Energy Alternatives

[welsh]

I guess this goes back to what you keep and what you toss. I see the logic of many of your posts, but in the end there are two problems.

(1) Fusion is just too great an advance on technology in the way its depicted. I could see a larger power station that creates the electricity necessary to power the vehicles and that these power stations could become key strategic assets of the project that need to be placed on-line within a short window, but having every team moving about the land with a portable fusion power station seems too easy an escape. Ok, you don't want them running around collecting fuel- fine. Utilize an alternative source of energy. Large wind turbines? Massive solar panel fields? There has to be some form of technology that isn't quite so advanced. I can see long-term batteries that last for a year or so, but fusion power.

(2) I know its canon- but the time and dimensional jumping Morrow has also been a thorn in the game. I'd rather have an organization that ran the math probabilities and predicted some massive global catastrophe was inevitable and had decided it was worth investing some kind of plan for when catastrophe happens.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer if the game didn't becomes a search for fuel, but there are really no better energy alternatives? Bio or alcohol fuels seem a better choice and flexibility in energy development. Ok, large nuclear reactors, wind farms or solar power fields need to be built and defended, but why not make that part of the game as well.

There seems to be a trade off- how flexible and free do you want your teams to be vs how believable is the fusion energy and the problems fusion brings.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by welsh

I guess this goes back to what you keep and what you toss. I see the logic of many of your posts, but in the end there are two problems.

Don’t worry about it. Even if I do disagree, I do find the perspectives interesting and feel like a came away from the discussion with something else in the tool kit.

Originally Posted by welsh

(1) Fusion is just too great an advance on technology in the way its depicted. I could see a larger power station that creates the electricity necessary to power the vehicles and that these power stations could become key strategic assets of the project that need to be placed on-line within a short window, but having every team moving about the land with a portable fusion power station seems too easy an escape. Ok, you don't want them running around collecting fuel- fine. Utilize an alternative source of energy. Large wind turbines? Massive solar panel fields? There has to be some form of technology that isn't quite so advanced. I can see long-term batteries that last for a year or so, but fusion power.

One could argue for those. Hard to hide them something that big and have it sit offline. Large power plants need large workforces to run them, those need to be housed and feed. I suppose the regional bases could have power plants that can operate at many times in excess what the base would require and have such a workforce on hand.

The problem with wind turbines or large fields of solar panels is getting those built and running in the beginning stages of the 3-5 year plan with the whole of North America a radioactive and biowarfare plague hell. Those take a heck of a long time to assemble.

Batteries that last a year at 100% aren’t any more feasible now than a fusion plant. The best lithium ions are only good for a few hundred miles, hence the move to hybrids.

If you feel like fusion is going to get away from you, restrict the output. The V-150 can’t be the village powerplant and move around. The sockets on the outside are limited to one 220 and two 110. Even the output of the power plant can be restricted down to that of a 5000 watt home generator. The high torque electric motors needed to move a V-150 don’t require that much voltage only a lot of amperage.

Originally Posted by welsh

(2) I know its canon- but the time and dimensional jumping Morrow has also been a thorn in the game. I'd rather have an organization that ran the math probabilities and predicted some massive global catastrophe was inevitable and had decided it was worth investing some kind of plan for when catastrophe happens.

That is more or less what the Project has done. It seems the Nuclear War is inevitable (Terminator II Judgement Day?) but, Bruce can’t predict how or when. He can show proof, but tragically cannot prevent it. On the flipside, the rest seems to be people relying on predictions and models that they can grasp.

Originally Posted by welsh

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer if the game didn't becomes a search for fuel, but there are really no better energy alternatives? Bio or alcohol fuels seem a better choice and flexibility in energy development. Ok, large nuclear reactors, wind farms or solar power fields need to be built and defended, but why not make that part of the game as well.

