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."
Can we harness the hot air that Jon Katz spews once every week or so?
is that you can get it anywhere there is water and sunlight. Never run out of gas and be stranded again! Cool, especially if you're on a budget.
We have been able to transfer a lot of our daily consumer power needs off the grid for years.
Unfotunately, any large scale production of alternative energy using consumables would require a massive capital investment by government and private enterprise that they have been postponing later and later.
We could have hydrogen powered cars and solar powered houses right now, if 40 years ago somebody had started a small factory making consumer goods that used these energy sources. By now, there would be lots of factories making the goods, and cheaper production methods would have resulted.
The short term planning orientation of energy companies and their associated enterprises is what keeps us dependent on fossil fuels today.
Only now are corps like BP investing in alternative energy. And BP isn't advancing the field much, it seems to be buying up small alternatives industry firms and keeping them in a technological and marketing holding pattern.
In my opinion, private enterprise and government won't invest the massive amounts required to scale alternatives production until the cost of fossil fuels is so prohibitive that they are (short-term) forced to do so.
By then, it will be too late.
I wish I knew what to do about this.
Goat sex free since 2001
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.
Best thing, imho about hydrogren fuel is the ability to use it as a means of transmitting energy from potentially remote renewable generating facilities. Think of that game of SimCity where you put all the windmills in the hilly corner you'd never use. Same idea could work with wind or solar in the real world. Put wind facilities in prime (for wind generating) locations, generate hydrogen with the electricity, and truck the h2 to cities. No need for big ugly lines.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I love reading about alternatives to horribly invasive forms of energy we use today. This is a meta stop gap solution, a way of reducing peaking by bleeding compressed air to help the generators during peak usage. The crux of the issue remains, our power generation techniques are dirty and deprecated.
Most of quelling of useful technology is done by: the old boys club not wanting to give up on the profits, a lot of it is mis-information, and the remainder of the reason why we use horribly inefficient power sources is lack of attention (by our sheep like media).
I used to live near a nuclear power plant in Minnesota. I don't know why people are so afraid of good clean nuclear power. There used to be a lot of cancer there, and everyone jumped on the power plant, but it was shown that most of the cancers were not related to the power plant at all, there was solvents being dumped into the local water supplies that were causing intestinal cancer. People don't understand radiation cancers always occur in statistical rings, that certain percentage of the people a certain distance get some very specific cancers. Nevertheless, even after the nuclear power plant was vindicated - the media failed to report that the solvents killed the people, not the power plant.
Anyways, here we are burning coal and fossil fuels all day long. Fuel cells, gyroscope technology, ceramic engine and electric cars are getting the kibosh due to the retrofitting costs. And we burn, burn burn.
Today on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2001, Coal and Utility companies are lobbying the ever-environment-hating White House to reduce the clean air rules on power plants. Cheney said the administration energy policy will focus on more output for oil and natural gas.
They can continue to sell us electricity at higher prices, cut the cost, pollute the air, and keep real technology from proliferating.
Some say time is the fire in which we burn. My time is running out
.
A long time ago I read something about how every generation of fuel uses a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio. For instance, coal to oil and then oil to natural gas.
Every generation was less poluting and more efficient because of this larger ratio, and so it seems almost natural that eventually we'd get to pure hydrogen as a fuel source.
Please correct me if someone else has more info.
Lots of folks have made cars that run off vegetable oil. It's not too different from diesel fuel (hence the term "biodiesel"). It's not a very efficient method of energy production at all, though.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Interesting timing for this article as i've
just been looking into weather Fuel Cell Stacks,
such as Zetek Powers 2.5Kw Fuel Cell stacks, would make
a useful backup power source for our server shop,
fortunately it looks like Zetek's gone tits up.
I can thing of many places were a compate, safe
energy source would be ideal, but somehow this
Technology just doesn't ever seem to get
commericalized.
The benefits are considerable:
Is such a system ever going to be feasible?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Exactly, I just don't see much of a situation where using hydrogen as a quasi-battery is better than just using a battery. The Toyota Prius uses an engine to charge batteries which then drive an electric motor, for example. Why mess with the hydrogen intermediate stage? The only reason I can see is that in general, storing electrical power is difficult. Using it to produce hydrogen which can then be burned to generate peak power for the grid (such as half-time during English soccer games, when half the country puts a kettle on for tea at the same time) which can't be done with most green power systems.
