|
Philip Andrews,
Unst
THE RECENT letters page 'discussion' of the merits of water-powered venturi
turbines vs. aerogenerators seems to have initiated something of a hair-pulling
cat-fight between the technical experts of rival factions.
Before we get too involved in petty personalities and 'mine is better', it might
be a good time to remind ourselves of why these things are so badly needed.
Global warming (due to the presence of excess carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere) and global dimming (due to small-particle pollution in the
atmosphere) are now measurable, observable realities. Both have been produced
almost entirely by the inefficient and wasteful long-term use of carbon-based
fuels, and the destructiveness of wars (pollution from burning fuel dumps and
property).
Human activity has gradually created an insane situation where two major forms
of carbon pollution are now more or less balancing one another out - to the
extent that we can't actually do without either of them.
Our main (but probably largely unacknowledged) problem at the moment is that
reduction of both forms of pollution will have to be undertaken precisely in
step, in order not to risk triggering a climatic catastrophe - but that won't be
enough by itself.
The necessary reduction in carbon-based pollutants of both types will
immediately reveal yet another layer of environmental threat that we've
conveniently forgotten about - because reducing the pollutant content will clear
the atmosphere, and so make it less able to filter out the ultra-violet and
other high-frequency radiation that is now being allowed to pass through the
depleted ozone layer, particularly near the poles.
On that basis, it's clear that we need to stop deriving energy from the burning
of fossil fuels as soon as possible, and also find ways to 'hoover' the damaging
chemicals out of the upper atmosphere so that the ozone layer can reform and do
its job properly once again.
The situation outlined above might be bad enough all by itself - but it doesn't
state the full position with regard to atmospheric and environmental pollution
by any means. At least two other factors are involved.
In terms of combustion pollution, a fact that no-one seems to be aware of (or
willing to acknowledge) is that the burning of carbon-based fuels results in the
production of carbon dioxide and 'new' water, as well as a great deal of waste
heat. If in doubt, you can check this for yourself by looking at what comes out
of your car's exhaust-pipe - the visible part of the plume of white 'smoke' that
you'll see on a cold morning is water vapour, the rest of it is carbon dioxide,
small-particle pollution due to inefficient combustion, and unburnt hydrocarbon
fuel.
This so-called 'new' water eventually finds its way into the environment -
into the rivers and oceans, as rainfall - and will inevitably have some gradual
but inexorable upward effect on sea levels worldwide unless (and until) it's
locked up again in vegetation of some sort, where it belongs.
The amounts of water generated in this way are not trivial. It can readily be
shown by calculation that the efficient burning of a gallon of (nonane-based)
petrol in a car engine produces slightly less than eight pints of 'new' water
(as well as nearly 6000 litres of carbon dioxide); and that a gallon of (cetane-based)
diesel produces slightly more than nine pints of water (and slightly more than
6000 litres of carbon dioxide).
Estimated annual world production of crude oil last year was 30 billion
barrels. 30-40 per cent of crude can be catalytically cracked into lighter
fractions for use as liquid fuel in various types of internal combustion engine.
Taking those numbers as a very rough guide, the implication is that we threw
somewhere in the region of ten to twelve billion barrels of 'new' water into the
environment last year, simply for the sake of running our vehicles and
power-stations. 6.2897 barrels = one cubic meter: 10 billion barrels is
1,589,900,949 cubic metres: one cubic metre of water weighs one tonne: we
therefore threw somewhere in the region of 1.6 billion metric tons of new water
into the oceans last year - without even realising that we'd done it. This new
water will certainly affect the salinity of the oceans as well, to some extent.
