+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution  (Read 19632 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The PERFIDY of the Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

EIA  Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Friendly Charts Consistently Low Ball Renewable Energy

These charts by the fossil fuel friendly EIA severely understate the Renewable energy share of U.S. energy consumption BECAUSE they ONLY measure REPORTED energy use, not NEGAWATTS (off grid, non-metered and efficiency based energy demand destruction). The Rocky Mountain Institute has reported that over one third of all global rural electrical production is now Renewable Energy based.

So, why do I present these charts? Because even the EIA cannot disguise how Renewable Energy is taking market share away from the fossil fuel industry (although they do their level best to try).

Notice the change from 2012 through 2015 and you will see evidence of the Renewable Energy caused fossil fuel demand destruction. This is also the main cause of the persistently low price of oil and gas driving, at last count, over 60 oil and gas polluters into bankruptcy.

AS you can see, our loyal servants in the EIA were magnanimous enough to admit ONE PERCENT increase for Renewable Energy for 2012 through 2015. Not only is that a bad joke, but excluding coal, it is downright embarrassingly defensive of the polluters from the fossil fuel AND nuclear power industries. WHY?

First,
despite the MASSIVE economic disruptions during that time and the MASSIVE increase in Renewable energy capacity during that time period, let us ass-u-me, as the charts claim, that the total energy consumption increased 2.7 quadrillion btu from 2012 through 2015. They drop 2% off of coal but, despite  some closings of nuclear power plants, ADD a percent to nuclear power! But it gets better.

Second, they REFUSE to lower the percentage for Petroleum while adding 2 percent to fossil "natural" (i.e. FRACKED) gas. The disclaimer about "the sum of components not adding to 100%", even though in the 2015 chart they DO add up, is ridiculous.  They don't even update their boilerplate. These people have no shame.

Third, they have the unadulterated brass to claim, not just that there was a ONE PERCENT ONLY increase in the Renewable Energy share of consumption rom 2012 through 2015, but that WIND POWER added a mere 2 percent of the Renewable energy mix in FOUR YEARS!

Now take a look at 2014's fossil fuel and nuclear power friendly EIA chart next to the 2015 chart. They are DESPERATE to hide the massive increase in Renewables.


2015 was a banner year for BOTH wind and solar power. 2015 saw massive demand destruction for fossil fuels causing over 60 oil and gas bankruptcies and cratering price of fossil fuels. Renewable energy use INCREASED while USE of fossil fuels due to a depressed economy and added Renewable infrastructure, DECREASED.

YET, according to our EIA bean counters, there was NO INCREASE in the Renewable energy SHARE of consumption OR A DECREASE in the oil and gas energy share from 2014 to 2015! To make it look good, they took one percent away from petroleum and handed it to "natural" FRACKED gas. LOL!  Renewable Energy consumption is allegedly STILL only 10% after a BANNER YEAR!

BULLSHIT!

The EIA admits, inaccurately (remember they count only REPORTED energy from utilities, not negawatts), that 0.1 quadrillion Btu of Renewable Energy  was added. Point one quadrillion Btu DOES NOT CUT IT for a banner year in both wind and solar. They give solar a mere  2% increase and give wind, which REALLY jumped in 2015, a mere ONE PERCENT increase in the Renewable Energy mix.

BULLSHIT!

The PRICE of oil and gas is not low because we are "consuming them at the same percentage"; it's low because we are consuming them at a LOWER percentage. The oil and gas pigs are not known for charitable gestures.

The PRICE of Renewable Energy infrastructure is coming down from mass production and installation. The ratio of Renewable energy installation to fossil fuel based infrastructure new installation in 2015 (which has continued into this year) is 70 to one. 

When the EV market takes off in 2017, the end will come quickly for the fossil fuel industry because they cannot make a profit when over 50% of the refinery product is for transportation fuels they cannot sell. And even without the loss of the polluting fuels product profit, the fossil fuel industry would self destruct without all their subsidy swag. But the EIA plays dumb about the all the pollution costs that we-the-people are paying.
 

Renewable energy is easily already over 25% of total Energy consumption in the U.S.,
though the EIA will never admit it until they "revise" the data a couple of decades from now.  ;)

Renewable Energy Growth Blows EIA Forecasts Out of the Water, Again

by Ben Jervey, originally published by DeSmog Blog | Mar 14, 2016
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-03-14/renewable-energy-growth-blows-eia-forecasts-out-of-the-water-again

EIA 2040 Forecast Understates Renewables, Policy, Contingencies
April 20th, 2015 by Sandy Dechert

MONEY QUOTES:


So far more possibilities exist than those indicated by the narrow range of assumptions that EIA has included in this latest assessment. Respected voices are saying that America can, and should, get 100% of its energy from renewables by 2050, that 80% would be good enough, or 100% by 2100, or that 50% is attainable in the next 35 years, and so on. EIA’s limited focus can support none of these.

The organization claims in Figure 4 to cover “scenarios that encompass a wide range of future crude oil price paths.” Great to have such a diverse oil perspective, but the exploration of renewable and other scenarios seems puny by comparison.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/20/eia-2040-forecast-understates-renewables-policy-contingencies/

EIA responds that it never told a lie, fudged the stats or gamed the predicted numbers to favor fossil fuels and low ball Renewable Energy.

Quote
Turning to projections, some critics have argued that EIA's recent AEO Reference case projections have consistently understated the adoption of wind and solar power.

A review of past performance of EIA's projections does not offer much support for this argument, particularly when it is recognized that AEO Reference case projections deliberately incorporate existing laws and regulations that are in effect at the time the Reference case projections are developed and do not attempt to forecast future policy decisions.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25512

Don't you just love that "does not offer much support for this argument"  pseudo erudite exercise in dismissive type fallacious debating techniques? Do all these fossil fuel tools go to the same school of double talk sophistry?

The above defense is ludicrous in the light of the FACT that their projections for fossil fuel use and nuclear power have CONSISTENTLY IGNORED the ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS (that the EPA has danced around and refused to try to enforce or over 30 years, even though they ARE on the books) that militate for a REDUCTION in the energy market share of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

NOT ONE closing of nuclear power plants was predicted by the EIA. Even the now vertiginous descent in coal use was NOT even remotely foreseen by these dirty energy defending tools, never mind the current descent in the demand for oil and gas (that they CONTINUE to low ball).

And now they want to talk about legislation as the "logical" basis for their grossly inaccurate Renewable Energy projections?   

The EIA can come up with all sorts of hemming and hawing excuses about inconsistent application of laws favoring Renewables, as if that had beans to do with the ACTUAL Renewables track record of their installation and use (which is what unbiased energy experts use to project future use and market share), but give fossil fuels and nuclear power the most rosy energy use projection scenario as the "prudent" and "most realistic" outlook...   