Biofuels has been a disaster here in the U.S. without a nuclear war! The acreage to feed people and farm livestock diverted to make fuel for cars didn’t lower the costs and skyrocketed the costs of food. The yields of oils from acreage is pretty low. Low enough that a truck fleet would need to sit idle for half a year to build enough fuel stocks to operate usefully. The choice becomes feed the people or fuel the trucks.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

Originally Posted by welsh

There seems to be a trade off- how flexible and free do you want your teams to be vs how believable is the fusion energy and the problems fusion brings.

I prefer a mobile team with a fusion powered vehicle vs one that stops to barter for fuel or spends days harvesting high carbohydrate yield crops to make alcohol.

Having an armored car has been a bigger pain in the neck for the PD than it being fusion powered. You can’t get the players out of the can.

[RandyT0001]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Biofuels has been a disaster here in the U.S. without a nuclear war! The acreage to feed people and farm livestock diverted to make fuel for cars didn’t lower the costs and skyrocketed the costs of food. The yields of oils from acreage is pretty low. Low enough that a truck fleet would need to sit idle for half a year to build enough fuel stocks to operate usefully. The choice becomes feed the people or fuel the trucks.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

Biofuels in the US have been a disaster because of politics. Rising fuel costs and rising food costs are not due to acreage diverted to biofuels. Per your link, cotton produces 35 gallons of oil per acre, peanuts produce 113 gallons per acre and according to this link http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thr...layType=nested a farmer only uses about 5-6 gallons of fuel per acre which includes tilling, spraying, and harvesting, including the truck to collect the crop as it is harvested. In fact, the website you referenced talks about the "choice" of feeding the people or fueling the trucks here and, specifically, here. There are communities that use biofuels in third world countries because it is cheaper than buying commercial fuels. In the absence of present US politics, biofuels are indeed a good alternative fuel source.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by RandyT0001

Biofuels in the US have been a disaster because of politics. Rising fuel costs and rising food costs are not due to acreage diverted to biofuels. Per your link, cotton produces 35 gallons of oil per acre, peanuts produce 113 gallons per acre and according to this link http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thr...layType=nested a farmer only uses about 5-6 gallons of fuel per acre which includes tilling, spraying, and harvesting, including the truck to collect the crop as it is harvested. In fact, the website you referenced talks about the "choice" of feeding the people or fueling the trucks here and, specifically, here. There are communities that use biofuels in third world countries because it is cheaper than buying commercial fuels. In the absence of present US politics, biofuels are indeed a good alternative fuel source.

I don't want to get into politics here.

I am thinking of the dump truck I drive on a regular basis. The computerized management system (the truck is county property and pretty fancy) says on an average run hauling 12 tons of gravel from 6500 feet up 20+ miles up Highway 285 to 8500 feet the average is 5.7 miles per gallon.

I am not worried about the farm usage to grown and harvest the crop as tillage can be made for a fuel producing crop or cellulose bearing crops can be distilled for ethanol on the side.

I am thinking of the heavy equipment, the semi tractor/trailers, the trains. Even with the mandate by Law to include 10% ethanol per gallon of gasoline (not feasible for diesel) the ethanol plants are shutting down due to costs.

It is possible, and more probable in a scenario like TMP where the population is so small the crops for fuel doesn't impact the food supply.

When the ethanol craze was in full production the U.S. Dept of Ag sold all of the strategic reserve of grains to stabilize the world market. The costs set off rioting in Mexico and is one factor in the Arab Spring mass protests.

[mmartin798]

One other possibility for alternative fuel is ammonia. Gallon for gallon you get the same energy as gasoline assuming you have an effective way of cracking it, like this: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydroge...uture-car.html

Making ammonia in large quantities is a 1920's technology. Could fairly easily take place on an old coal mine or other significant source of methane. Plus you can use it as fertilizer, so there is a reason for communities to make it happen.

[kato13]

If you have energy and water you can crack hydrogen.

[mmartin798]

True, but using ammonia and cracking it lets you use hydrogen more easily as a motor fuel.