(I'd really like to see some way to plug the Prius in, so you don't have to burn fuel when you're just doing short commutes every day; maybe the next generation will have that.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Three Mile Island particularly showed that the people who were in charge of the plant should probably not be trusted with anything as dangerous as a motor vehicle - the contractors x-rayed the same weld joint dozens of times (and changed the id numbers) instead of inspecting the whole plant because they knew that no-one would check up on them.
Fission is clean power to public relations people and a government that wants a good source of radioactive material for weapons, but to engineers it is very dirty power that needs to be very carefully contained in case it gets out and kills everything near the powerplant.
The financial cost of construction and decomissioning nuclear power plants is enormous - that price may come down after a few more have been decommisioned, but for now it is an expensive form of power over the life cycle of the plant. All of those rare earths and hi-tech materials are not cheap - and everything used in the steam cycle is going to be radioactive enough to cause storage problems for more than a lifetime. The environmental costs have been enormous in the Ukrane, and may be high in other places in the future.
Yes, you can have a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell and use it to generate electricity.
Being a crotchity old man, I fear change and progress. This.. this so-called Hy-dro-gen you speak of has been nothing but a pain in my rump ever since my days as a gold prospector. This margerine business.. try as I might, I still don't beleive it's not butter. I was a hearty 45 when I witnessed the Hindenburg disaster. What guarentees can you give me that such an incident won't befall my hearing aid? I have had a fear of water since I was knee-high to a crawdad. The most respected talk-show host in the world, Phil Donahue, said that this methane gas is responsible for a hole in the O-Zone layer. I beleive that space travel is best left to the Russians. I am not allowed to operate a motor vehicle in my state because I'm legally blind, deaf, and my reflexes ain't what they used to be. These yuppies in their office buildings need to get out and get real jobs gold prospectin'. Why in a single day I panned up 6 bits! All while fendin' off coyotes. I ain't ever needed no power in the house that the Ol' wind mill can't provide. I dunno what cell phones are, but they sound like the work of the devil to me. Anyway.. The Price Is Right is about to start so I have to go.
For all it's good points, people often gloss over the one big dealbreaker - hydrogen is a gas. And a very, very small gas as well, which has a tendency to work it's way even through metal containers, making them brittle in the process. In a nutshell, it's difficult to store. Even if you overcome that with tanks on cars or buildings, what are you going to do for smaller devices like lawnmowers or whatnot? If you run out of gas on the road, you won't be able to just walk to the nearest station to fill up a tank.
The fact is, for practical purposes, gases are difficult fuels, even relatively easy ones like LPNG. We need a liquid alternative that we can make in a renewable fashion, even if it doesn't trigger as many buzzwords. Methanol would be ideal for most purposes. Alternatively, rather than using hydrogen and oxygen we could use the easier-to-store sytem of ammonium and nitrous oxide. That produces water and nitrogen as a byproduct.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
"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.
Hydrogen is a clean fuel, in that it can be burned without harmful emissions. Because water is plentiful, hydrogen is also a sort of a battery. Electrical current can be used to separate it from water molecules, and some of this energy can be recovered in fuel cells.
Hydrogen extracted from fossil fuels necessarily produces less energy than the raw fuels themselves. Hydrogen produced from water by electrolysis is an energy sink.
Hydrogen may be extracted from water by using solar energy. That is solar energy, not hydrogen energy.
Whether hydrogen is a suitable fuel for vehicles depends on whether the energy costs are worth the emissions benefits. If so, this will make energy more scarce, because of the inefficiencies of converting energy in some other form into the energy of electrolysis.
Whether electrolysis of water is the right method for storage of solar energy depends on the comparative costs, risks and benefits of alternative storage technologies.
In neither case is hydrogen competing with fossil fuels as an energy source. It is competing with fossil fuels and batteries and flywheels and passive heating media as an energu storage system in both cases.