But the last paragraph in their response PLAINLY states WHO they are going to defend in their cherry picking energy bean counting (hint - dirty energy producers = industry stakeholders):
Quote

EIA continues to work with industry stakeholders to ensure its assumptions and analytic methodologies provide accurate data and appropriate projections for wind, solar, and other renewables. A more extensive review of EIA's data and projections for wind and solar technologies is available in a recent EIA report, Wind and Solar Data and Projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration: Past Performance and Ongoing Enhancements.

Principal contributors: Chris Namovicz

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25512


Now you know why certain fossil fuelers love to quote the "reliability" of the energy use stats and projections from the EIA.

Have a nice day.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Thank you James Cromwell and John “J.G.” Hertzler of Star Trek fame and 17 area residents. These fine people know that there isn't any way we can live long and prosper if we keep burning fossil fuels.


Star Trek Actors Arrested, Call on Gov. Cuomo to Boldly Go Beyond Fossil Fuels

Sandra Steingraber | June 6, 2016 12:52 pm

Early this morning on a hillside above Seneca Lake, actors James Cromwell and John “J.G.” Hertzler of Star Trek fame joined 17 area residents in an act of civil disobedience that is part of an ongoing citizen campaign against salt cavern gas storage.

While blockading the main entrance to the Crestwood compressor station, the two actors urged Gov. Cuomo to stand up to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for green-lighting an expansion of this fracked gas infrastructure project against overwhelming local opposition and for undermining the governor’s own stated commitment to a rapid transition to renewable energy.

Starting at 6:45 a.m. and continuing until their arrests by Schuyler County deputies shortly before 7:30 a.m., the protesters blocked all traffic from leaving and entering the facility, including two Crestwood tanker trucks. All 19 were transported to the Schuyler County sheriff’s department, charged with disorderly conduct, ticketed and released.

“The prettiest place I’ve ever seen is right here: the Finger Lakes region of New York … Governor Cuomo, we, the people, do not want to see these pristine lakes turned into cheap, contaminated, industrialized storage facilities for Crestwood and Con Ed. Stand with us, Governor!,” John Hertzler, 66, who played Klingon General Martok on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, said.

“Defend your own program for getting New York State off of fossil fuels and transitioned to renewable energy. FERC—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—seeks to keep us chained to the energy of the past and, in so doing, threatens our water, our lands, our safety and the very climate of this, our planet. Boldly go with us, Governor Cuomo, into a renewable energy future.”

Hertzler lives in the Finger Lakes region with his family in the town of Ulysses where he serves on the town board.

James Cromwell, 76, who played Zefram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact and who was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as Farmer Arthur Hoggett in Babe, called on New Yorkers to join the We Are Seneca Lake movement.

“FERC-approved fracked gas infrastructure projects are taking over our entire state—from the crumbly salt caverns of Seneca Lake, where the gas will be stored, to the pipelines and compressor stations that devastate our farmlands, wetlands and maple groves, all the way to the burner tips of the natural gas-fired power plants that are planned for downstate,” he said. “
Quote
With all of New York under attack by the fossil fuel industry and by the rogue agency called FERC, all New Yorkers now need to stand up, stand together and say no.

Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake

Referencing the films in which the two have appeared, protesters held banners and signs that read, “We Are Seneca Lake, Babe/And We Will Not Be FERC-ed” and “Trekkies Against Crestwood-Con Ed Boldly Going Toward Renewables.”

The total number of arrests in the 20-month-old We Are Seneca Lake civil disobedience campaign now stands at 604.

Crestwood’s methane gas storage expansion project was originally approved by FERC in October 2014 in the face of broad public opposition and unresolved questions about geological instabilities, fault lines and possible salinization of Seneca Lake, which serves as a source of drinking water for 100,000 people. In spite of near-unanimous citizen opposition, FERC’s last-minute permit extension on May 16 gave Crestwood’s Arlington subsidiary another two years to build out its natural gas storage facility.

Salt cavern storage accounts for only seven percent of total underground storage of natural gas in the U.S. but, since 1972, is responsible for 100 percent of the catastrophic accidents that has resulted in loss of life.

Crestwood also seeks to store two other products of fracking in Seneca Lake salt caverns—propane and butane (so-called Liquefied Petroleum Gases, LPG)—for which it is awaiting a decision by Gov. Cuomo’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

John Hertzler. Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake

James Cromwell. Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/06/star-trek-actors-arrested/
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
EIA talks construction cost, never mind what happens after it is built and DOES what it is DESIGNED to DO (i.e. GENERATE energy). 

EIA: Constructing  ;) a natural gas plant is cheaper than other options

By Robert Walton | June 7, 2016


HAPPY TALK SNIPPET:
Quote

•The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently began collecting data on the cost to construct electric power generators, showing gas capacity to be the cheapest widely-used generation  and wind to be the least-expensive renewable resource.  ;)

•In 2013, the first year for which the agency collected data, natural gas generation on a capacity-weighted basis averaged $965/kW  , compared with $1,895/kW for wind and $3,705/kW for solar.

•More than 7,400 MW of gas capacity was added that year, compared with 2,600 MW of solar and 860 MW of wind.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/eia-constructing-a-natural-gas-plant-is-cheaper-than-other-options/420453/

Agelbert NOTE: Doesn't that sound so nice and objective? That sweet talk about wind being the Cheapest Renewable Energy source is the set up for the sucker punch chart they rigged showing the "natural" gas power plants as MUCH "cheaper".  And WTF is the idea of limiting the COST of infrastructure to the initial construction costs? HELLO? Power Plants operate for at least THIRTY YEARS! It's BOLD FACED mendacity and disingenuous duplicity to claim one system is "cheaper" than another just from initial construction costs! Talk about PICKING WINNERS by excluding pollution costs after operation begins! 

And, by the way, it's 2016. What's with  the 2013 stats (2014 and 2015 were BOTH BANNER YEARS for wind that saw construction costs GO DOWN!) to try to make Gas Power Plants look good?

Then they have the brass to publish a ridiculous cost comparison chart excluding fossil fuel pollution costs! 

The "capacity" talk is a deliberate conflation of construction costs with generation costs to pull the wool over your eyes. The EIA  has no shame.  ANY study of capacity for ANY Renewable energy source in general, and wind in particular, evidences VAST more energy capacity than fossil fuel power plants BECAUSE the fuel is FREE.

What these fossil fuel friendly bastards in the EIA are doing here is going back to "high energy density" of hydrocarbons to justify a gamed "capacity".

In a sane world, the INSTANT you talk about energy density, you MUST talk about polluting products COSTS. If you don't, then you are cherry picking fossil fuels as WINNERS, PERIOD.

HERE'S what the fossil fuel friendly EIA does not want YOU to know:

Quote
Wind energy is now as cheap as natural gas, and solar is getting close
And it's only getting cheaper.

BEC CREW  7 OCT 2015

Wind power is now comparable in price to fossil fuels, and solar is well on its way, according to a new report that confirms earlier predictions that renewables aren't just the best option for the environment - they’re unequivocally the smartest long-term investment you can make on energy.

