Forbidden Donut

September 2, 2008

From: Roy Hartness / Hartcrafters

Subject: Energy – First in a Series of Articles

At the request of several friends and relatives, who know my background and interests I have decided to write a series of articles about energy – including conventional, unconventional and alternative sources. Another reason for doing so is that much of the information in the news media is misleading and false, especially that coming from selective congressional members. The public is being force-fed a bunch of half-truths and outright lies that have generated a false hope that alternative energy sources can totally replace the use of fossil fuel. Nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, only a little more than half the 20 million barrels of oil per day, consumed in the U.S. is used to produce transportation fuel. The other half is used to produce various products such as plastics, a broad range of chemicals, synthetic fibers for clothing, asphalt for paving roads, roofing cement, etc. The list could go on for pages and many of the products are by-products from the production of fuels.

Before getting too far into the subject let me clarify my position on alternative and renewable energy sources. I have been a lifelong supporter of the PRACTICAL use of wind, solar, geothermal, methane, ethanol, nuclear and hopefully some day – hydrogen as energy sources. And having a keen interest in science, a basic education in mechanical engineering and two patents related to the conservation of energy in industrial applications; you can rest assured I plan to take advantage of any new practical development for my own use. More than 28 years ago I designed and installed the first geothermal heating and air conditioning system in my home county for my own home which is still in operation today and is still more energy efficient than any system on the market today with an approximate SEER rating of 24. Furthermore, I plan to build a retirement home and test two of my new ideas under development today and use some solar heating and wind power production in combination.

Some of you may have no interest in this subject and, if so, you can stop reading now; but if you continue with this and future articles, I promise you will know more about energy and what it really means than 90% of our congressional members – both Democratic and Republican – so let’s dismiss any partisan political motives. I am sure our congressional members are all intelligent and most are well meaning, but the fact is they are mostly educated in law, liberal arts, political science, etc. and few of them have a background, knowledge, or experience in the truly scientific fields. And there in lies the problem of their lack of understanding regarding energy and its practical uses. Furthermore, an admission of ignorance in various subjects outside their training and experience by an egotistical lawyer/politician is all but unheard of. To him, due to his training, that would be equivalent to an admission of guilt, not an indication of wisdom.

Moving back to the misunderstood subject of energy – for a full understanding of the subject, one must be able to quantify the energy content of various substances and the various units of its measurement. I will attempt to give some explanations without being overly technical and in a way to make this subject as interesting as possible. Those of you who count calories may be surprised.

Calorie vs. Btu The calorie is a unit of heat measurement in the metric system of measurements and is most often used in association with food, to equate the heat-producing or energy-producing value of various foods when metabolized or oxidized by the human body. This unit, also know as kilogram-calorie, is the amount of heat required to raise (1) kilogram of water 1°C(centigrade). In the British system of measurement the unit of heat measurement is the Btu or British thermal unit which is the amount of heat required to raise (1) pound of water 1°F(Fahrenheit). One calorie equals 3.968 Btu.

The human body is miraculously efficient at converting plants and meats into heat and energy. Heat is generated to keep the body warm at ± 98.6° F, and work energy is generated for muscle movement. As an example, a diet consisting of 2000 calories per day equals 7,972 Btu. The average human at rest for 16 hours and asleep for 8 hours, will use up approximately 1,663 calories or 6,600 Btu. Without any other exercise or work the other 337 extra calories of heat would be stored as body fat for future use. The 337 extra calories can also be expressed as work energy, the unit of which is foot-pounds (the amount of energy required to lift one pound one foot high). One calorie is equivalent to 3088 foot-pounds of work, or stated another way, the amount of energy required to lift a 10 pound weight one foot high and slowly return it 154 times. In order to work off the 337 extra calories the 10 pound weight could be lifted one foot high and returned a total of 52,000 times. Walking at the rate of three miles per hour for about 80 minutes would accomplish the same thing. One has to ask himself – is a candy bar worth a four mile walk? Yeah, maybe?

Just for perspective, one kilowatt (KW) of electricity is equivalent to 3,413 Btu. The 2,000 calorie equivalent in electricity amounts to 2.34 KW, and equals the amount of heat generated by a 100 watt light bulb over a 23.4 hour period, which costs about 25 cents. We certainly can’t feed ourselves for 25 cents per day can we? So electricity is still relatively inexpensive.

Please remember that I understand that most of you are not engineers and you wouldn’t normally be expected to understand the above explanations, so if you need some assistance and further explanation just call.

Next, let me present a short list of common and uncommon energy sources with respective energy contents and approximate comparative costs to the average consumer. But remember that large industrial users and power plants pay as little as one-third of the listed costs.




Other Interesting Facts:

1. One pound of enriched uranium, used in a nuclear power plant, contains about the same amount of energy as 3.6 million pounds of coal, 47 million cubic feet of natural gas or 10,500 barrels of oil.
2. During the mid 1950’s my grandfather heated his home for a full winter with one ton of coal at a cost of $10.00. But remember, at that time the cost of a Coke was 5 cents.

You will notice that there are no estimates for the cost per THERM for hydrogen and wind powered electricity. I could not find anyone willing to quote a price for hydrogen. As for electricity produced by a wind generator – the cost could be as much as $10.00 per THERM for a residential system sized for the average home, and would require a large bank of storage batteries that require replacement every 4 to 5 years. Obviously, large solar or wind systems constructed for industrial use could be less but cost is highly dependent upon the length and complexity of the distribution system required for connection to an existing grid system and land costs. Why do you think T. Boone Pickens is constantly promoting his plan on TV? I suspect the reason is because he will never realize a return on his investment without massive subsidies (at consumer expense) to pay for the electrical distribution system and land. You never hear about this in his commercials.