There are no significant pools of free hydrogen on the planet that can be used as an energy source.
Hydrogen is an energy storage strategy and not an energy supply strategy. It may have its uses as the former. Proposing it as a replacement for fossil or nuclear energy is complete nonsense.
All the above should be fully understood by anyone trying to venture an opinion on this subject.
Sorry to be blunt, but anyone who misses this point is one of the following: 1) not seriously interested in the subject 2) incompetent or 3) dishonest.
mt
There's always the Max Max strategy for organic gas extraction. Or alternatively, we could just shove a hose up his A**. I doubt it would impact the quality of his writing (or at least the perception of his writing).
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I love the way people talk about the "pure, clean" nature of hydrogen as a fuel.
:-)
Unfortunately the reality is that it has a long list of problems associated with it -- and a number of them are environmental.
As others have pointed out -- it's a fuel with a very low energy density (by volume), it's very difficult/expensive to store, and most of it is produced by "dirty" methods such as the cracking of hydrocarbons which come from -- you guessed it -- oil!
In short, hydrogen is a fuel for the academics amongst us -- those who find the easiest way to deal with reality is to ignore it.
You know -- these are the kind of people who write computer software that does no error-checking on its input data. When such a program crashes, the response tends to be "well don't enter bad data then."
Unfortunately, if we want to write software for the general public -- or in this case if we want to create a practical, clean fuel, then reality can't be dismissed.
We've got a long way to go before hydrogen becomes everything it's cracked up to be.
By the way, what ever happened to those breakthroughs in solar-cell technology that were going to bring us ultra-low cost energy from the sun?
Bah... humbug... I think I'll just go and burn a few more gallons of dinosaur-extract in my pulsejet
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.
It would be nice to think that people would wise up and convert before all of the fossil fuels are gone, but we know it won't happen until someone either takes out OPEC or manages to invent a hydrogen engine more efficient (and crucially, more profitable) than a petrol engine.
Money makes the world go round. Not common sense. :-(
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
When I was studying engineering, I never understood why people folk tried to experiment with alternative forms of fuel such as wind, solar and my personal favourite biomass :)
Take out the benefit of them being limitless, and you are not left with a lot, possibly their only other strength is that a lot of these systems can be installed in remote places.
Their problem is that the technology behind them is so underveloped and so implementing any systems is not only initially very expensive, but also costly to maintain. For what you put in, you normally get *very* little out.
What always got me was that the amount of heat billowing out of the chimney tops of convential electrical power stations is tremendous. I have yet to see any country implement a widescale plan to harnass some of that power. It would be no trouble to redirect that steam and heat up more steam for the turbines, or to heat up water for local community. And of coure the wasted heat energy begs the question of just how much they power stations are in the first place.
Regards,
Po
The primary problem with Hydrogen as a fuel source is not generation (which can be accomplished in large facilities dedicated to the task), but rather in safe, efficient delivery.
One of the most interesting systems I have seen recently is the Powerballs system. It does appear to be a well considered, functional, and (most importantly) *available* system. I don't think this is anything (scientifically) extraordinary, but it is available now.
Hopefully the site will take a slashdotting, they deserve a little publicity, and I'd like to see what others think of the basic idea...I'm not enough of a chemist to understand the efficiency or practicality of their method.
Hydrogen has been around an awfully long time. Doesn't at least one mega-corp have it patented?
Use this story link. less ads, less
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
When I was doing my undergrad work, this was my dream. I brought it up with some microbiology professors who pointed out many problems in the real world which prevented this from becoming a reality.
Arguments I've heard against this.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
There are various schemes using plant oils to power engines, moslty diesel engines. Some of them are as simple as mixing it in with the regular diesel gas, which requires basically no modification, but I think the engine doesn't like to start with this mixture, so you might want to be able to switch to a pure source for starting.
The best method does some chemical magic on the oil to make it into biodiesel which can be run in a basically unmodified engine. As with most fuel conversions however, there is some concern about various plastic hoses which might react chemically with the new feul - but this seems to be a minor concern.
For all the details, and a fun read, get thee hence to veggievan.org. And almost no discussion of alternative energy would be complete without a link to Home Power Magazine - download the most recent issue.