The report, by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, found that in the second half of 2015, the global average cost of onshore wind energy will be $83 per megawatt-hour of electricity (which is down $2 from the first half of the year), and for thin film solar photovoltaics, the cost is $122 per megawatt-hour (down $7 in the past six months).
http://www.sciencealert.com/wind-energy-is-now-as-cheap-as-natural-gas-and-solar-is-getting-close


Quote
Natural Gas Health and Environmental Hazards

Natural gas power plants are significant air pollution sources, releasing hazardous air pollutants, global warming pollution and fine particulate matter.

Natural gas is worse than coal for global warming

While the smokestack emissions from gas-burning power plants are lower than coal, gas is worse because of the leakage from the wells to the pipelines and compressor stations to the end-uses -- since methane (the principle component of natural gas) is far more potent at heating the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (which is produced when coal or gas are burned).

The newest science on methane's global warming potential shows that it's far more potent than previously thought:

http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Sierra Club Endorses Hillary Clinton

Allison Chin, Sierra Club | June 9, 2016 12:34 pm

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/09/sierra-club-endorses-hillary-clinton/

Agelbert COMMENT: Thank you Sierra Club, for paving the way for Hillary Clinton to remove any and all barriers to Fracking in the USA and the world, as she did during her tenure as Secretary of State.

We are also pleased that Victoria Nuland is President Hillary Clinton's pick for Secretary of State.

Thank you Sierra Club, for ensuring a huge increase in the price of fossil fuels (i.e. price shock bonanza!) from the war tensions that Victoria Nuland, neocon State Department queen of the "let's go to war with Russia" group will joyfully generate.

We are ready, willing and able to patriotically and in altruistic fashion (OF COURSE!), work arm in arm with the Clinton Administration to provide peace, prosperity and lots of cheap, clean energy to the world for the welfare of all humanity.


Signed,

Your Loyal Servants and Political Campaign Friends from Exxon, Schlumberger, Halliburton, etc. (you get the idea).

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

For those who can still add and subtract, the following FACTS about fossil fuel ERoEI thermodynamic efficiency (That is, the Fossil fuel ERoEI math, that Gail Tverberg and at least 54% of the Renewable Energy survey participants swear by, including Palloy, DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE FACT that, in the real world of the science of thermodynamics, Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics) ) reveal the error of assuming fossil fuels have a higher ERoEI than Renewable Energy technologies.

The fossil fuel industry originated disingenuous trick is to FIRST hammer the "high energy density" (excluding waste heat, of course) Hess Law based thermodynamics into us while avoiding discussions of waste heat like the plague. When they have established the FALSE MEME that fossil fuels have a "higher energy density" than Renewable Energy technologies, they cleverly create a false equivalence between the cherry picked "higher" fossil fuels ERoEI and "higher" MONETARY Profits. 

Massive Fossil Fuel Industry Welfare Queen Subsides, COSTS to we-the-people, which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to ERoEI thermodynamics, ALWAYS make it to the "higher" MONETARY profits happy talk.  ;)

However, the SCC (social Cost of Carbon), like waste heat thermodynamics, never gets included in the fossil fuel ERoEI happy talk OR the false equivalence "higher" MONETARY Profits fossil fuel happy talk, even though ALL MONETARY INVESTMENT DECISIONS, on which energy sources to use, are based on ALL COSTS.

HELLO? Is anybody there?

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our IVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
 

« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 11:46:22 pm by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
AG: Energy RETURN EQUALS work (as defined by physics) MINUS WASTE HEAT)

Wrong again.   :emthdown:
Waste Heat is what it says it is - waste, it doesn't do work by definition.


Instead of wasting electrons on this load of crap, you should learn some Physics first.

Palloy reaches for some of these, AGAIN:

I apologize for the confusing statement about waste heat. I was trying to say ENERGY RETURN should EXCLUDE WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT doesn't contribute to Energy Return, but it came out a bit mangled. I suppose you will want me to study English too. ::)

So, let me fix the phrase so you can understand it: Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics).

The old "dismissal" type fallacious argument technique, complete with aspersions to the opponent's level of intelligence and education is really tired, but thanks for the great laugh, Palloy.   

Here's to waste heat electrons   

And as to your laughable claim to know what you are talking about, you just exposed yourself as being an abysmally, and embarrassingly, ignorant example of one BESOTTED (your adjective for me is far more applicable to you  ;D) with fossil fuel love. 

What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS!

WHY? Because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES to the "HIGH" ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.   

It's just MORE science challenged BULLSHIT from Palloy, the biosphere math challenged mathematician. 

How stupid can you be to claim WASTE HEAT isn't figured in the ENERGY in ALL the enthalpy of formation tables known to thermodynamics?

ALL HEAT is ENERGY. THAT is where the fossil fuel ERoEI MATH gets it's BASIC DATA. 

ONLY when it cannot do MECHANICAL WORK is it CLASSIFIED as "WASTE", you ignorant, double talking fossil fueler.
 
When you figure out how Hess's Law works, THEN you can make some intelligent remarks about physics in general and thermodynamics in particular, instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance of science side by side with your brain dead bias for fossil fuels.

I have met some stubborn, hide bound, recalcitrant sophists in my day, but you take the prize for STRAW GRASPING DENIAL of reality.

Have a nice day.

THE FACTS Palloy wants to pretend do not exist:
If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our INVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg or PALLOY doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
 

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
AG: What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS! WHY, because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES the ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.

I'll try and decipher what you mean by that garbled nonsense.  Then you might learn something.

Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste. 

The percentage of Energy that ends up doing useful Work via an engine, is called the engine's Efficiency.  An engine doesn't have to be a FF-to-mechanical engine - a solar panel is a sunlight-to-electricity engine.

The problem of both FFs and solar panels (and every other kind of engine) is that the engine's manufacture itself takes Energy.  So in an increasingly energy-constrained world, building NEW engines is not a solution, even if they are more efficient.  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.

Got it now?

That you are as arrogantly insulting as ever is what I get from your post. You are the one that doesn't get the fossil fuel favoring "high" energy density con. I'll try again for the benefit of readers here.

Quote

Palloy:  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.


Yes it is. You cannot arrive at efficiency assumptions without FIRST starting out with an energy density figure. THOSE energy density calculations FAVOR fossil fuels because the false equivalence between gross high energy density and  "high" Fossil Fuels ERoEI is peddled by the fossil fuel industry.

Although the subject of engine design is appropriate BECAUSE our entire civilization routinely replaces most engines manufactured in a 20 year cycle, there are more significant factors at play here. Your claim that the high thermal processes required by industry requires fossil fuels ignores the fact that electric arc furnaces can be powered quite well by electricity, at least the last time I checked. There is nothing in industry that beats electric arc furnaces at rapid heat increase and easily controllable temperatures for smelting metal alloys. PV and wind can supply that electricity quite well. No combustion is required to make PV and wind infrastructure, even though we stupidly still do a lot of that, to the joy of the fossil fuel industry. But that is a political/corporate issue, not one that has beans to do with thermodynamics or energy density.

