Gelled fuel??

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Uffe - Hate to burst your bubble, but wind is not even close to a serious energy replacement. For one, its not reliable and as a result you have to build the infrastructure as though its not there and simply run other sources at lower levels when wind is providing. For two, its environmentally damaging, absolutely destroys bird populations, and finally, for three, the maintinence is fairly high and the output is miniscule. Interesting graphic demonstrating how useless it is as a major energy replacement from the IEEE:

Quote:

Assumptions: The Three Gorges Dam is rated at its full design capacity of 18 gigawatts. A nuclear power plant is postulated to be the equivalent of a 1.1-GW unit at the Diablo Canyon plant in California. A coal plant is one rated at 500 megawatts. A wind turbine is one with a 100‑meter blade span, and rated at 1.65 MW. A solar panel is a 2.1‑kilowatt system made for home roofs. In comparing categories, bear in mind that the average amount of time that power is produced varies among them, so that total energy obtained is not a simple function of power rating.

Source: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4820

This is simply representing the rate of oil consumed for energy per year in the world(1 cubic mile, US specifically accounts for 25.2% of that consumption). Thats not considering energy consumed from other sources(coal/hydro/nuclear/gas/etc). Consider just how many wind towers it would take to even make a 10% dent in our needs(and then look at the solar panel figure for a real laugh). And then consider that this is before we factor in transmission losses(which can be as high as 80%).

Obviously we need a replacement for oil, and obviously wind is part of the solution(albeit a very small part), but there is no magic bullet, at least not if we want to keep consuming energy at the rate we are currently....

EDIT: Changed a few figures on US oil consumption after verification.

UFO · **Posted:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:48 pm

The answer is obvious. CONSERVE.

UFO · **Posted:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:53 pm

Reflex wrote:

This is simply representing the rate of oil consumed for energy per year in the world(1 cubic mile, US specifically accounts for 25.2% of that consumption). Thats not considering energy consumed from other sources(coal/hydro/nuclear/gas/etc). Consider just how many wind towers it would take to even make a 10% dent in our needs(and then look at the solar panel figure for a real laugh). And then consider that this is before we factor in transmission losses(which can be as high as 80%).

Obviously we need a replacement for oil, and obviously wind is part of the solution(albeit a very small part), but there is no magic bullet, at least not if we want to keep consuming energy at the rate we are currently....

Got a source for transmission loss? Mine says 7.2%, not 80!?!?

Quote:

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_p ... ansmission

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

I said 'as much as', it entirely depends on cable length and climate, when your sending power accross several states its much higher than sending it a few dozen miles. I've seen several estimates on what it is in the US, but the important thing to note is that with certain types of power(hydro/tidal/wind/solar) the location matters and as a result transmission losses will increase due to the fact that you can't place the power generation where its most convenient(ie: closest) to its consumption, instead you have to generate where the power is most prevelant, which is not always the most convenient location.

UFO · **Posted:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:19 pm

Reflex wrote:

I said 'as much as', it entirely depends on cable length and climate, when your sending power accross several states its much higher than sending it a few dozen miles. I've seen several estimates on what it is in the US, but the important thing to note is that with certain types of power(hydro/tidal/wind/solar) the location matters and as a result transmission losses will increase due to the fact that you can't place the power generation where its most convenient(ie: closest) to its consumption, instead you have to generate where the power is most prevelant, which is not always the most convenient location.

80% is not realistic. Coal plants are already located hundreds of miles from where the power is delivered, and that 7.2% reflects that. There is no case for wind turbines where the transmission losses woulld be that high, as the transmission technology is the same.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

UFO wrote:

Reflex wrote:

I said 'as much as', it entirely depends on cable length and climate, when your sending power accross several states its much higher than sending it a few dozen miles. I've seen several estimates on what it is in the US, but the important thing to note is that with certain types of power(hydro/tidal/wind/solar) the location matters and as a result transmission losses will increase due to the fact that you can't place the power generation where its most convenient(ie: closest) to its consumption, instead you have to generate where the power is most prevelant, which is not always the most convenient location.