Some energy is lost as heat when you break the bonds, and inefficiencies in the electrical systems also dissipate some energy. The amount of energy in breaking and forming the bonds is constant, yes, but any paractical system to do that will lose some energy in the process so that you end up a net loss.
Of course H2 can still be worthwhile if the amount lost is small and the value as an energy storage medium can be made high enough.
I thought that Hydrogen had the highest energy density, many times that of gasoline... why did I think that?
Pound for pound, hydrogen packs more chemical energy than any other known fuel. Hydrogen also fits the arc of history: From firewood to coal to oil to gasoline to methane, the world's fuels of choice have become increasingly decarbonized. Carbon adds bulk and smoke without adding energy. Hydrogen, the only carbon-free combustible fuel, seems the logical omega point.
Oh yeah, I remember - because it said so in the article!
Sure there are difficulties with transportation and storage of hydrogen, but there are similar issues with gasoline and natural gas and we seem to cope with them relatively easily.
A quote from the article:
...
Imagine a world where
"OPEC is out of business because the price of oil has fallen to five dollars a barrel,"
Currently the vast majority of commodity chemicals are made from crude oil. That means most everything you own, the synthetic fibers in that cotton blend shirt, the plastic in your keyboard, the tires on your car, down to the aspirin that you take after staring at the computer screen all night; all of it is made from oil.
If oil prices dropped to $5 a barrel, the chemical companies would still crack the oil to get at the compounds that they are interested in, and we would be left with a lot of gasoline. What would we do with that? Burn it? Give it away?
This is why oil is such an integral part of our world. Finding a cheap alternative fuel source is only part of the solution.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
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.
Ummm... with recent events leading to talk of outfitting nuclear plants with antiaircraft defense systems, I think the public may have been right on this one.
A pilot plant for extracting hydrogen by electrolysis, driven by solar cells was built in Riverside, California in the early 1990s. Overall efficiency was 4.7%, which isn't too good.
There are occasional lab reports of better schemes for separating hydrogen, but so far none of them work in production. The U.S. Department of Energy funds work in this area, but no breakthroughs yet.
This isn't a new idea. It's an old one with lousy performance.
Couldn't agree more. It's been done. Read Natural Capitalism by (among others) Amory Lovins.
Or, to paraphrase The Natural Step, every business, regardless of industry, produces only two things: Product, and non-product. Selling product makes money. Non-product is, at best, worthless and is frequently a liability.
The ratio varies by industry of course, but when you trace through the entire supply chain, usually only 5-10% of the materials stream winds up in product. Improving this figure is a huge opportunity to add money to the bottom line, and generally speaking, there is alot of room for improvement!
As far as the political process goes, the main thing the government needs to do is to:
1) Stop subsidizing waste.
2) Correct the legal structures that currently allow industries to externalze costs. Just to give a timely example, a gallon of gas would cost alot more than $1.50 if the oil companies had to foot, say, 25% of the nation's defense budget every year to preserve access to the oil (the ethical considerations notwithstanding, of course.) As it is, the taxpayers pick up the tab instead. A whole lot of "fringe" and "green" technologies would be much more in demand if the users of current technology had to pay the true costs of that technology.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
The central thesis of the book is that while getting incremental improvements in resource/energy efficiency may be expensive, radical improvement that comes from leveraging synergies within a system can often be more cost-effective than the status quo. Companies and individuals who realize this will profit significantly in the 21st century.
Read the book. Even if you disagree with it, you'll learn a lot about systems thinking and optimization. And maybe even wind up saving a few bucks (and a few barrels) down the line.
-- Chris
Energy Density. Look it up. The whole point of using gasoline is that it stores so much energy per unit weight/volume. Hydrogen fuel cells could work, but just to store energy, there are many better alternatives as far as energy density is concerned.
I thought that Hydrogen had the highest energy density, many times that of gasoline... why did I think that?
Because you're right? I dunno if it's the highest, but it's certainly higher than gasoline. MJ/kg: H2 = 141.90, Gasoline = 47.27. The catch is that even as a liquid, H2 can't be as dense as gas. At best, it's 1/10. So by weight, it's much better, but by volume it's only a third as good.
