Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. is now energy independent

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#111

Post by Gravityloss »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #108
Gravityloss wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are jet engines really that fussy with the fuel? Traditional gasoline Otto engines need high octane fuel because the fuel is injected before compression, so the gasoline should not spontaneously combust even at high compression rates. Diesels are less strict since the fuel is only injected when it needs to immediately combust. But there are still knocking issues from combustion dynamics. Rudolf Diesel's first engine…

Wasn't there a turbine-powered car at one point that would run on just about anything and was very reliable but got canned because of the high production cost?

Yes. In the past turbines were very inefficient. Much higher compression ratio and thus efficiency nowadays. But piston engines have also improved. One problem with jets is that they don't scale down so well because of clearance issues.

Also they might need a secondary system to take energy from the hot exhaust gases. GE has proposed supercritical CO2 cycles for that. Could get total efficiency close to diesel, maintenance windows might be more frequent though.

This thread tells how you can run some jet engines on gasoline, though some pumps need to take that into account since it doesn't lubricate as well as kerosene. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=751755

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#112

Post by Thlom »

ncmncm wrote: post #109
elihu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ships can be made to burn just about anything as fuel, the main problem is just whether existing ships can burn different fuels without major re-engineering. Even electric shipping is possible, but would require substantial infrastructure investments (e.g. buoys in the middle of large oceans every so often connected to trans-oceanic power cables so the ships can recharge regularly). Electrified shipping will probably…

Batteries for ships will not be a thing. But re-tanking them to carry and burn synthetic anhydrous ammonia will be. It will happen because ammonia will come to be cheaper than bunker oil, enough so to pay for the conversion. Meanwhile, supertankers full of anhydrous ammonia will sail from the tropics to high latitudes in winter to burn in what had been natural gas power plants, because even extracting natural gas wil…

Cruise ships have started to come as hybrids now because some top destinations for cruising have very strict emission regulations that over time will be even stricter.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#113

Post by ncmncm »

throwaway5486nv wrote: post #51

What will happen to middle east as the world's oil demand continue to decrease?

Saudi oil marginal production cost is still the lowest in the world. The main effect will be political instability as the revenue used to keep the population satisfied falls off.

The Saudis could set up solar and start synthesizing anhydrous ammonia to sell to higher latitudes in winter. Marginal production cost would go even lower, as it would not need refining. But they would face competition from west Africa.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#114

Post by throw0101a »

elihu wrote: post #105
warlog wrote: post #91

Sigh. 1. A barrel of oil isn't just gas.. About half is for bunker oil, diesel and kerosene that runs boats, trucks and jets. That need isn't going away no matter how many batteries you make. The rest (40-50%) of the barrel is a waste stream that can be used as light gasoline, plastics and chemicals. We will always have the second half because we always need the first half. 2. As others have mentioned, all oil is not…

Ships can be made to burn just about anything as fuel, the main problem is just whether existing ships can burn different fuels without major re-engineering. Even electric shipping is possible, but would require substantial infrastructure investments (e.g. buoys in the middle of large oceans every so often connected to trans-oceanic power cables so the ships can recharge regularly). Electrified shipping will probably…

> Even electric shipping is possible, but would require substantial infrastructure investments (e.g. buoys in the middle of large oceans every so often connected to trans-oceanic power cables so the ships can recharge regularly).

A lot has been said about hydrogen powered vehicles, but I don't think it will work for general use. Where it may be useful though is in 'industrial' transport.

It's unlikely we'll see hydrogen 'gas stations' for normal people, but for ships, trucks, and maybe airplanes, setting up the infrastructure may be more practical (fewer, more concentrated stations).

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#115

Post by throw0101a »

pessimizer wrote: post #11
jimmygrapes wrote: post #2

This is a weird article. It is short and lacking detail, does not link any sources, and presents its data as if it's a first (it is not[0]). It reads, to be honest, as propaganda, especially considering the current rise in consumer prices for fuel and news about Saudi Arabia refusing to increase production[1]. What is the purpose of this article and why is it on the front page here? [0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl…

> What is the purpose of this article and why is it on the front page here? Because 16 people upvoted it. The weird thing is that the submitter seems to have a ratio of 100:1 of submissions to comments. They might just have developed a habit of submitting every article they read that they find at all interesting.

> They might just have developed a habit of submitting every article they read that they find at all interesting.

HN as cloud bookmarking service. :)

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#116

Post by emptysongglass »

bullen wrote: post #110
warlog wrote: post #91

Sigh. 1. A barrel of oil isn't just gas.. About half is for bunker oil, diesel and kerosene that runs boats, trucks and jets. That need isn't going away no matter how many batteries you make. The rest (40-50%) of the barrel is a waste stream that can be used as light gasoline, plastics and chemicals. We will always have the second half because we always need the first half. 2. As others have mentioned, all oil is not…

Yes, the US imports as much oil as it exports: quality in, shit out. And the wasted energy is enourmous to even barely preserve the quality of life. I think Russia is not invading Ukraine as much as the US is slowly (expanding NATO over decades) "invading" Russia because it desperately needs it's high EROEI sources to pretend we have "business as usual". To no benefit since war consumes too much energy. For the rest…

> I think Russia is not invading Ukraine as much as the US is slowly (expanding NATO over decades) "invading" Russia because it desperately needs it's high EROEI sources to pretend we have "business as usual".