80% is not realistic. Coal plants are already located hundreds of miles from where the power is delivered, and that 7.2% reflects that. There is no case for wind turbines where the transmission losses woulld be that high, as the transmission technology is the same.

If you are using centralized wind farms in locations along coastlines, then transmitting power from there to areas in the nations interior can cross more than a thousand miles. This is the same issue with people who go "Put a few square miles of solar panels in Death Valley and call it good", obviously the most efficient power generation is that that is closest to where it is consumed.

The article that quotes 7.2%(I'm assuming your running off the Wikipedia article) does not seem to have its sources or methodology listed, and thats not its primary goal so I don't really know how or where they are measuring. I can't seem to find the facts on it anywhere, but even assuming that the figure is correct 'on average' that does not rule out losses of up to 80% due to the nature of the issue, namely that pushing more current increases the losses, that outside environmental factors can make it worse, and that range is a significant factor. In fact, the losses are frequently quoted in congressonal debate and bills, such as here:

Quote:

Electric energy losses are increasing as we try to push ever more power through our electric power transmission and distribution system where, at maximum capacity, losses can be ten times higher than normal;

Source: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.c ... ess_ID=815
While thats not anymore scientific a source than yours, it is my real point, that losses can be drastically higher(that would place it as high as 72% based on your figure, depending on situation) than the average, and that would get worse if we started basing most power around 'natural' sources rather than where population centers and energy consumption takes place.

But seriously, this is a nit being picked and going off on a tangent compared to the overall point I was making...

UFO · **Posted:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:35 pm

Reflex wrote:

UFO wrote:

Reflex wrote:

I said 'as much as', it entirely depends on cable length and climate, when your sending power accross several states its much higher than sending it a few dozen miles. I've seen several estimates on what it is in the US, but the important thing to note is that with certain types of power(hydro/tidal/wind/solar) the location matters and as a result transmission losses will increase due to the fact that you can't place the power generation where its most convenient(ie: closest) to its consumption, instead you have to generate where the power is most prevelant, which is not always the most convenient location.

80% is not realistic. Coal plants are already located hundreds of miles from where the power is delivered, and that 7.2% reflects that. There is no case for wind turbines where the transmission losses woulld be that high, as the transmission technology is the same.

If you are using centralized wind farms in locations along coastlines, then transmitting power from there to areas in the nations interior can cross more than a thousand miles. This is the same issue with people who go "Put a few square miles of solar panels in Death Valley and call it good", obviously the most efficient power generation is that that is closest to where it is consumed.

The article that quotes 7.2%(I'm assuming your running off the Wikipedia article) does not seem to have its sources or methodology listed, and thats not its primary goal so I don't really know how or where they are measuring. I can't seem to find the facts on it anywhere, but even assuming that the figure is correct 'on average' that does not rule out losses of up to 80% due to the nature of the issue, namely that pushing more current increases the losses, that outside environmental factors can make it worse, and that range is a significant factor. In fact, the losses are frequently quoted in congressonal debate and bills, such as here:

Quote:

Electric energy losses are increasing as we try to push ever more power through our electric power transmission and distribution system where, at maximum capacity, losses can be ten times higher than normal;

Source: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.c ... ess_ID=815
While thats not anymore scientific a source than yours, it is my real point, that losses can be drastically higher(that would place it as high as 72% based on your figure, depending on situation) than the average, and that would get worse if we started basing most power around 'natural' sources rather than where population centers and energy consumption takes place.

But seriously, this is a nit being picked and going off on a tangent compared to the overall point I was making...

That article refers to pushing more power through the lines than what it was designed for. It has no bearing whatsoever on renewable genergy generation. I don't consider this discussion nit-picking, as you used this transmission loss figure as an argument against wind power. There are lots of locations suitable for wind power close to where it is used, and the nature of distributing smaller sources in more places is inherently more efficient than large central generating facilities.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/m ... 2-01m.html
Check out the map. There are many locations where its either non-existent or miniscule. There are very few locations where its at its maximum potential. Considering that even at its maximal its not going to generate very much, most of the power generated would have to travel large large distances to be used over large swaths of the country. Thats my point. As a minor complimentary source in certain locations where it makes sense, I don't see an issue(aside from watching for the environmental impact on flying creatures), but as a large scale program, I don't think it makes much sense at all.

