holland really was that wise in adopting steam power. They are now living in a fool's paradise like the rest of us.
We cannot, however abandon carbon fuels just like that. Our society's indutrial/transportation advantage relies on them. We can however look to fuel cells and cleaner ways of dealing with them. Coal gasification should be looked at closely. Collecting the carbonic acids and dealing with them should be a field of research too.
Coal-steam is simply the cheapest electricity you will ever see for the next 30 years. It is over twice (49% energy-theoretical) as efficient as diesel(energy theoretical 26% perhaps) if you use turbines and factor in capex.
It is interesting to note here that air-expansion engines, called combustion today, where first theorized by Sadi Carnot to be 70% efficient, if a way to use waste exhaust heat could be found.
This has never been done, and since such engines work with inlet (i.e. combustion) and exhaust temperatures being different due to cooling, not work, they lose efficiency from the inlet-outlet differential, not "gain it", as a steam engine does by this difference. (a steam engine's temperature difference is due to work, while a combustion engine does no work as its exhaust gas is being expelled and cooled, and it robs the power stroke of energy by the cooling system, as the expansion takes place of burning gases.
Do away with cooling and use all waste heat once produced, and an engine could approach 75% efficiency. It is a goal worth striving for. I have some ideas as to how a portion of this could be done in a hybrid engine. It would approximately double mileage in a conventional car and possible use the same engine.
We should be doing big time research into sun energy as once it is paid down capex wise, it is free in sunny areas, forever, too. It is hard to believe that iron and silicon sheets are pricier than building a dam across a river 1500 miles away and stringing all that cable. If we could convert photons to electrons at a 40% efficiency, (presently the max is 14% conversion), we could do away with 60% of our present electrical infrastructure. We probably wouldn't because grid redundancy has other benefits.
It is a fact that all power come from the sun. Carbon fuels and wind are from the sun's energy directly or indirectly. Life is made from carbon from photosynthesis or absorption of energy from some solar based pathway. Wind is a product of uneven solar heating and spin of the planet. Water power is a product of evapo-transpiration redistribution cycles caused by the sun. (no water runs forever without rain.) It makes sense to look at the chemical-physical direct harnessing of solar power. It can be done with solar cells, concentrator/generators, heat storage and transfer, direct heat-electrical conversion, and stirling engine conversion. It is a neglected field. Instead of doing the research and becoming self sufficient like latter-day Indians, we prefer to waste our limited fixed resources and beat up on other people to do it.
EC<:-} |