Here are the basic combustion equations, so that you can check this assertion
for yourself and see what numbers you come up with. If in doubt, ask any
qualified chemistry teacher to do it for you. I have no idea what level of
academic knowledge would be called for today, but it's equivalent to O-Level
chemistry of the late 1960s. It may be interesting to note in passing (from the
two equations shown below) that a considerable amount of oxygen is consumed in
this process. For comparison, an internal combustion engine burns all of the
oxygen from the air that it ingests, whereas a healthy human being 'burns' about
4 per cent of the 21 per cent oxygen component drawn from the air in each breath
taken (otherwise the EAR first aid technique wouldn't work - if in doubt, you
could ask your family doctor or sports centre physio to verify that):
For Nonane-based petrol:
C9H20 + 14 O2 = 10 H2O + 9 CO2
For Cetane-based DERV:
C14H30 + (43/2) O2 = 15 H2O + 14 CO2
Constants and Conversion Factors
The density of nonane-based petrol is taken to be 740 gm/litre (740 gm/1000
cc);
The density of cetane-based DERV is taken to be 835 gm/litre (835 gm/1000cc);
The density of water is taken to be 1000 gm/litre;
One gram-mole (Gram Molecular Weight) of any gas occupies 22.4 litres of
volume at Standard Temperature and Pressure;
One Imperial gallon is equivalent to 4.546 litres;
One Imperial pint is equivalent to 0.56825 litres.
I don't propose to bore readers with the actual calculations, but if anyone
feels interested enough in seeing them please ask for them by means of a new
letter to this page. I'll present them in yet another letter for all to see, if
enough interest is shown.
It seems quite clear to me that non-carbon-based energy technologies need to be
examined and developed as soon as possible - preferably with a view to a
complete changeover from fossil fuel usage within the next five years. It also
seems clear to me that a place like Shetland would be the ideal location from
which to try out the various suggested solutions - on the one hand because of
its small population and plentiful supplies of freely-available mechanical
energy, and on the other hand because of Shetland's already-heavy reliance on
electrical power to sustain life (fridges, freezers, heaters, central-heating
janitor systems and much more besides).
It also seems very clear to me that a mixture of technologies - 'horses for
courses' - will have to be employed in order to make the best of what Nature can
provide in the way of freely-harvested 'waste' mechanical energy and other
materials. The 'single solution' approach simply won't do, whether it's
exclusively nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, aerogenerators, venturi
water-turbines, the Rochester venturi, hydrogen, Brown's Gas, solar panels,
photovoltaic, Franklin-atmospheric, or anything else that's not so far been
considered. Each solution has its strengths and weaknesses - each technology
could make a valuable proportional contribution to the overall approach.
You'll notice that I've somehow managed to avoid mentioning VRB and HVDC
technologies in the previous paragraph - I've done so because those technologies
are concerned with the storage and distribution of energy, rather than in
generating it. They are, in fact, not at all trivial - in my opinion they are
absolutely crucial parts of any energy-generation system of the future.
VRB (vanadium redox flow battery) technology is a very effective mean of
load-levelling and peak-shaving, and will transform the electricity-generating
industry from being a just-in-time, demand-driven, relatively fragile utility
into something that's truly useful, economical and robust. In fact, I suspect
that combined diesel and aerogenerator inputs to a grid aren't really feasible
at all unless this sort of 'buffering' method is included - not without the
overhead of having two rotors out of six running at speed but offload, just in
case the wind should suddenly drop, which is wasteful.
HVDC (high-voltage direct current) links between VRB installations and their
inverters would provide the means to create a coherent, phased electrical
distribution grid between user locations. VRB is in use in Canada and Japan, and
has been so for about 15 years. HVDC is in use in Sweden, Germany, Scandinavia,
parts of Canada. It's used to connect the grid between North and South Islands
New Zealand, and between France and the UK. Click any of the links below for
more information. Thanks go to Wikipaedia for supplying them.
Baltic-Cable
Kontek
GKK Etzenricht
Konti-Skan
Elbe-Project (HVDC-project between Dessau and Berlin, incompleted)
HVDC Gotland
HVDC Wolgograd-Donbass
HVDC Cross-Channel (HVDC-link England-France)
HVDC Inter-Island (HVDC link between the Islands of New Zealand)
Sakuma
HVDC Italia-Corsica-Sardinia (SACOI)
HVDC Vancouver-Island
Pacific-Intertie
Nelson River Bipole
HVDC Kingsnorth
Cross-Skagerak
Cabora-Bassa link from Mocambique to Pretoria
Inga-Shaba
HGά-Kurzkupplung Dόrnrohr
GK Wien-Southeast
Cross Sound Cable, New Haven-Long Island USA
Hydro Quebec/James Bay to Sandy Pond, Ayer, Massachusetts
It also occurs to me that a general shift in thinking would be required in
another direction - that of ceasing to be American-style consumers and instead
actively refusing to waste energy under any circumstances. We should start by
realising that everything we see around us has cost a lot more to create (in
terms of fuel expenditure) than most of us are aware. For instance, a small car
costs about five times more energy to build than it will actually consume in
fuel during a service life of 200,000 miles. We should then realise that if
we're to hold out any hope of any sort of life in an energy-poor future we need
to reject 'throwaway' thinking and the 'need' for commercial novelty altogether,
and adopt a genuine 'build it to last, maintain it to make it last forever'
philosophy. This will take a major shift in educational focus, to persuade us
away from the pleasurable sensation of 'using' things, which is akin to
blood-letting - i.e. of acquiring things on a whim, getting bored with them, and
then treating ourselves to the 'catharsis' of throwing them away (and then
possibly replacing them with similar items).