Blockman · **Joined:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:11 pm **Posts:** 37

I know your pain...up here in Winterpeg area I had minus 47 windchill this am. Frozen motor mounts shook like an old harley with a bent crank :twisted:

Dont panic...I am loading the fuel with powerservice ( around 1 liter ) per fill in this crazy cold. Dont forget to cover the front and all will be well. Chalk it up to another WTF moment :!:

gmctd · **Posted:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:54 pm

Yeah, videos of impacts on flying creatures would be entertaining, to say the least...................

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:03 pm

I am reading a lot of arguments on Wind Power and some of the points may be true and some a stretch. One fact that many over look including Electrical Engineers, is the fact that when you get way out on the fringe of the power distribution network, three phase power turns into garbage and the three phases are out of balance. Put up even a few wind mills on an even small wind farm and they clean up the power grid :idea:

So when the Bean Counters wine about the cost of wind power, also take into consideration the cost of all the warranty claims on failed electrical equipment that is caused by crappy power. These costs are paid by the equipment manufacturers resulting in higher prices for the equipment they produce, these higher prices are passed onto all of us. I have logged many air miles and road miles replacing equipment that was destroyed by garbage three phase power that would not have happened had there been a wind farm out on the fringe of the grid to clean it up :!:

As far as birds flying into the props going 20 RPM, show me the evidence, put it up on U tube. I suspect there are more aluminum cylinder heads falling off the top of engine blocks and into storm drains than birds being killed or injured by wind farms :!:

Steve

CHevy06 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:04 am

Not sure what windmills have to do with gelled fuel but oh well. They have a few here in North Dakota. As For the gelled fuel last night it ran fine after using the space heater in the garage. Wasnt to impressed with the power service as thats what i used in it the night it gelled up. Hopefully the Jeep starts in the morning sice i plan on driving it to work.

gmctd · **Posted:** Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:06 am

Props? What props - I thought that was a tri-phased cell-phone array....................

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

One known instance: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... usat_x.htm

Quote:

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.

The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles.

This is one example. As I said, its something to watch out for. It can be evaded with studies that analyze the location over a few seasons to be certain that it is not a migration path and that there is not a threatened population breeding nearby. Its not a showstopper, but its definatly something that has to be accounted for. And btw, while the rotational speed may sound slow, its actually moving quite fast at the tips, its an optical illusion that the blades are visible. You could not move your arm in and out of the rotation without getting it chopped off.

NCPA points on the issue: http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2d.html

Once again, I'm not anti-wind, I'm just saying that at best its a minor source best used in specific locations and for specific purposes, its not a mass rollout solution.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:18 am

From the looks of this thread, must be a full moon again. :roll:

Over on one of the Duramax forums, owners are reporting problems with gelled fuel this winter, where in previous years they hadn't. One gent was trying everything - double doses of PS, Stanadyne - only thing that worked was adding a gallon or two of kerosene.

Same gent called PS and Stanadyne and asked why suddenly this winter he was having such problems. Got the same answer from both companies - ULSD. According to them, the way ULSD is refined noticeably raises the gel point temperature, and also this is the first winter where all the remnants of LSD have been flushed out of the distribution system and everyone is running on "pure" ULSD.

Of note also is the fact that a Duramax also runs a vacuum fuel system as our CRD's did from the factory. On the newer Duramax trucks where they've switched over to a 2 micron filter, and GM has installed D/P sensors across the filter to alert the owner when his fuel filter is getting clogged, many owners are complaining they're having to change out their filters as often as every 2000 miles - clogged so badly the truck would stall or couldn't be driven over 1500 rpm. One gent reported that after only 1000 miles his truck started running sluggish and the driver display showed only 39% life left on his fuel filter. He went ahead and changed his filter again, and the truck was back to normal. And these guys are getting hit $50 a whack for the OEM fuel filters.