Sure there are difficulties with transportation and storage of hydrogen, but there are similar issues with gasoline and natural gas and we seem to cope with them relatively easily.
Well sure. Oil is available in only a few places and must be refined and then shipped out to the world. H2 can be made from water, which is slightly more ubiquitous. Currently, H2 is more expensive but that would change with millions of new customers.
Dyolf Knip
On saturday night live many years ago, they had a "commercial" for airbags that inflated with popcorn. These would actually be quite useful if your hydrogen powered car slams into an oil truck.
...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 is not really a fuel as such, in the way that Oil, Gas or Wood are fuels - because you have to use some other fuel to produce it.
Hydrogen is best thought of as a way to transport energy to places where you can't make it on the spot efficiently, or in sufficient quantities.
For example, the average suburban house has enough sunlight and wind to cater for all its energy needs. If we make solar and wind capture more efficient, every garage could have a small 'charger' cracking Hydrogen and storing it for the car.
A similar idea is being researched for Mars projects (using CO and O2, but the same principle). This allows an ongoing process (powered by the sun for the martian experiment) to generate useful amounts of transportable 'fuel'.
By turning the energy model on its head, away from the current 'few big power stations' model to 'millions of tiny power stations' model we not only get better efficiency but less polluting powerstations because they are in EVERYONES back yard.
Hydrogen has a role to play, so might CO. But this is no fuel of the future - the fuel of the future is the sun and the wind.
NEWS FLASH! People Who Sell Hydrogen Think Fuel Cells Are A Good Idea!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I found a reference to a liquid gas tank explosion in Cleveland 1944, killing 130. 1903 sounds too early for that anyway... but post if you have a link. Sounds interesting.
This is, indeed, a vile lie. Hydroelectricity, which involves building huge dams to collect water in reservoirs, has a huge detrimental impact on the environment. Thousands of river based eco-systems have been devastated because of hydroelectricity plants.
Everytime time a huge dam is built, millions of local people are displaced. Unfortunately, many of the so-called developing nations have embraced hydroelectricity, and often in these countries, these displaced people are left destitute. While the rich folk in rural areas get all the energy they need, the poorer displaced people lose their lively hoods.
I totally agree that it is high time that we moved away from burning fossil fuels to harness energy, but there is no point in finding alternatives that are equally, or as in this case even more, environmentally hazardous.
I think you are ignoring the fact that we have a very aggressive free press here, especially concerning words like, "nuclear accident", "coverup", or "radiation release". You can be sure if something happened, our leftist anti-nuclear media would be all over it.
Electrolysis. But wait, you still need to provide electric power. Ok, how about PV? Check out the "Water Battery".
324006
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
Some axioms:
- There are no energy sources, just temporary energy storage forms. The only true energy source on earth is sunlight.
- Every use of energy creates some form of "pollution" (1st law of thermodynamics). What differs is how much, how unpleasant it is for humans, at where it is created. (eg, electric cars still create air pollution, but it is moved back to the generating station, instead of the car tailpipe)
- Every conversion of energy from one form to another is lossy (3rd law of thermo). And constitutes a "use" of energy, which creates "pollution".
So, the real questions about comparing energy sources amount to these criteria:
- What does it cost us to find and access the stored energy?
- How easy/cheap is it to convert the stored energy into a useful form (eg, rotational kinetic energy of a car driveshaft)?
- How efficient is that conversion? How much of the sourced energy is lost as general thermal radiation (ie, friciton losses, i^2r transmission line losses, etc)
- Doing so creates what form of pollution, in what amounts, and at what locations?
- How politically acceptable is that particular pollution arrangement? Who benefits, who suffers?
The stuff that turns oil into a butter-like substance that is far, far worse for your arteries than butter.
The stuff that made the Hindenburg burst into flames.
The stuff that combines with carbon to make greenhouse gases that will supposedly plunge us all into Venus-like hell.
The stuff that sent the space shuttle Challenger to a watery grave.
People are scared of Hydrogen. We need better examples, the ones you used are linked in people's minds with bad events.
