Slashdot Mirror
The (Possible) Future of Alternative Energy
Sponge! writes: "The stuff that turns oil into margarine. The stuff that made the Hindenburg float. The stuff that combines with oxygen to make water and with carbon to make methane. The stuff that sends the space shuttle skyward and could someday power your car, office building, house, cell phone, even your hearing aid. That "Stuff" is hydrogen, and according to Amory Lovins, it is the future of energy. Here is an interesting article on Lovins and his view of hydrogen as the number one fuel."
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Institute, California Hydrogen Business Council.
Read "Hydrogen Futures: Toward A Sustainable Energy System", from WorldWatch Institute. Check out its Q & A section.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
The main thing that gets glossed over in his argument is that unlike oil or solar you never get more energy from hydrogen than you put in. Sure there's a lot of hydrogen around, but to break H20 apart is always going to take slightly more energy than you get when you burn it or use a fuel cell to put it back together.
Hydrogen is better compared with gyroscopes or batteries than oil, solar or nuclear.
"Pound for pound, hydrogen packs more chemical energy than any other known fuel."
But litre for litre, it is lousy. I've seen pictures of designs for (liquid) hydrogen fueled jetliners - they are very significantly larger to contain the fuel.
This is one of the reasons people are so interested in 'reforming' methane or methanol to form the hydrogen on the spot - they are so much easier to store compactly. (This does, however, mean you now need much more *weight* for your energy.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Such a plant could generate enough electricity to pump seawater up and crack it into hydrogen and oxygen. It would be a whole hell of a lot cleaner than oil rigs on offshore platforms, and could in fact be set up on oil platforms in tropical regions (like the Gulf of Mexico) that no longer produce enough crude oil to be profitable, or that must be shut down over environmental concerns. OTEC plants are very clean, very safe, and fairly inexpensive to run. They could be a viable method for producing hydrogen almost for free.
And the brethren went away edified.
Why is everyone so affraid of Nuclear power? Pound for pound, Nuclear Energy is far cleaner and environmentally friendly then coal power plants, that's been proven already. The chances of a catastrophic reactor melt down are not very likely, as long as they are properly maintained and staffed. While I'm all for new forms of energy, we are currently not even using what is within our grasps. How can we expect power companies, who have a lot of money sunk into their current operations, to change their way of thinking? I doubt they see it as a viable thought to try these things out when they may flop. I have little faith that anything such as this article describes will be used, when we are not even using Nuclear Energy to what it could be. Look at the Navy, they have tons of nuclear reactors on their ships. Have there been any indicents with them? Not that we know of, and it'd be hard to hide something like that. Of course, those are smaller reactors, but none the less, it just proves the government knows what is going on. They are using the technology we already have, while the power companies are still stuck back a 100 years ago.
Use this story link. less ads, less
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Until energy consumers start demanding clean energy (both in the marketplace, and through the political process), we'll never make the transition to a sustainable energy system. One organization that is working to build both real markets and realistic policies for clean energy here in the Pacific Northwest is Climate Solutions. Worth checking out... these folks are trying to take the pie-in-the-sky that Lovins et al. discuss and make it real on the ground.
3 points.
;)
First, engineers do not regard nuclear power as a dirty source of energy that must be contained, lest it kill everyone. I live in a small city in Arkansas (Russellville, population ~25,000) that is the site of a large nuclear power plant. I know many engineers who work at the plant and a few people involved with the construction and design of the plant (such as my father, who did the environmental impact work on the 'steam cycle,' more on that later). Those engineers regard nuclear power as an extremely safe, potentially cheap form of power. The total number of American deaths from nuclear power is incredibly small compared to that of coal/oil/natural gas and their related activities (such as coal mining).
Second, nuclear power plants can be built very cheaply. The cost of construction is only about a third of the cost of building a plant (a large plant would, if built today, cost in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars, depending on location (i.e., availability of natural cooling sources like lakes and rivers) and output). Whenever a nuclear power plant is built, the design documents, environmental impact studies, evacuation plans, etc, must all be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as though no nuclear plants had ever been built before. Read that again. The majority of the cost of building a nuclear power plant in the United States is red tape. Nuclear power is cheap. Nuclear power plants can be cheap. In France, most of the power plants follow the same, well-tested design.
Third, the water used in the steam cycle is extremely clean. During construction of the plant, the chemists (such as my father) had a valve system in place such that they could take samples of the water at every stage in the cycle. After testing the water, the chemists would often wet their whistles with the excess. The water was just plain, distilled water. The only thing that happens to it is being heated and cooled over and over again. The steam (water vapor, technically) put off by cooling towers is likewise incredibly pure. In the Russellville case, the only thing in the water vapor other than H20 is a small amount of (non-radioactive) Xenon, which, for those of you who slept through chemistry, is inert. Perhaps you meant the coolant itself? Well, the coolant is heavily laced with Boron (in the form of Borax soap, actually), which is a neutron absorber. It's only a 'coolant' in the sense that it absorbs neutrons. Even if the Boron did become radioactive (and I'm fairly certain it doesn't), that water isn't part of the steam cycle and the Boron can be removed from the water anyway.
The majority of your fears (and the public's fears) about nuclear power are unfounded.
PS He's 'fission' and you bit, but then I bit off of your line. Who is worse, the troll, the troll who followed him, or the idiot who responded to both?
...is an answer to virtually all energy problems. I'm potentially starting a completely off-topic and/or flame-inducing thread here, but man, this is something that should be discussed.
/. readers, and hopefully spurring them to check out some websites that I'll list below and spread the word.
:) But I don't want to drone on or piss anyone off.
It would probably make most people downright mad to know the potential uses of industrial hemp and why it's illegal. Obviously the main reason (and the one you'll hear from any government source) is that it's marijuana, and we all know how "bad" pot is for our health. I'm going to try really hard though to stay away from the legalization of marijuana, because it is a separate issue from industrial hemp.