This doesn't make any sense and is not in any way a mapping to reality. NATO membership is by request only and its numbers have swelled with ex-Soviet republics who want nothing to do with their former master. There is no NATO "invasion", which is a defensive force only. The only occasion I am aware of where they did not act in defense of a member state was to interdict in a genocide.

Ukraine is doing everything it can to stay out of conflict while remaining self-sovereign but it is literally surrounded by 170,000 Russian troops who are less than 40 kilometers on average from Ukraine's border. If any war breaks out in the coming weeks it will be entirely the fault of Russia.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#117

Post by Gwypaas »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #98
warlog wrote: post #91

Sigh. 1. A barrel of oil isn't just gas.. About half is for bunker oil, diesel and kerosene that runs boats, trucks and jets. That need isn't going away no matter how many batteries you make. The rest (40-50%) of the barrel is a waste stream that can be used as light gasoline, plastics and chemicals. We will always have the second half because we always need the first half. 2. As others have mentioned, all oil is not…

Regarding bunker oil, there are ships under construction that will use hydrogen instead of bunker oil. Also interesting is that while large ships burn bunker oil, they do so to power a generator that powers an electrical engine. This is true for modern oil tankers and large container ships. So, it's not that inevitable that ships will continue to use bunker oil forever. Also, there is a company in the US already sell…

> Regarding bunker oil, there are ships under construction that will use hydrogen instead of bunker oil. Also interesting is that while large ships burn bunker oil, they do so to power a generator that powers an electrical engine. This is true for modern oil tankers and large container ships.

That is not the case. They are often direct drive through a reversible engine for maximum efficiency without any clutches and the most minimal gearbox possible. The engines themselves tend to be low rpm ultra-long stroke two-stroke diesel engines. They often even have shaft generators to shut down the smaller more inefficient generators. This further forces a set design speed to have the correct electrical frequency.

Ferries, off-shore vessels and cruise ships are increasingly becoming diesel electric though due to both large electrical loads and larger variations in load due to their operational patterns.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#118

Post by emptysongglass »

avgcorrection wrote: post #94
chiefalchemist wrote: post #13

> The impact on geopolitics extends to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Disruptions to European energy supplies would have a less direct effect on the U.S. than they might have in an earlier era. Put another way, the USA now has less incentive to "keep the peace." Putin's drama and posturing, plus the USA being untethered...that's not a good combination.

The drama-and-posturing could potentially come to an end if Nato would be willing to negotiate. The US arming Ukraine—or even putting boots on the ground—is not the only solution.

They are negotiating, desperately but Putin's terms are so unhinged as to be ingenuous: "The Russian draft treaties call for NATO to remove any troops or weapons from countries that joined the alliance after 1997, meaning most of Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. It also calls for the U.S. and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in areas where they could be perceived as a threat to each countries' national security, and a ban on sending their aircraft and warships into areas where they could strike each other's territory. The treaty would also ban the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe."

Those countries that joined after '97 are largely ex-Soviet republics seeking succor. Poland would sooner draw a sword through its own belly than agree to the terms of a former autarch with 170,000 troops right at its belly.

Positioning 170,000 troops in a half-circle around Ukraine is not a recipe for diplomacy.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#119

Post by avgcorrection »

emptysongglass wrote: post #118
avgcorrection wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drama-and-posturing could potentially come to an end if Nato would be willing to negotiate. The US arming Ukraine—or even putting boots on the ground—is not the only solution.

They are negotiating, desperately but Putin's terms are so unhinged as to be ingenuous: "The Russian draft treaties call for NATO to remove any troops or weapons from countries that joined the alliance after 1997, meaning most of Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. It also calls for the U.S. and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in areas where they could be perceived as a t…

Looks like Putin wants back to the 1990 deal that Gorbachev and President Bush made and that American presidents broke: that Nato wouldn’t expand an inch to the east (to East Germany at the time).

His demands will obviously not be met. But is Nato even considering any concessions? You don’t have to accept the initial demand (it’s supposed to be a negotiation, after all).

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#120

Post by alephnil »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #108
Gravityloss wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are jet engines really that fussy with the fuel? Traditional gasoline Otto engines need high octane fuel because the fuel is injected before compression, so the gasoline should not spontaneously combust even at high compression rates. Diesels are less strict since the fuel is only injected when it needs to immediately combust. But there are still knocking issues from combustion dynamics. Rudolf Diesel's first engine…

Wasn't there a turbine-powered car at one point that would run on just about anything and was very reliable but got canned because of the high production cost?

There was the Rover Jet-1 from 1946. It is exibited (or at least was) at London science museum.

https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co25218...

"When JET 1 was launched, the gas turbine ‘jet’ engine was seen as a symbol of modernity and of British technical prowess. Many viewed it as the power source of the future, but test driving showed that its poor fuel consumption and slowness to respond to the throttle made it unsuitable for road transport."

Gas turbines are efficient when they are allowed to run at optimal speed, which is close to the maximal power. Cars starts and stop all the time which is not optimal. In addition, acceleration is poor, which most car owners would find unacceptable. For uses where they can run for a long time on optimal speed, like in power plants, they are a good fit, otherwise not so much.

Post reply on HN