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."

Comments

Short term/long term

[perdida]

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.

Re:Short term/long term

[Darth Turbogeek]

Convincing Industry and Govt of the Big Gobs Of Money to be had with alternate energy should be the first step. Unless they see a buck in it and preferably an easily redemable one, Alternate energy isnt going to go far.

That being said, Does anyone realise Texas is one place where this happen and hence Wind Turbines are being built. Odd that it is in Geoge W Buhs's state - but I can say it was NOT done to save the enviroment. It was dnoe because there was shown to be a buck in it.

Soory Greenies, that's the way it works. You want to save the enviroment, prove to someone with dollars that there is more dollars to be had and quickly. Convince the money men of that aand watch how fast these clean technologies get built

Re:Short term/long term

[Malcontent]

"Soory Greenies, that's the way it works. You want to save the enviroment, prove to someone with dollars that there is more dollars to be had and quickly"

And that's why we are all on a collision course with calamity.

There is no profit in preserving life. A bluefin tuna swimming in the ocean is worthless to anybody. The same tuna when killed is worth a thousand dollars. Same with clean waters and clean air. They are both worthless but if you can make a lot of money polluting them.

The problem is one of ethics. Most people are willing to deprive your great grandchildren to make money today. The so called greenies are trying to preseve the remaining planet for future generations. Unfortunately there is no profit in that. As a result they are not as rich are the business owners and shareholders. As a result the natural resources of the world keep spiraling down. Nothing can be done about it except maybe violence.

Other Infos

[robbyjo]

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.

Kinda like saying gyroscopes are the future...

[herrlich_98]

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.

Re:Kinda like saying gyroscopes are the future...

[dbrutus]

Hydrogen is probably not going to come from H20 but rather from methane, natural gas, or other hydrogen rich sources that don't take as much energy to break apart as H20. The multi-fuel issue is going to set apart hydrogen because you don't need to build an infrastructure, you can use the one we already have and shift the fuel as new ones become available. Indirect competition rules the roost and OPEC pricing power is broken because all of a sudden, switching becomes possible without killing the economy.

DB

My thoughts about alternatives

[Kiro]

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

.

He's fission and I bit

[Mandelbrute]

I don't know why people are so afraid of good clean nuclear power.

Chenobyl, Three Mile Island, Sellafield and that power station in France where all of those people died (from liquid sodium) during the decommisioning.

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.

Re:He's fission and I bit

[Grond]

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? ;)

Re:Can we harness..

[TGK]

Not really. Fusion "containers" are massive electromagnetic coils which are themselves suspended in a vacuum chamber. The idea is to magneticly contain a 100,000+ C plasma until fusion occurs and hopefully produce more energy than you use. This is a ways off.

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.

Last point -- Someone else was asking where the energy for this will come from, pointing out that you will always come up short if you're using water as your source of hydrogen. A reply indicated that other more hydrogen rich molecules would be used. I wish to clarify that this is the case, but only until either more advanced solar systems can be developed or until fusion power becomes more practical. The idea is not hydrogen as an energy source, but as a storage medium.

That is all.

Liquid fuels are far more practical

[cryptochrome]

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.

Hydrogen is not an energy source

[uncadonna]

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.

Hydrogen for free

[CaptainCarrot]

I work for Lockheed Martin. Many years before the merger that created this company, when I worked for what was then called Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., there was a series of articles in the company rag talking about a technology we were developing that generated electricity from the temperature differential between shallow and deep seawater. This was back in the early 1980's. The process is called OTEC for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, and there's a a bit of information about it available online.

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.

Re:Hydrogen for free

[CaptainCarrot]

OTEC is fairly limited as an electrical generation plant, which is what it was originally conceived as, because it really needs to be situated in tropical waters to work well. There's an experimental plant off the coast of Hawaii, which admittedly doesn't produce any net power largely because it's made from parts designed for other purposes and so operates suboptimally. (Its primary purpose right now is to validate a particular design of heat exchanger.) But the location requirements imposes insuperable tramsmission obstacles. It's just not practical to transmit the electricity from tropical oceans to the industrialized countries that need the power.

Hydrogen doesn't have that limitation, but it's also not now a mainstream power source. If proton exchange membrane fuel cells come into common use, that will undoubtedly change. But as things are, it's just not profitable enough to make it worth the capital investment.

Power & Current Alternatives

[Neutron_F1uX]

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.

Re:My favorite trait of H...

[Dyolf Knip]

I wonder how much if at all a Hydrogen based enerygy system would alter the weather, think of all the cars, sure they are emitting 0 pollutants

Very good question. Even the smallest effect from a Hydrogen car would be multiplied by the millions of vehicles out there. But really, fog from H2 cars is better than smog from gas cars any day.

Also do these vehicles store the water, and plug into the power socket to charge? Or do you need to fill them up with water? Or just with H2

It'd be really silly to have the car store water and then charge from a socket. The whole point is to use H2 as a battery to power the car. How you 'charge' that battery is up for grabs. I imagine that the most efficient thing to do would be do make the hydrogen at industrial or even home-based systems and then fill-er-up with fresh tanks of H2. That way, you can build more efficient water-breaking systems and not worry about making them portable. See the arguments about electric cars charged from the grid vs ones that generate their own oomph from gas or whatever.

However, if solar panels become reasonable useful, it might indeed be feasible to put everything in the car. Start off with a tank full of hydrogen and an empty one of water. As it uses the H2 to drive, the car uses solar power to break up the waste water and fills up the H2 tank. It's not quite a perfect system, since you may do a lot of night driving or park in a garage and thus end up with all water and no hydrogen, in which case you'd have to tank up with H2. The system would also leak a small amount of water, which I supose could be replaced from capturing rainfall. Depeding on the efficiency of the electrolysis and solar cells, it becomes something between a gas mileage enhancer and a true self-contained car. But still, being able to drive for a few thousand miles before having to stop for fuel would kick ass to an amazing degree.

Profitability

[Once&FutureRocketman]

Soory Greenies, that's the way it works. You want to save the enviroment, prove to someone with dollars that there is more dollars to be had and quickly.

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.