Now consider these alleged facts about wind powered electricity generation, the first four of which being published in the 8-21-08 edition of Investors Business Daily.

1. Wind provides only 1% of our electricity compared to 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear and 7% for hydro-electric. Geothermal provides a fraction of 1%.
2. If we could replace all of the 22% of the electricity generated today by natural gas with wind generated electricity it would require (300,000) – 1.5 megawatt wind turbines occupying an area about the size of South Carolina.
3. Wind turbines operate at about 20% efficiency compared to 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants. A single 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant can produce more power at a much higher degree of dependability than (2800) 1.5 megawatt wind turbines sitting on 175,000 acres.
4. Building wind farms requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than nuclear power plants generating the same amount of power.
5. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate that 100 gigawatts (100,000 megawatts or 100,000,000 kilowatts) of generating capacity will be required in the next 15 to 25 years just to replace existing older plants – about 50% nuclear and 50% coal fired due to environmental concerns. This required replacement capacity alone amounts to (66,667) 1.5 megawatt wind turbines, assuming the 20% efficiency factor is correct.
6. The International Energy Association, in its 2007 report, has estimated that the electrical demand in the U.S. will increase by over 50% by 2030. this increase in estimated electrical demand, if correct, in 23 years would require another (681,818) 1.5 megawatt wind turbines.
7. Former Vice President Al Gore estimates that all of our electrical needs could be provided by alternative energy sources in 10 years. If we use only wind generated power, prorate the above increase in demand over 10 years and add in the prorated requirements due to decommissioning older plants; the total demand would require about (1,693,000) 1.5 megawatt wind turbines. The space requirement would be roughly 6 times the size of South Carolina.

Have you priced a solar photovoltaic power production system for an average home lately? A system sized for about half the power requirement for the average home with battery storage will range between $30,000 and $50,000 installed – after state and federal tax credits. Not only that,, the batteries require replacement every 4 to 5 years and the solar cells themselves require replacement every 20 to 25 years. A grid-tied system would cost somewhat less because storage batteries would not be required.

As we all know, the wind doesn’t blow continuously, not even in “wind alley”, and the sun doesn’t shine 24 hours per day; and the use of these two alternative energy sources requires about an 80% back-up from conventional sources.

Isn’t it amazing now-a-days how solar and wind power generation are being heavily promoted by our know-it-all politicians, tree huggers and profiteering investors. Many believe our total power production can be by renewable sources within 10 years. Friends, it ain’t gonna happen – and if it did – our power bills would be three times what they are today, either through direct costs or through higher taxes to pay for government subsidies. I would bet on the latter so that government officials can hide the real cost increases from the general voting public.

I am certainly in favor of energy independence and the use of alternative energy sources at a reasonable price. And there is a place for solar and wind generated electricity. Until we have more technological developments and cost improvements we need to rethink our energy policies. How about more nuclear power plants, less stonewalling, and more domestic oil and gas production?

More is forthcoming in the very near future. In the meantime be skeptical of what you hear and read in the news media. And please save this article for future reference.

lol jono, would you rather cowtow to shitty regimes in the mid-east so that we keep getting oil or start drilling our own to decrease our dependance on their oil?

and thanks for the great article you posted phey.

I actually started enjoying our debates. More so now than when you just posted links and quotes, though.

With that in mind, we invaded Afghanistan, oil prices went up. We invaded Iraq, oil prices went up. (They're selling oil to china and turkey, but not us now) We rattled our sabers at Iran, oil prices went up. Then Bush agreed to start talking about timetables for withdrawl and prices went down.

It's not cowtowing, it's common sense.

Meanwhile, our consumption of oil is 25% of the supply. Our supply of oil, total, explored and unexplored isn't over 5%. We CAN'T be energy independent with oil, but some drilling here would bolster the profits of domestic oil companies and reduce THEIR dependence on foreign oil. Their increased profit margins could result in lower prices at the pump for a few years, but not for a decade, and by then we should be well on our way to alternatives, and if we aren't our country will be in sore shape.

The only immediate effect ANWR/offshore domestic drilling would have on prices would be a slight drop as speculators got excited about the prospect, and then the steady rise would continue.

To me, this is one of the biggest issues of the upcoming election, because it can start or stall things for at least another 4 years. It's also an issue that I can see politicians actually making progress on and not just putting things off. What does everyone think that the best solution is for the future of energy in the US? Is it alternative research? Offshore drilling? ANWR? Invasion of Iran and stealing all their shit?

I'm more worried about global warming then the energy crisis.

I'm more worried about global warming then the energy crisis

All this dissolves into:

i.e. and e.g. have but two things in common, and those are that they are both confused frequently, and they are both fucking awkward even when used correctly.

Paid for by Andrew's Campaign against Archaic Latin Acronyms that Translate Awfully into our Language and Are Crappy. (ACALATALAC)

Crap me...lol it was between class when I wrote it. I meant e.g. lol.

I just find hybrid SUV's a stupid idea. Hybrid's are supposedly developed to conserved gas, but to make the epitome of a gas guzzler into one is stupid. Just my opinion!