I am referring to the fact that enthalpy values are based on scientific measurements of EXTERNAL combustion, not INTERNAL combustion.         

Energy density is a function of the total amount of energy in a chemical compound that will be released when combusted.  You are the one that does not get Hess's Law flaws.

Hess's Law is used to determine, in energy units per mass units, the thermodynamic release (for exothermic reactions) or absorption (for endothermic reactions) of energy in the form of heat energy (enthalpy).


Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY. The Hess Law ASSUMPTION that the total CHANGE in ENTHALPY (sum=Σ of changes=Δ  in enthalpy=H°f in intermediate reactions= Σ ΔH°f )  can be used to arrive at an enthalpy value ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT  is USEFUL HEAT.

Yes, HEAT IS a form of energy. But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

BUT, it is NOT subtracted. Therefore, oxidized (i.e. combusted) compounds with LOW waste heat like ETHANOL appear ERRONEOUSLY to have LOWER enthalpy values than compounds with HIGH waste heat (i.e. ALL HYDROCARBONS - i.e. fossil fuels). This Hess Law ERROR is reflected in the published tables in chemistry texts for the Enthalpy of Combustion of chemical reactants AND makes its way to ERoEI values.

The following table is factual, though the reasonable facsimile of Agelbert  ;D saying "NO WAY" is also accurate. 


If we used fossil fuels exclusively to boil water, the above table is accurate BECAUSE the "work" of boiling water (or running a steam engine) makes them the winners.

But if you combust the above compounds in the above table in an INTERNAL combustion engine, ETHANOL is the WINNER. You cannot understand that, for some reason.

As to the energy density of PV and Wind, they are far and away above that of fossil fuels and even ethanol, regardless of what you wish to believe.

In closing, I recommend your "erudite mathematical highness" to be sure and tell Richard Heinberg he does not "get it" and needs to go study physics.

How We Get to a 100% Renewable Energy Future

Richard Heinberg | June 15, 2016 12:20 pm

I spent the last year working with co-author David Fridley and Post Carbon Institute staff on a just-published book, Our Renewable Future. The process was a pleasure: everyone involved (including the twenty or so experts we interviewed or consulted) was delightful to work with and I personally learned an enormous amount along the way. But we also encountered a prickly challenge in striking a tone that would inform but not alienate the book’s potential audience.

As just about everyone knows, there are gaping chasms separating the worldviews of fossil fuel promoters, nuclear power advocates and renewable energy supporters. But crucially, even among those who disdain fossils and nukes, there is a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between those who say that solar and wind power have unstoppable momentum and will eventually bring with them lower energy prices and millions of jobs and those who say these intermittent energy sources are inherently incapable of sustaining modern industrial societies and can make headway only with massive government subsidies.

We didn’t set out to support or undermine either of the latter two messages. Instead, we wanted to see for ourselves what renewable energy sources are capable of doing and how the transition toward them is going. We did start with two assumptions of our own (based on prior research and analysis), about which we are perfectly frank: one way or another fossil fuels are on their way out and nuclear power is not a realistic substitute. That leaves renewable solar and wind, for better or worse, as society’s primary future energy sources.

In our work on this project, we used only the best publicly available data and we explored as much of the relevant peer-reviewed literature as we could identify. But that required sorting and evaluation: Which data are important? And which studies are more credible and useful? Some researchers claim that solar PV electricity has an energy return on the energy invested in producing it (EROEI) of about 20:1, roughly on par with electricity from some fossil sources, while others peg that return figure at less than 3:1.

This wide divergence in results of course has enormous implications for the ultimate economic viability of solar technology. Some studies say a full transition to renewable energy will be cheap and easy, while others say it will be extremely difficult or practically impossible. We tried to get at the assumptions that give rise to these competing claims, assertions and findings, and that lead either to renewables euphoria or gloom. We wanted to judge for ourselves whether those assumptions are realistic.

That’s not the same as simply seeking a middle ground between optimism and pessimism. Renewable energy is a complicated subject and a fact-based, robust assessment of it should be honest and informative; its aim should be to start new and deeper conversations, not merely to shout down either criticism or boosterism.

Unfortunately, the debate is already quite polarized and politicized. As a result, realism and nuance may not have much of a constituency.

This is especially the case because our ultimate conclusion was that, while renewable energy can indeed power industrial societies, there is probably no credible future scenario in which humanity will maintain current levels of energy use (on either a per capita or total basis). Therefore current levels of resource extraction, industrial production and consumption are unlikely to be sustained—much less can they perpetually grow. Further, getting to an optimal all-renewable energy future will require hard work, investment, adaptation and innovation on a nearly unprecedented scale. We will be changing more than our energy sources; we’ll be transforming both the ways we use energy and the amounts we use. Our ultimate success will depend on our ability to dramatically reduce energy demand in industrialized nations, shorten supply chains, electrify as much usage as possible and adapt to economic stasis at a lower overall level of energy and materials throughput. Absent widespread informed popular support, the political roadblocks
to such a project  will be overwhelming.

That’s not what most people want to hear. And therefore, frankly, we need some help getting this analysis out to the sorts of people who might benefit from it. Post Carbon Institute’s communications and media outreach capabilities are limited. Meanwhile the need for the energy transition is urgent and the longer it is delayed, the less desirable the outcome will be. It is no exaggeration to say that the transition from climate-damaging and depleting fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is the central cause of our times. And it will demand action from each and every one of us.

You can help by visiting the Our Renewable Future website, familiarizing yourself with the issue, sharing your thoughts and spreading the word with friends, family, colleagues and allies.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/15/our-renewable-future-heinberg/

Rob Brown: Great column. To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. We may never get to 100% renewables but, unless targets are set, progress will not be made. A number of countries have reached the 50%+ barrier on renewable power. These countries have been steadily reducing CO2 emissions and other types of pollution for decades. Sweden is a good example.

https://sweden.se/society/ener...
 
agelbert > Rob Brown

"To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. "

Exactly right. 

And Amory Lovins has shown how to do that. The Post Carbon Institute's insistence that a 100% Renewable Energy powered civilization, in order to be sustainable, requires a lower energy use is true. BUT, their attempt to equate a lower total energy use to an obligatory lower standard of living is flawed because, as Amory Lovins painstakingly proves in his peer reviewed work titled Reinventing Fire, Renewable Energy plus energy use efficiency improvements can shave over 80% of current energy demand off of our civilization without any lowering of our standard of living.

Richard Heinberg portrays this 'type of energy use' argument as two sides of a polarized, and irrational, debate. It's not. Those defending unsustainable dirty energy have conclusively been proven to be, not just wrong, but an existential threat to our biosphere.