Energy density is usually stated in energy per mass, but even using energy per volume, hydrogen is better than gasoline when measured at typical storage pressures.
...but wouldn't it.. explode?
Oh, _that's_ why we haven't been using gasoline and natural gas for energy!
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
It has been pointed out that electrolysis isn't the most efficient way of producing hydrogen. In the article it states "The endgame, in Lovins's view, will be using solar cells or wind farms to electrolyze water.". I disagree... it's the start game. A self-contained solar-electrolyser is totally independant from any infrastructure hence infinately scalable. It could be the catalyst to kick-start the hydrogen revolution. Eventually we may see hydrogen pipes to our house, much like natural gas, going through a standard meter to supply our household fuel cell. This will take quite a few years though.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Of course, the law is still on the books; it's now set to expire next August. Cheney has been quoted as saying that if the law is not renewed, nobody would invest in nuclear power plants. In the meantime, if there's a catastrophic nuclear accident that causes more than $9 billion in damages, the victims will have to ask Congress for aid -- and if Congress did provide it, how much do you want to bet that people other than nuclear-plant operators would be taxed to pay for it?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Carbon thrown into the air and eventually into little jimmy's lungs contributing to his asthma is a major problem. Carbon that comes out and dumps into a hopper as little carbon briquets is not a major problem. Burning causes unpredictable outputs, chemical reactions are more predictable and the pollutants are either reduced or mitigated by the fact that they aren't just spewed into the air.
Now multi-fueling means that pig farmers have a secondary market and can become local fuel suppliers. If you're in farm country, you might fuel up with some nice biomass produced methane. Natural Gas is also mostly methane and can be found almost all over the country in private homes so you can top off via that source (Natural gas is usually *not* transported from the Middle East).
"just spreading out the processing stage" isn't quite accurate and even if it were, isn't quite the yawner you make it out to be. Indirect competition limits OPEC to ~$40/barrel right now because at a persistent price above that level, massive deposits that are out of their control become economic to exploit and the sheikhs aren't dumb enough to lose market share by creating new competitors. A vast majority of their foreign exchange comes from oil and if they don't pump for too long, they get overthrown by their starving people. By changing the market so we are not looking necessarily for oil per se but for hydrogen which can come from oil or other sources, we might be able to push the ceiling down into the ~$25 range. That means that if the sheikhs don't behave, we won't buy their oil and not suffer any major economic consequences (think war on terrorism). Also, it is quite likely that there are some producers of what is now categorized as waste gas that will be able to economically ship domestically into this new hydrogen market instead of burning their gas or letting it into the air as a pollutant (again, the noble pig farmer comes to mind).
On storage, you can store the NG or methane or whatever and just convert seconds before the fuel cell needs the hydrogen. No special hydrogen storage facilities needed.
I think hyrdrogen has potential as a storage and transport medium for renewable energy sources. Many of these resources have short term variations in their availability:
Solar: doesn't work at night;
Tidal: only works on the outgoing tide;
Wind: doesn't work when the wind is slack.
Conversion of the energy to hydrogen and transporting it by pipeline would buffer the variations in powerflow, the way a capacitor does in a power supply.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That aside... I think people are afraid of Nuclear in America because we have some bad habits. We like to do things like considering fuel spent very quickly so that we won't have weapons-grade materials. (This dramatically increases the amount of waste we actually have to hide somewhere for a long time.)
And THAT is just a matter of policy.
Our current nuke plants have seriously low safety records - the oversight of them is a joke (the feds are apparently not worried about terrorists trying to blow one of these babies!) and we tend to watch the number of people who are involved in security or operations get slashed to make room for more money.
I guess what I'm saying is that the friendly useful nuclear power that's used in socialist countries like Japan and France turns into evil nuclear death cult power here in capitalist USA. It's always cheaper to pay somebody off and make the taxpayers foot the bills for any cleanup than it is to keep the necessary trained and alert staff on salary.
By the way, while I am not too coherent (in general, but this post especially) I have references for a lot of the vague statements I make. I'm just too lazy to add them. Do some searches on google. ;)
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.
"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)."
Totally revolting. American deaths are all that matter? If you had really just wanted to rule out deaths in cases like Chernobyl, you could have said "American nuclear power" rather than "American deaths".