My personal guess is that all of the warnings outlined above will be ignored,
allowing the current climatic situation to be allowed to drift on unchecked for
at least another two or three years. As a result of that, I expect to see the
final catastrophe occur at first hand before the end of my own life, i.e. within
the next 10 to 15 years (at the most).
One part of the reason for my opinion is that science isn't taught honestly in
schools, or even particularly effectively; and that as a result, too few people
are likely to have the means to evaluate correctly what they see and hear, and
form their own (accurate) opinions about what's actually happening all around
them.
Another part of it is to do with the sheer scale of human activity, and the
appalling dislocations that will occur as a result of suddenly ceasing to rely
on pollution-producing technologies and lifestyles.
Yet another part has to do with a perception of public weariness. We see many
experts everywhere (lots of people being clever on the telly) but very little
evidence of real expertise. Otherwise we wouldn't have the need for letters in
the newspapers (such as this one) because the situation that gave rise to it
would already have been addressed and quietly dealt with.
A further difficulty is that research into matters such as those outlined above
tends to be 'pure' - i.e. no result is expected, no conclusion is sought, the
purpose is the development of knowledge for its own sake in order to justify
continued academic tenure.
Also, academics tend generally to be less than aggressive about propounding
their views - and in a world that tends to be run (and owned) by aggressive
dunderheads, that's not a good situation in terms of achieving necessary change.
I spend quite a lot of time (purely out of curiosity, some of it arising from
topics published in this letters page during the last month or so) looking
around at various sources of information; and have come to the conclusion that
enough solid scientific and engineering knowledge exists already to allow the
human race to avert the impending disaster that its laziness and casual
behaviour may have brought to the planet.
This could only happen if the technology can all be connected together
coherently, and very soon indeed. The 'connecting' might be done by
grant-chasers - it might be done by private enterprise, if enough value is seen
in the activity - but it certainly needs to be done as a matter of urgency.
Of course, if quangos such as Ofgem continue to act to discourage attempts to
remedy the situation, and if the UK taxation system continues to bleed the
country's resources dry in order to prosecute wars and fund all sorts of other
nonsense, these connections won't come about in the UK due to loss of incentive
and lack of capital - to the UK's immeasureable loss.
If you, the letter-reader, feel that what I've written is valid, please go and
do something about it on a personal basis in any way that you can. There's
plenty of money available. After all, if the UK can afford to throw away £4
billion of taxpayers' money to date on the war in Iraq (and doubtless a lot more
to come), it should be able to provide a similar sum for the development of new
energy technologies - instead of the £42 piffling million that's currently on
offer.
So you could make a start by jumping up and down about that aspect of things
..... you could also help yourselves and the planet, in a small but very
definite way, by cutting your household heating-energy requirements in half for
no loss in comfort at all. I did this myself last year by applying additional
secondary glazing to my existing double-glazed window units. I have the figures,
and they amazed me. The materials that I used to do it have already paid for
themselves. They will continue to save me about £400 a year from here onwards at
today's electricity prices, while halving what I'd previously had to condone as
'unavoidable power-station pollution'.
If, on the other hand, you feel that this letter is a complete tosh, an
over-dramatised work of pure science fiction warning of entirely imaginary
future ecological disasters, then your time would probably be better spent on
planning the acquisition of your next 4x4 or new house, or on planning your next
flyaway/sailaway holiday to the sun. Perhaps the projected catastrophe will
never occur - but if it does, at least you'll have had a good time while it was
in progress.
|