Richard Heinberg fails to point out the fact that political roadblocks to 100% Renewable energy have zero basis in science, both from an energy density happy talk for fossil fuels point of view, and climate cause and effect. It is those vested interests in a dirty energy status quo who don't want to hear the facts, not those advocating a 100% Renewable Erengy transition.

This is not, as Heinberg claims, about what "people want to hear" about the transition to Renewable Energy. This is about, as he points out without sufficient emphasis, the FACT that any dirty energy scenario is not optional to a 100% Renewable energy scenario, PERIOD.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
AG: Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY.

True.      

As I said before:
Quote
Palloy: Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste.

There is definitely no inefficiency in Hess's Law - Thermodynamics wouldn't work if there was.
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol

A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram
This differs from your quoted figure of 55.496 kJ/gram because that assumes burning Methane produces liquid water, not Steam (they have different ∆H: -241.8 and -285.8 ).  If liquid water remained in the furnace, it would eventually flood the reaction, so the furnace output (not the boiler) MUST be steam.  The difference between your figure and the correct one is the energy it takes to turn the liquid H2O to steam.
Isn't Hess's Law neat?

Quote
AG: But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

No, that is wrong.

Hess's Law describes the chemical reaction - it doesn't say anything about what you are going to do with the heat after you've got it.

OK, so now you have your heat, 50.143 kJ/gram of Methane, what are you going to do with it? - boil water to produce steam.  Try as you might, that process is going to be less than 100% efficient because some heat will always be lost through the walls of the boiler to the atmosphere.  That Energy is Waste Heat, but it is NOT the fault of Hess's Law, it is the fault of the boiler's efficiency (an engine).

Then you are going to take that steam and run it through a steam turbine (maybe several in cascade).  That is another engine and it will have an efficiency of less than 100%.

Then you are going to take the Energy of the spinning shaft and couple it to an electrical generator, another engine, again with an efficiency of less than 100%.

So the complete process is:
(Mass of Methane * Energy Density) = Fuel Energy
and Fuel Energy * efficiency of boiler * efficiency of turbine * efficiency of generator = Electrical Energy
and (Electrical Energy / Fuel Energy) is the efficiency of the whole system.

Now the amount of Methane entering the system is known, and the amount of electrical energy leaving the system is known, so the efficiency of the whole system is known, and that is what is used in ERoEI calculations.

I can't see what your problem is, except that your 55.496 figure is wrong, it should be 50.143.
Hess's Law and its table of ∆H values is 100% correct and is nothing to do with waste.

Don't you ever get tired of thumbs down? Talk about wasting electrons.

What, exactly, is your problem with the enthalpy of COMBUSTION table I just gave you?


My math comes from published tables. If you have a problem with them, argue with wikipeda, not me.

You can rant and rave about efficiency and there allegedly not being any "inefficiencies" in Hess's Law until the cows come home, but I never said beans about the Hess Law "inefficiencies". I merely stated that the experimental basis for obtaining the energy density values, WHEN THEY CAN OBTAIN THEM (which is simply impossible in some cases), is through measurement of EXTERNAL combustion.

What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?

Every time the subject of the higher ERoEI of ethanol than other hydrocarbons comes up, you have spasms of uncontrollable twitching, for some reason.

You have often gone into great detail about how much of this, that and the other is fossil fuel based to deny the cost effectiveness of SEVERAL Renewable Energy technologies, not just ethanol and other biofuels.

YET, when I point out peer reviewed studies  that prove ethanol beats hydrocarbon fuels, you pull out your down thumb smiley. LOL!

Hess's Law had its place in contributing to the Law of Conservation of Energy, but it is an inappropriate method of basing the start of ERoEI calculations. Even wikipeda agrees that ERoEI calculation should ONLY INCLUDE USEFUL ENERGY. Gross Energy density values include potentially useful and potentially useless energy known as waste. Deny it all you wish, but those are the thermodynamic facts.

Quote
In physics, energy economics, and ecological energetics, energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI); or energy return on investment (EROI), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy used to obtain that energy resource.[1][2] It is a distinct measure from energy efficiency as it does not measure the primary energy inputs to the system, only usable energy.

A fuel or energy must have an EROEI ratio of at least 3:1 to be considered viable as a prominent fuel or energy source.[3][4]

The irony of the above quote is that wikipeda then proceeds to post all the Charles Hall fossil fuel and nuclear power happy talk ERoEI charts.

But, to their credit, they do admit that ERoEI calculations have no actual standard rigorous and required inputs. Therefore, ERoEI math is a fossil fuel industry cherry picking paradise.

Quote

Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed-upon standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be completely different from the output. For example, energy in the form of coal could be used in the production of ethanol. This might have an EROEI of less than one, but could still be desirable due to the benefits of liquid fuels.

How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers.[28] A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.

However, when comparing two energy sources a standard practice for the supply chain energy input can be adopted. For example, consider the steel, but don't consider the energy invested in factories deeper than the first level in the supply chain.

Energy return on energy invested does not take into account the factor of time. Energy invested in creating a solar panel may have consumed energy from a high power source like coal, but the return happens very slowly, i.e. over many years. If energy is increasing in relative value this should favour delayed returns. Some believe this means the EROEI measure should be refined further.

Conventional economic analysis has no formal accounting rules for the consideration of waste products that are created in the production of the ultimate output. For example, differing economic and energy values placed on the waste products generated in the production of ethanol makes the calculation of this fuel's true EROEI extremely difficult.

They also break down the three prominent ERoEI calculations, while ignoring the fact that the Charles Hall type SUNY "studies", whether they allegedly  ;) use 'point of use' or 'extended' (FORGET 'societal' - the dirty energy corporations don't DO 'societal') exclude inconvenient costs and include gamed dirty energy subsidies that artificially give fossil fuel and nuclear power "high" ERoEI and lowball Renewable Eenrgy ERoEI.

Quote
There are three prominent expanded EROEI calculations, they are point of use, extended and societal. Point of Use EROEI expands the calculation to include the cost of refining and transporting the fuel during the refining process. Since this expands the bounds of the calculation to include more production process EROEI will decrease.[21]

Extended EROEI includes point of use expansions as well as including the cost of creating the infrastructure needed for transportation of the energy or fuel once refined.[30]

Societal EROI is a sum of all the EROEIs of all the fuels used in a society or nation. A societal EROI has never been calculated and researchers believe it may currently be impossible to know all variables necessary to complete the calculation, but attempted estimates have been made for some nations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested




Things were simpler in the middle of the 19th Century

Hess's Law of the constant summation of heat was obviously a special case of the law of the conservation of energy, which had not yet been formally stated.

But that was then. NOW the polluters use Hess's Law to our detriment and their profit.
 
The REALITY of WASTE HEAT in fuels for internal combustion engines, as well as the ENERGY REQUIRED to ameliorate the POLLUTION those fuels produce when combusted, is excluded. This convenient fiction distorts the value of selected energy sources, resulting in the use of NEGATIVE ERoEI, inefficient and polluting, hydrocarbon fuels to run industrial civilization.