And I'll give you 3 guesses what the preferred remedy to this problem was by most Duramax owners -

Lift pump.

Timmaah! · **Posted:** Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:41 am

Somebody needs to put a falcon hood over Al Gore so we can all get some sleep. :lol:

Uffe · **Posted:** Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:22 am

Reflex wrote:

One known instance: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... usat_x.htm

Quote:

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.

The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles.

This is one example. As I said, its something to watch out for. It can be evaded with studies that analyze the location over a few seasons to be certain that it is not a migration path and that there is not a threatened population breeding nearby. Its not a showstopper, but its definatly something that has to be accounted for. And btw, while the rotational speed may sound slow, its actually moving quite fast at the tips, its an optical illusion that the blades are visible. You could not move your arm in and out of the rotation without getting it chopped off.

NCPA points on the issue: http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2d.html

Once again, I'm not anti-wind, I'm just saying that at best its a minor source best used in specific locations and for specific purposes, its not a mass rollout solution.

Yes there has been problems in very specific places in the USA. I have heard about that, but generally you can't argue that wind mills kill bird populations.

Optimally the speed of the tip of a wind mill blade is 200km/h. This is the speed we try to obtain during nominal load on the wind mill. Go higher than that and the sound annoyance becomes a concern. In turn this means larger blades rotate slower. On the V90 (V90m tip-to-tip length) we have a nominal speed of 16RPM.

Now that you state how many wind mills we need to produce the same electricity as 1 cubic mile of oil, do you even realize just how much oil you are talking about?

13,000 barrels of oil per year is what a 3MW V90 turbine can save for us. That oil could be used better elsewhere than to produce electricity.

Yes wind is not reliably, yes it is not controllable, yes it is not all the things we want it to be for us. The real solution is energy storage. Let me give an example of why this is important. Right now we have what we like to call "wind season", during winter time we produce lots of electricity on the wind mills because wind blows harder during winter and the energy in the wind is now higher than at higher temperatures.

If you go here: http://elmuseet.dk/dkkort/DK2006.html

You can see the actual production of electricity in small Denmark. It is divided into three groups:
Centrale kraftværker (Central power plants)
Decentrale kraftværker (... decentral power plants)
Vindmøller (Wind mills)

At the moment 13:15 CET we have a HIGH wind speed of 18m/s and the wind mills produce the same amount of power as our central power plants! As much as half of our electricity is now being produced by wind mills instead of coal plants.

During winter time we produce a lot of electricity and normally we sell it to germany, norway and sweden for a rediculous low price because it is considered excess electricity. Our central and decentral power plants are required to operate to supply heating to the houses, and they create electricity (the heat is actually a waste product of electricity production itself) too. Instead of doing this we should either store the energy or put massive electric water boilers into the power plants and burn the windpower into the heating system.

If we could store the energy efficiently and use it during the summer we could rely much more on wind power than we currently do today!

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

If energy could be efficiently stored, I'd agree with you, but the fact is that it cannot, we have no real way of doing that and battery technology has only increased incrementally over the past century with no real breakthroughs in sight(plus, its also not environmentally friendly). I do see uses for wind, that map shows that it makes a lot of sense in some areas of the country, I'm just saying that its not going to make a major national impact, no more than solar, tidal or other incremental technologies.

One area it does make sense is in states that allow 'net metering' for rural homeowners, that way when the wind is blowing its lowering their power consumption/bill and they can 'buy it back' when there is no wind.

BTW, if anyone wants to we can start a thread on this(and other alternative technologies) so we can stop diverting the gell thread...

MOSFET · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:40 pm **Posts:** 295

Let's post here for wind or energy related comments.

http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=29101

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Back on gelled fuel, it is kind of ironic that folks are having this problem with dino-diesel. I've been running B20 with power service at temps down to 5 degrees F, no issues.

Gelled fuel??

Who is online