The real cost of gasoline

[dhrivnak]

Co2

How can burning one gallon of gas create 19 pounds of pollution when it weighs less than half that? Conservation of mass?

basically 12 grams of carbon the largest part by weight of gas combines with 32 grams of oxygen as the weight of a mole of CO2 is 48 grams. So yes burning a gallon of gas (7.2 lbs) does create 19 lbs of CO2. One can not burn gas with out air.

 

[Doug_G]

How can burning one gallon of gas create 19 pounds of pollution when it weighs less than half that? Conservation of mass?

CO2 - one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) plus two oxygen atoms (atomic weight 16). Since you're getting the oxygen from the atmosphere...

 

[SByer]

How can burning one gallon of gas create 19 pounds of pollution when it weighs less than half that? Conservation of mass?

How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

 

[vfx]

Related conversations from TS

http://tinyurl.com/2g5gwgn


http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=568993

We need to all work together on this one.

 

[vfx]

By the way. I'm reminded that more energy is taken to make hydrogen than is worth making it to put in a car. This fact always stops people asking about it. Now gasoline looks to have that same failing. I'm ready to call the gasoline producers on it.

 

[cinergi]

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy - Bloomberg

While fossil fuels meet about 80 percent of world energy demand, its subsidies are “creating market distortions that encourage wasteful consumption,” the agency said. “The costs of subsidies to fossil fuels generally outweigh the benefits.”

“Fossil-fuel subsidies as presently constituted tend to be regressive, disproportionately benefiting higher income groups that can afford higher levels of fuel consumption,” the report said. “Social welfare programs are a more effective and less distortionary way of helping the poor than energy subsidies.”

 

[Tesla 940]

By the way. I'm reminded that more energy is taken to make hydrogen than is worth making it to put in a car. This fact always stops people asking about it. Now gasoline looks to have that same failing. I'm ready to call the gasoline producers on it.

Isn't also true that the most energy efficient way to make hydrogen is to use natural gas - a fossil fuel?

 

[Robert.Boston]

Isn't also true that the most energy efficient way to make hydrogen is to use natural gas - a fossil fuel?

Yes, that's the cheapest way today -- start with a hydrogen-rich molecule like methane (the main chemical in natural gas) and strip off the hydrogen. Splitting water by electrolysis requires more energy, but there's a lot more water. If there were some incredibly cheap source of electricity, you could build a hydrogen economy around that. But then we're just talking about whether electricity is best stored as hydrogen in in some battery technology.

 

[PopSmith]

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy - Bloomberg

I wonder where renewable energy would be if a couple of the sources got the same subsidies as fossil fuels.

 

[VolkerP]

I wonder where renewable energy would be if a couple of the sources got the same subsidies as fossil fuels.

Can answer that in part for Germany. Govt subsidies for nuclear in years 1950-2010 were EUR204b, approx $280b. subsidies until phase-out of nuclear in 2022 will be another EUR100b.

Quote from http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/atomkraft/nachrichten/artikel/atomkraft_mit_304_milliarden_euro_subventioniert/:

Zu den realen Fördermitteln von 204 Milliarden Euro gehören direkte Finanzhilfen des Bundes, Forschungsförderung, Kosten für die Atommüllendlager Asse II und Morsleben oder für die Stilllegung der ostdeutschen Atommeiler. Hinzu kommen Steuervergünstigungen in der Energiebesteuerung und durch die Regelungen bei den Entsorgungsrückstellungen sowie Zusatzeinnahmen der AKW-Betreiber durch den Emissionshandel.

Translation:

The subsidies of EUR204b include direct federal financial support, R&D funding, expenses for nuclear disposal sites Asse II and Morsleben, and decommissioning of the east German nuclear power plants. Add to that tax benefits and regulations for deferred liabilities for nuclear waste disposal, plus income from nuclear plant operators participating in CO2 cap and trade.

As of today, this bought us 12GW of nuclear electric power, producing 105TWh of electricity per year, plus 12,000 tons of highly active nuclear waste sitting and waiting for safe disposal.

From year 1990 on some 19GW of photovoltaic and 27GW of wind power were installed, contributing 48.5TWh to the total of 620TWh produced last year (source BDEW). So 1GW renewable generation capacity roughly earns 1TWh energy per year.

I estimate historic average of costs of EUR 5000 per kW solar power and EUR 2000 per kW wind power, for a total cost of EUR 150b.
These investments brought costs down to EUR 1300 per KW (large solar farm) and EUR 800 per kW (large wind mill). Sources for current costs in Germany for solar and wind

If nuclear govt subsidies went to these technologies instead, they would have made a massive contribution to bringing down costs. That's why I calculate them being invested as with today's costs. For a healthy mix of 2:3 solar and wind, we spend EUR 1000 per kW, and I arrive at 204GW renewable generation capacity that govt subsidies would buy us today - giving nearly 4 times the installed capacity, and earning an additional 200TWh per year - with the double output of nuclear power plants today and no waste.

 

[PopSmith]

Can answer that in part for Germany.

Thanks for the info.

 

[dpeilow]

You'd also have to factor in a lot of storage capacity to make a direct comparison.

 

[VolkerP]

You'd also have to factor in a lot of storage capacity to make a direct comparison.

True. But: As the development of the German photovoltaic market showed in the last 20 years, investing billions will drive down prices quite dramatically. These savings might buy us enough grid storage.
Read a brief history here (in German)

Edit: Nuclear power plants cannot be regulated, too. All the votes for expanding nuclear power generation I read lacked the hint to required grid balancing capacity. So why does that question rise with Solar+Wind.

 

[vfx]

Here's what would happen?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/west/Nigeria-Fuel-Prices-More-than-Double--136529213.html

 

[Robert.Boston]

Edit: Nuclear power plants cannot be regulated, too. All the votes for expanding nuclear power generation I read lacked the hint to required grid balancing capacity. So why does that question rise with Solar+Wind.

Nuclear units can be regulated/cycled -- it's just very foolish on most systems to do so, as the nukes' incremental power is quite literally free. I know for a fact, however, that ComEd has occasionally ramped down its nukes in Illinois.

The other factor is that nukes are very predictable; although they occasionally trip off, there is no correlation among nukes tripping; the system operator needs to hold reserves (spinning and non-spinning) to protect against outages generally, but nothing extra in particular for nukes. In contrast, solar and wind generation varies second-to-second, requiring constant up- and down-regulation from synchronized units; and output of units is highly correlated across the region -- a still day in West Texas affects all the wind units there -- so at high penetration rates of any one type of renewable in an area, this correlation needs to be taken into account when computing the operating reserve margin.

 

[Doug_G]

Nuclear units can be regulated/cycled -- it's just very foolish on most systems to do so, as the nukes' incremental power is quite literally free. I know for a fact, however, that ComEd has occasionally ramped down its nukes in Illinois.

The other factor is that nukes are very predictable; although they occasionally trip off, there is no correlation among nukes tripping; the system operator needs to hold reserves (spinning and non-spinning) to protect against outages generally, but nothing extra in particular for nukes.

Well, sometimes there is correlation among nukes tripping, such as happened during the Northeast Blackout of 2003. I know here in Ontario only three nukes had a steam bypass mode where they could operate at 60% power; the rest of them scrammed and they couldn't be brought back online for quite a while (days to weeks depending on the unit).