In the REAL world we live in called the biosphere, this is unsustainable because the balance of energy radiated to space versus that received from the sun is altered towards life destroying heat.

It IS a closed system. ALL factors must be computed. Hess's Law is an ABERRATION of the Law of Conservation of Energy because it reduces the concept of "energy" to heat, whether or not it is waste (i.e. USELESS for work and damaging to the biosphere) heat.

TODAY, Hess's Law is used BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY and the CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY to arbitrarily to exclude inconvenient thermodynamic FACTS in order to downplay the value of Renewable energy based technologies that produce fuels, textiles, plastics, medicines, etc.

Hess's Law, because it is the most basic enthalpy step to obtain energy density values for chemical compounds that are subsequently used in Energy Return on Energy Density (ERoEI) calculations, has helped the Fossil Fuel Industry Perpetuate the following MYTH: It Takes More Energy to ­Produce Ethanol than You Get from It!


Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.

In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI. Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative.

That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).

The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.

But perhaps more important than ERoEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.

Put your DOWN THUMB out there all you want, Palloy. You are wrong about high ERoEI for fossil fuels and low ERoEI for Renewable energy..
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
RE,
I am having some difficulties with Hess Law calculations. Even though I have performed them repeatedly, I get values that are inaccurate. Therefore, I must be doing something wrong. These calculations deal with the combustion of Hydrogen gas versus the combustion of the hydrocarbon methane. Since the water gas product, in a standard atmosphere, immediately goes to its lower energy state of a liquid, I am using the liquid water enthalpy value in both reactions.

I would appreciate the use of your Columbia University graduated Chemist brain.

This is what I have calculated:

Combusting the common hydrocarbon CH4 gas (methane), we get CO2 plus water. According to the Standard Enthalpy of Formation table, CH4 has a value of -74.81  kJ/mol, CO2 −393.509 kJ/mol and water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mol.

CH4 + 2(O2) --> CO2 + 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The enthalpy of the reactants equals ONE mole of CH4 (ignoring the two moles of O2 gas because, according to Hess Law convention, elements in their standard state have an ARBITRARY VALUE OF ZERO) =  -74.81 kJ

The enthalpy of the products equals One mole of CO2 + TWO moles of H2O = 965.509 kJ.

−393.509 kJ + [2(-285.8 kJ) MINUS [(-74.81 kJ) + (2 (ZERO))] = -890.299 kJ/mole



That was pretty straightforward. :icon_sunny: Now for the combustion of hydrogen gas.

In the following reaction (Thermochemical Properties of selected substances at 298 degrees Kelvin and 1 atmosphere of pressure.), oxygen gas + hydrogen gas = water gas. WATER gas has an enthalpy of formation of −241.818 kJ/mol.

That means that an Exothemic (energy releasing reaction) sent out (a certain amount of) kJ/mole of ENERGY from two gases.

When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

2(H2) + O2 --> 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The total enthalpy of the reactants is, according to Hess's Law, ZERO.

The enthalpy of the products equals one mole of water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mole.

-285kj - [(2 times ZERO) + ZERO] =  −285.8 kJ/mole

So, it appears that burning methane releases (890.299 kJ minus 285.8 kJ) 679.709 kJ/mole (about 76%) MORE ENERGY than burning hydrogen. This is inaccurate.  :(  :emthdown:

I did some checking and the more accurate figure for the energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane is 802 kJ.

THE ENERGY FACTS:

Quote
"Since there are 500 moles of hydrogen gas in a kilogram, this means that burning a kilogram of hydrogen gas releases 500 times as much energy, or 121 MJ (million joules), assuming that the water comes out as a gas, as is usually the case in a combustion process."

"The energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane turns out to be 802 kJ. The combustion of one kilogram of methane releases 50 MJ. Heavier hydrocarbons generally yield more energy per mole, but approximately the same energy on a per-kilogram basis. Gasoline, a mixture of hexane, heptane, octane, and various other hydrocarbons, yields about 44 MJ per kilogram."

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/eee/chapter4.pdf

NASA preferred Hydrogen over methane in their main space shuttle tank for a no bullshit thermodynamic higher energy release per unit mass reason. Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry peddles the "hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source" baloney 24/7. Bad mouthing Hydrogen as an energy source is right behind ethanol in the  fossil fuel propaganda fun and games.  :evil4:  But somehow they couldn't convince NASA of that  ;)

 
So, what am I doing wrong that I can't make Hess's Law math come out right for the chemical reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen gas?


                   ???         
[/size].

For each bond you break through oxidation, burning H2 gas gives you more energy back than each bond you break in the oxidation of methane.  The bond energy for  H-H is 432 Kj/mole.  The bond energy for the C-H bond in Methane (and all the single bonded alkanes +/- a bit) is 410 Kj/mole.  So for an equal number of moles of H2, you have more energy stored in the Hydrogen than the methane.  However, in the Gas phase, methane is more energy dense than hydrogen, because each molecule has 4 C-H bonds to break, whereas each molecule of H2 only has one bond to break.  So it is almost 4X less efficient a store of energy in the gas phase, even though each individual bond holds greater energy.

This changes if you liquify the gas though.  In this case, an equal amount of liquid hydrogen to liquid methane would contain more energy and release it on oxidation.  For space applications, it is not that energy consumptive to keep these gases liquified, because space itself is so cold.  On earth, this is a much bigger problem.  So NASA for space uses Hydrogen, but on earth generally methane works better with a higher energy density in the gas phase.

Liquid Alkanes (basically pentane and up at normal earth temps) pack a lot more punch than both hydrogen and methane by volume, because they are liquid at normal earth temps.  To keep Hydrogen gas liquified at earth surface temps would itself expend tremendous energy, so it is not a practical alternative on earth.

You can't just apply Hess' Law without dealing with the Phase Change problems here between Liquids and Gases.

RE

Note: This assumes both Hydrogen Gas and Methane Gas operate according to the combined gas laws PV=nRT.  Both gases do operate very closely to that law except at very low temps or very high pressures.




Although a certain member of the peanut gallery will vociferously disagree (and hurl ridicule and ad hominem  arrogant insults along with bullshit about Hess Law "beauty") at what I am about to say, you have confirmed my view that Hess's Law belongs in the dust bin of thermodynamics history.

When Hess's Law was formulated, bond energies were not known. It was not until many, many years later that Linus Pauling's table of electronegativity was published. This aided in the knowledge of chemical reactions in regard to the positioning of molecular bonds between adjacent reactants and atomic orbitals in what physical chemistry now knows about the energy required to break bonds and the energy released (in exothermic reactions) when they are reformed.

As you pointed out in so many words, Bond energies, not Hess's Law, is the only accurate way, when gas phase changes are involved, to calculate energy density AND how much energy is released in a chemical reaction.