It is fair to rule out Chernobyl, where a propaganda-centered media* let decision-makers buy their own lies about safety far more than they would have in the US. But the very phrase "fewer american deaths" is repulsive.
*a media that was marketing its consumers minds to a monolithic government, rather than to a varied set of advertisers like most US media.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Conversion of the energy to hydrogen and transporting it by pipeline would buffer the variations in powerflow
Hydrogen is fairly corrosive, so hydrogen pipelines may not be a great idea. However, you could simply transmit the electricity to a base station, have said base station create hydrogen with any oversupply, and use that to survive lean periods.
However, in this system hydrogen isn't particularly unique. You could probably create other fuels that might be easier to handle, or use flywheels, or other storage systems.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Yes, I mentioned this a few weeks ago. Updating the info for those that are tracking my incredible Jeep project.
OKAY, my 1996 Jeep Cherokee Sport has transported me over 242,000 miles using nothing but hydrogen based fuel! The stuff is a special hydrogen and carbon molicule and that is blended with a few other chemicals too. This special blend packs a whopping 87 Octaine ((r*m)/2 method)!!
Now I have to go to special distribution centers to get my fuel, as opposed to , these other hydrogen fuels that can apparently be found under the closest rock or spigot, based on the frequent stories. They are kinda rare, and if you don't know what they are you would think they are little grocery stores with funny looking "scrubbing machines" housed next to the store.
Actually, these places called "Exxon", "Chevron", "Mobil", "Shell" and "BP", to name a few, are the places where you get this super secret special hydorgen fuel! They are so numerous that if you don't have enough fuel to get to the next one then you are either broke or had a "blonde moment" and forgot that you needed more hydrogen-carbon liquid.
My good old Jeep holds enough of the stuff to travel around 400 miles at (get this!) 75 - 80 MPH! I have never been anyplace in the USA where I had to trravel farther than 400 miles to find another hydro-carbon distribution center.
This hydrocarbon stuff must be flowing like it is nobody's business too, since the price keeps dropping and dropping (hint: use adjusted dollars). Get this, today the MOST I pay for it in Northern VA is about $1.30 per gallon and I can go about 20 something miles on JUST ONE GALLON. Lots of that price is taxes, since it seems the government does not want anybody to have any hydrocarbon and the producers just keep dropping the price anyway. I keep hearing that it is being "depleated", but you sure can't tell by the way that market has gone.
The "scrubbing machines" at the "secret" hydrocarbon dispensing stations use that water fuel you guys keep talking about. I use the stuff to clean off my Jeep and dispose of other wastes. Maybe the scrubbing machines use it for power too?
BTW, if you see any big buildings that say "Jeep" on a real tall sign out front, that is where you can get one of these miricle machines. There are tons of other brands. Very feminine girls, and guys that wish they were girls, buy things called "cars", like the Miata. Kewell chicks and regular guys buy trucks and SUVs. My Jeep is called a "Sports Utility Vehicle" (SUV) and is similar to a "truck". If you are not familiar with them try a google search. Nowadays, the financing is very reasonable too. Almost 0% interest loans available on many different brands!
Not sure where your water cars are sold, is there a brand? I never see them anyplace! However, they may be as invisible to me as the hydrocarbon vehicles and stations are to the guys that put these articles up every other day.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Um, you realize that putting solar cells on cars to crack hydrogen would produce the exact same result as putting solar cells on cars to charge batteries?
Uh, hello? Did you even read my post? "The whole point is to use H2 as a battery to power the car" I believe was what I said. You could use a flywheel, too. Ordinary chemical batteries pretty much suck in comparison. They're toxic and have to be replaced every few years regardless of use.
As in, you wouldn't get nearly enough energy to do anything unless your car was like 20 pounds
You really didn't actually read the post, did you? "However, if solar panels become reasonable useful" was what I said. Nowhere did I say "Yes, our current panels are so good you could run all the cabs in New York off a single square meter of them."
adding hydrogen cracking and recomposition would only make the system less efficient then using a normal battery
Explain to me where you got that from. Yes, putting all that equipment would make it less efficient than it was before, you'll note that I said that the first time, but where you get the comparison to chemical batteries? I'd love to see you back that statement up.