For starters, most people are unaware of that last statement, so I'll repeat it: INDUSTRIAL HEMP IS NOT MARIJUANA. It contains very low levels of THC, so low that you may as well smoke paper (except plain white paper is potentially toxic... we'll get to that later). Now, they are from the same family of plants, cannabis, but they are indeed different plants. Therefore, it is entirely possible to grow industrial hemp without producing marijuana. Most people (and senators/representatives) don't seem to realize that, or are concerned that THC-producing hemp could be grown in or around industrial hemp. The validity of that argument is up for grabs.
But let's get to the point here, which is energy. What can hemp do? Here's a quick synopsis:
ANYTHING MADE FROM WOOD OR OIL CAN BE MADE FROM HEMP
Hemp biomass can be converted into gasoline more efficiently than fossil fuels (coal, oil) and without sulfur or acid rain as byproducts. Hemp fiberboard is stronger than wood, hemp houses are as strong as cement houses and better insulated. Plastic, rayon, and cellophane made from hemp are biodegradeable. Paper uses nearly half the world's timber. Hemp produces FOUR TIMES the amount of paper per acre as trees, and grows in all climates of the US. Hemp paper lasts about 1500 years. Cotton requires more pesticides than any other agricultural product. Hemp grows without pesticides and herbicides, and is much stronger than cotton cloth.
We're only touching the tip of the iceberg here. The point is that people simply don't realize what hemp can do, because the government's blackballing job has been so effective. I'm hoping to at least enlighten a few
Here's the short version of why hemp is illegal:
-Major corporations such as DuPont, Monsanto, Dow, ExxonMobil, Lilly, etc. stand to lose MILLIONS, if not billions, of dollars if hemp were allowed to be used to its potential.
-It is simply TOO EASY TO GROW. Sounds absurd, right? It is. Hemp grows in virtually any environment with virtually no need for chemicals. In short, any Tom, Dick or Harry could become a hemp farmer. The government does not like not having absolute control over what is grown. Tobacco seeds, for instance, are carefully controlled AND TAXED by the US government. They would have a very, very tough time trying to control and tax hemp growers.
I'm really tempted to dive into the THC-friendly portion of this debate.
Whether or not you support legal use of marijuana should have no effect on your support of legal hemp cultivation. Please keep that in mind. They are completely separate issues.
Please continue your learning at this most excellent website:
http://www.jackherer.com/
It has a definite slant towards pro-marijuna and hemp. But even if you think the website is biased, you can't deny the pure volume of bullshit that we're fed about the marijuana/hemp issue.
Hemp SHOULD BE one of the main alternative energies of the future.
hydrogen fuel cells are better than batteries because of the rate they can deliver energy. It's difficult to make an electric car that can make a decent top speed.
Not necessarily true. Some batteries do a great job at dumping current really fast. Electric cars have pretty good pickup. I have heard a lot of complaints about them, but speed isn't one of them.
Here's a link where someone talks about how peppy the EV1 is. Even if he's exaggerating, the thing clearly isn't a slug.
USNEWS has a good article here:c h/ 12energy.htm on this subject.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/011112/bizte
One of the things the article says is that Wind power is becoming more efficient, the only problem is storing the power created at night when power demand is low. It goes on to say that at night the windmills could go into hydrogen creating mode.
They think fuel cells are about a decade away from being cheap enough to replace internal combustion and Shell is already looking into establishing an infrastructure for hydrogen.
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
In answer to a question further down the page, hydrogen fuel cells are better than batteries because of the rate they can deliver energy. It's difficult to make an electric car that can make a decent top speed. Hydrogen fuel cells pack the punch to give you a good boost.
This is incorrect, while hydrogen fuel cells can in theory develop more Watt/hr per kg than batteries none of the units produced have been able to do so. Most fuel cell powered vehicles will need battery or flywheel systems to store energy for peak loads.
The energy required to accelerate a car quickly is incredible. For example the Electric drag racers require peak current of over 1000amps at 300VDC (300kw, enough to power 75 homes) to run 12 seconds times on the 1/4 mile track. Most average cars Electric cars require 600amps of current. No hydrogen fuel cell on the planet puts out those current levels and can still fit in a car. For those current levels only batteries can deliver energy quickly enough.
Hydrogen's only advantage over battery power is you can refuel quicker.. it might only take 10 minutes to pump enough hydrogen into the car for another 100 miles of driving. Batteries might take 15 minutes to several hours (charge rates are mostly limited on how much electricity is available, most homes do not have sufficent power available to quick charge an EV).
Hydrogen's biggest drawback... its a bitch to store. It leaks out of almost any container you put it in. Its hard to store it as a liquid (have to keep it too cold) and as a gas you can't store enough of it. (hydrogen powered cars average about 100 miles before refueling, only slighty better than batteries)
On Wed, Oct 17 the Diane Rehm show had a wonderful talk on this very subject. If you listen to the show, make sure to pledge as hosting real audio archives cost a good deal of cash. Details about the show...
Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:00 - War on Terrorism and U.S. Energy Policy
A panel talks about how the war against terrorism could affect U.S. imports of oil from OPEC nations - which account for almost half of our imported oil - and how domestic energy policy and the economy might be affected.
Phil Verleger, California-based energy economist
Peter VanDoren, editor of Regulation magazine for the CATO Institute
Charli Coon, Heritage Foundation
For more information about ANWR, check out the U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-0040-98: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998
Sorry to burst your bubble, but fuel cells do have the same limitations -- known as Carnot efficiency, btw.
No they don't - see here
You are talking drivel about the engine efficienies also - see here
My source for info? a good introductory thermodynamics class.
Introductory? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.