The following graphic illustrates the bond energy values, NOT AVAILABLE when using Hess's Law, whether phase changes are involved or not, that accurately reflect the high energy density of H2


Although you mentioned that in certain states, methane is more energy dense that hydrogen, as a rule, that's a technicality that doesn't justify methane over hydrogen. For example, a very long chained hydrocarbon is much more energy dense than a short chained one.


HOWEVER, the refining process, using a massive amount of heat, probably a greater amount than that required to keep hydrogen cool prior to combustion, produces short chains and VOCs at the top of the cracking tower.

BEFORE you get to the point where those short chains are massaged chemically and thermally to get long chains so your internal combustion engine will actually run, you have gone through one hell of a lot of energy per unit mass. This makes the CH4 (and every other hydrocarbon liquid or gas) perceived advantage in energy density at certain gaseous states as insufficient to prefer it to Hydrogen gas as an energy source, regardless of the energy required to keep hydrogen gas at a low temperature.

Hess's Law confuses this issue, not just in regard to gases involving phase changes, but in arbitrarily assigning ZERO enthalpy of formation values to ALL elements in their ground state, be they gas or liquid. This fails to account for, among other things, catalytic energy of activation lowering action based on element or compound electronegativity differences, to the unwarranted perceived advantage of fossil fuels.


We KNOW the bond energies. We DON'T NEED Hess's Law any more to estimate energy density. As you pointed out, energy density varies by temperature and pressure. As I point out very often, the fossil fuel industry people peddle the energy density data according to Hess's Law without absolutely any regard for the vast amount of energy they expend to package their product. They will ENDLESSLY go into detail about all the energy difficulties of packaging hydrogen for combustion, but are silent as DEATH about the much greater energy expended to prepare gasoline or methane for the market.

I know you and I disagree on this. You often mention the high energy density of fossil fuels as the reason we still use them instead of a hydrogen plus solar plus wind EV run world. I simply ask you to remember the energy cost of packaging fossil fuels in addition to the energy cost of cleaning up after the pollution they expel. Hydrogen has always been more efficient in energy and cheaper in dollars, if fossil fuels were not subsidized.

One more thing that Hess's Law does not account for, but bond energies (with some detailed internal combustion physical chemistry) do account for, is the energy density of oxygen carrying fuels like ethanol. Measurements based on external combustion ignore some thermodynamic realities that molecular electronegativity evidence. When you are oxidizing a substance through combustion, the efficiency of that reaction is contingent on the availability of oxygen. Nobody wants to talk about that elephant in the fossil fuel energy density room (except for maybe Palloy with a thumb down following ridicule and huffing and puffing  ;)).

There is simply NO WAY for a hydrocarbon to combust as efficiently and cleanly as an oxygen carrying fuel like ethanol in an atmosphere of 21 to 23% oxygen. As you know, the formation of incomplete combustion products in a combustion chamber is caused by the lack of sufficient oxygen reactant.

Gasoline never even releases, in the time it has to combust in the chamber, all of its energy density that SHOULD BE USEFUL ENERGY, never mind the waste heat, because of the lack of oxygen. Incomplete combustion is the NORM in gasoline. YET, Charles Hall deliberately ignored that in his ERoEI calculations with his erroneous assumption of complete combustion. Simply put, that was thermodynamic mendacity to make gasoline look better than ethanol.   

That is one of the reasons that it is CRAP compared with ethanol. The other reason is that ethanol complete combustion reduces waste heat and engine friction. 

Although I have never been able to convince you of the superiority of ethanol over gasoline or diesel, I hope that you consider agreeing with me that bond energy math is preferable to Hess's Law in computing energy density in elements and chemical compounds in a standard atmosphere, as well as the only truly accurate way to measure energy release in exothermic reactions and energy absorption in endothermic reactions.       


Bond Enthalpies, NOT Hess's Law, should be the gold standard used to base ALL assumptions about energy density in chemical compounds and elements:



If you don't agree, that's okay. Thanks again for the info.   
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The Unfractured Future


Hear Native American leaders wisdom about fracking and why it must be banned. It is nothing less than a system that is going to pollute the veins of Mother Earth.

We hear Senator James Inhofe (R- OK) enthusiastically declare that there is enough natural gas to supply our needs for the next 35 years in the Marcellus Shale (NY- PA).

The film then directs our attention to the following: It's about our needs vs. our children's future.

Where is the long term thinking and responsible leadership? ???

"Regulations and fines do not protect the environment. There is no way to undo the harm hydro fracking will cause" says Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. "When you sit and you counsel for the welfare of the people, think not of yourself, nor of your family, nor even your generation. Make decisions on behalf of the 7th generation coming... you have to defend and protect them so that they may enjoy what you enjoy today."

--Bibi Farber

This video was made by "Reel Change for Nonprofits" participants Tracy Basile and Scott Halfmann of WESPAC and Friends of Turtle Island.
http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/anti-fracking/the-unfractured-.html
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Fossil Fuel Profits Eclipsed By Pollution’s Cost

 A common refrain of those advocating against climate action has been that the economic benefits of the fossil fuel industry outweigh the costs of switching to clean energy.

A new working paper out of Cambridge provides some numbers to show that this is not an even remotely legitimate claim. Researchers compared how much the top 20 fossil fuel companies profited between 2008 and 2012 with the social cost of the carbon emissions in their reserves. (At Vox, Dave Roberts goes into a little detail on the paper and explaining the social cost of carbon, for those who’d like a refresher.)

The results of the analysis show that: "For all companies and all years, the economic cost to society of their CO2 emissions was greater than their after-tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008.” So if companies had to pay to clean up their carbon emissions, instead of foisting that expense on the public, none of them would be making any money.

For coal companies, every dollar of revenue translated to somewhere between $2 and $9 in climate costs borne by society. This means that if the world ever gets around to putting a price on carbon that accurately reflects the social costs, it’s doubtful that any fossil fuel company could stay in business without making some major changes.

Despite their current earnings, this tells us that fossil fuel companies aren’t a net positive economic force on the planet, undercutting the popular denier excuse for inaction.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t make them any less of a source of income      for those with "vested interest in carbon dioxide emissions” who are eager to tell us all about how “Fossil Fuels Will Save The World (Really).”  



Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: So much for the USA National Sovereignty based  Keystone XL Rejection.  >:(  The lawyer lackeys for the corporate crooks are using NAFTA to bypass national sovereignty as if it was not there.   

TransCanada Files NAFTA Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection

Michael Brune | June 25, 2016 10:16 am

On June 24, foreign oil company TransCanada filed a lawsuit against the U.S. under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline violated NAFTA’s broad rights for foreign investors by thwarting the company’s “expectations.” As compensation, TransCanada is demanding more than $15 billion from U.S. taxpayers.

TransCanada’s case will be heard in a private tribunal of three lawyers who are not accountable to any domestic legal system, thanks to NAFTA’s “investor-state” system, which is also included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The controversial TPP would empower thousands of additional corporations, including major polluters, to follow TransCanada’s example and use this private tribunal system to challenge U.S. climate and environmental policies.