Dyolf Knip
Good, then you of all people should know that it's easier to put renewable resources on the power grid than to try to fit them into your car and that even nasty fossil fuel power plants are more efficient than anything you'll find in your auto. The US may use mostly oil and coal, but not all nations do.
Dunno if it's a hippy conspiracy or not but it's certainly been over-hyped to some degree.
And who the hell modded me down as OT?
Dyolf Knip
If there is no arrogance in the Atomic Energy Commision and a free exchange of information internally then you have nothing to worry about.
People are people - the people of one nation are not intrinsicly less stupid than anywhere else, the "master race" idea went out with the Nazis and Victorian gentlemen that measured skulls as a hobby. A steam explosion like the one at Chenobyl can happen in any large reactor from a wide variety of causes. The leak at Three Mile Island happened due to criminal negligence that was made possible by mismanagement, and that should have been even less likely than stupidity.
I really don't know where you are coming from. You honestly expect me to believe that MS the dominant technological company in the world and Bill gates the richest man in the world don't present attractive targets for terrorists? Neither as a possible economic target nor a symbolic attack on Amrican technological superiority?
You really think that a catastrophic collapse of Microsoft stock price is comperable to a airline company in going out of business is belgium?
You really think that going to work in redmond during an active terririst attack with bacteria and viruses is comperable to piloting an airliner today? BTW plenty of pilots were freaked out some refused to fly if any arabs were on board.
I don't think we will agree on anything. It seems like our brains are wired differently.
War is necrophilia.
Reference for this assertion please, cause basic math says you're wrong.
m l)
I was running some math a while ago, letting 100 sq miles be ~250 sq km, while there is a bit under 1000W/sq meter, coming out to 250*10^9W. The US consumes 3.6 trillion kWh/year, or about 410*10^9 W continiously.
IE, assuming perfect summer-noon brightness, no cloudy days, and 100% effeciency, 100sq miles is barely 60% of what would be necessary. Now, lets throw in ineffeciency, say, 200x (10x because solar cells are usually under 10% effecient, 5x because the sun is only really bright 1/3 of the day and clouds exist and winter doesn't have much sunlight. And another 4x from ineffeciencies in storage&transport during nighttime and cloudy weeks.
Yes, the above are guestimates, so, lets say its only 25x, to be kind to you. In that case, you'd need about 75x75 kilometers, not the 15x15 you were claiming. Being two orders of magnitude off isn't too fun.
Now, if I'm in error, our you have an actual reference for those numbers, please correct me.
(electricity numbers taken from www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.ht
--
And, I'd love to see your numbers on how we can magically reduce our electricity usage by 70-90%, without switching to a poorer and more destitute lifestyle. Much of the low-hanging fruit has already been grabbed.
Your friendly skeptic
Sure, you can tell what europeans think of nuclear power; many of them use a far higher percentage of it than the US does. Look at the numbers, my friend. Nuclear power is the one area where Europe does have more sense than the US.
e xgeo.html
(Percent electricity production from nuclear sources)
Sweeden: 49%
France: 75%
Germany: 29%
Spain: 31%
US: 18%
Russia: 12%
Ukraine: 42%
Numbers all taken from: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ind
And, I challenge you, my friend, to see how many european countries with nuclear energy that use less of it than the US.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing....and a lot of knowledge will get you a career
I know - I have two degrees in physics. I have worked (as a Researcher) on engine measurement (including the temperature and pressure inside a functioning engine) and on fuel cells (catalyst poisoning). So I have lots of knowledge.
And I will say this again - your statement
but fuel cells do have the same limitations -- known as Carnot efficiency, btw.
is flat out, completely, one hundered precent, unequivocally, and without doubt, absolutely wrong.
Fuel Cells are not 100% efficient and never will be.
Depends what you mean by efficiency - they can have efficiencies of 124% (if you pick your reactants correctly).
And before I go I should point out that fuel cells are hot not because they produce waste heat (although this may be a factor), but because they are heated. They work at the temperature that the catalyst operates most effectively.