TransCanada’s Request for Arbitration follows the Notice of Intent to submit a claim to arbitration that it filed on Jan. 6.

TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks.


The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals.

Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis, spotlighting the need for a new model of trade model that supports rather than undermines climate action. We urge our members of Congress to learn from this historic moment and commit to reject the TPP.

Here’s more information on the TPP:

Environmental opposition to the TPP is mounting. Earlier in June, more than 450 environmental, landowner, Indigenous rights, and allied organizations sent a letter to Congress warning that pending trade deals like the TPP threaten efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Read the Sierra Club’s report on how the TPP would roughly double the number of corporations that could follow TransCanada’s example and challenge U.S. safeguards in private, unaccountable tribunals.


The corporations that would gain this ability include hundreds of foreign-owned fossil fuel firms, such as the U.S. subsidiaries of BHP Billiton, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and one of the U.S.’s largest foreign investors in fracking and offshore drilling.

The TPP would nearly double the number of foreign fracking firms that could challenge new U.S. fracking restrictions in private tribunals.

The deal also would enable oil and gas corporations with nearly 1 million acres’ worth of U.S. offshore drilling leases to use this private tribunal system to try to undermine new restrictions on offshore drilling.

No prior U.S. trade deal has granted such broad rights to corporations with such broad interests in maintaining U.S. fossil fuel dependency.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/25/transcanada-nafta-keystone-xl-tpp/

We do not have to let these crooks get away with this THEFT under the color of law.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

U.S. states, Rockefellers clash with U.S. House panel on Exxon climate probes

Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:20pm EDT HOUSTON  |  By Terry Wade

With a number of U.S. states proceeding with investigations of Exxon Mobil Corp's (XOM.N) record on climate change, the attorney general of Massachusetts and investment funds of the Rockefeller family on Friday told a Congressional committee it lacked powers to oversee those probes.

The pushback is the latest chapter in a high-stakes fight between the world's largest publicly traded oil company and a coalition of state attorneys general who have said they would go after Exxon to try and force action to tackle climate change.

The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology last week reiterated demands  that state attorneys general hand over any records of consultations the prosecutors had with ]outside environmental groups before their probes were opened.


Republicans on the committee have said about 20 state officials overreached when they jointly said in March they would participate in inquiries into whether Exxon executives misled the public by contradicting research from company scientists that spelled out the threats of climate change.
 
State officials have said the committee has no right to get involved. 

Quote
"The Committee lacks authority to interfere with an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office into possible violations of Massachusetts law by ExxonMobil,"
said a letter to the committee from the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey that was seen by Reuters.
 
In another letter to the House panel seen by Reuters, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund, two investment funds that have been critical of fossil fuels linked to climate change, said the committee's request "imperiled the funds' First Amendment rights" and said "Congress's investigatory power is not unlimited."

Last week, Exxon asked a federal court to throw out a subpoena that would force it to hand over decades of documents on climate change to Healey's office.
 
Both sides in the standoff have sought to use the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom speech and freedom of assembly, among other protections, to press their cases.

The House committee has complained the inquiries risk stifling free speech and scientific inquiry, and that state officials were coordinating with special interest groups.

Exxon , which declined to comment on Friday, has repeatedly said that it has acknowledged the reality of climate change for years and communicated this to investors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-idUSKCN0ZA3KX



 



Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Although Mr. Farage has said some hard truths from time to time, I cannot accept the "National sovereignty" excuse he gave for pushing BREXIT BECAUSE he is a global warming DENIER.

IOW, he WANTS MORE fossil fuel AND nuclear power "investment" and LESS "regulation" from EU environmental standards requiring LESS emissions.

He is, therefore, incapable of doing the right thing for future generations. EVERY OTHER ISSUE is subordinate to the issue of CO2 pollution and the sixth mass extinction it has triggered.

Nigel Blowhard Farage  does not understand that
.

Besides being a climate change denier, NF has a lot of other despicable opinions and traits.  He's a xenophobe and a capitalist to begin with.

However, he did serve as a good Monkey Wrench messing up the works in the EU, which is a good thing.  The EU is just Nazism with Window Dressing.  I just finished an article on this topic for next week's Sunday Brunch on the Diner.

Besides that, NF is funny, in an In Your Face sort of way.  He regularly pitched some fabulous insults at the rest of the Clowns & Jokers in the EU Parliament. 


RE

Yup. The whole BREXIT thing is just a turf battle between two elite empathy deficit disordered fascist groups.

You may disagree, but the EU fascists have more CFS (Common F'n Sense) than the British fascists.

Time to leverage the Brexit into a nice oil company lobbyist position.

Eddie has the picture of what BREXIT is ALL ABOUT for the British oligarchs.   

Nigel Farage is, like those he backs, a suicidal, dirty energy supporting greed ball pushing "national sovereignty" bullshit while endangering future generations with his actions.

I'm sure he and his pals find it very amusing. 

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: To be filed in the "Just what we did NOT need" category (Giant Gas Discovery)  >:(.

Giant Gas Discovery Made By International Team
Published at 04:35PM - 26/07/16
 
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced it has discovered “large deposits of potentially producible gas hydrate” in the Indian Ocean, in a partnership with the government of India and Japan.

According to the USGS, this discovery of highly enriched accumulations of natural gas hydrate in the Bay of Bengal is the first of its kind in the Indian Ocean with the potential to be producible.

“Advanced like the Bay of Bengal discovery will help unlock the global energy resource potential of gas hydrates as well as help define the technology needed to safely produce them”, said Walter Guidroz, USGS Energy Resources Programme coordinator.
Giant Gas Discovery Made By International Team

“The USGS is proud  to have played a key role on this project in collaboration with our international partner, the Indian government,” he added.

USGS Scientists Dr. William Waite (Right) and Dr. Pamela Swarzenski (picture of two brain dead scientists at article link)

The international team responsible for the finding was led by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) of India on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas India, in cooperation with the USGS, the Japanese Drilling Company and the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC).

The scientists involved conducted ocean drilling, conventional sediment coring, pressure coring, downhole logging and analytical activities to assess the geological occurrence, regional context and features of the deposits.

Scientists Analyse Energy Potential in Gas Hydrates

“The results from this expedition mark a critical step forward to understanding the energy resource potential of gas hydrates,” USGS Senior Scientist Tim Collet, who participated in the programme, said.

“The discovery is what we believe to be several of the largest and most concentrated gas hydrate accumulations yet found in the world will yield the geologic and engineering data needed to better understand the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate in nature and to assess the technologies needed to safely produce gas hydrates,” he added.

The research expedition – Indian National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02 – is the second joint exploration for gas hydrate potential in the Indian Ocean.

http://www.offshorepost.com/giant-gas-discovery-made-by-international-team/

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm