Slashdot Mirror
Getting Serious About Fuel Cells
electroniceric writes "For those of us who moonlight as politics wonks as well as tech nerds, you may have noticed posts (1,2) in the Washington Monthly's blog pointing to interesting articles about the business community's new take on climate change, world oil supply predictions as well as a fascinating article about lower-cost ethanol together with a new fuel cell technology that can use impure hydrogen. Are we really about to turn a corner in global climate change response? Is this all vapor and breathless journalism about a world-saving new technology, or is it perhaps a brilliant investment strategy? Nobody knows (or claims to know) better than Slashdot..."
by big oil companies such as Exxon and Shell, so long as there is a Republican as president there shall be no alternative fuels.
http://codeus.info
All of this stuff about fuel cells is really nice for the future, but I see two much more simple ways to decrease dependence on foreign oil. First of all, why don't people drive diesel cars like they do in Europe? Diesel is not only more efficient, but most diesel technology is actually cleaner than gasoline. It also doesn't depend on a complete paradigm shift.
Secondly, why don't more people move back to city and thus not need cars as much? Before electric trolley cars used to be in place of buses. People could walk to work because of how close things used to be. American society has become too suburbanized and this is one of the biggest problems with regards to the fuel problem. Don't complain about fuel problems when you live 25 miles from your job and can't take the train!
Fuel cells aren't nuclear; therefore, there is no "hydrogen bomb" under your hood.
-insert a witty something-
So, I really wonder if business week would have carried the same article if the price of oil have not been absolutely rediculous lately.
It is always like this - something goes wrong and people becomes concerned in it though the attention should have been paid to it a long time ago.
With the same mindset, it is curious how would we fare when we realize that in fact, we are totally f*ing up the weather and earth is turning into Venus. Would we be able to recover from it and survive as a species? Or maybe it's a limitation of the shortsightedness built into our neural pathways?
Even if there was a huge breakthrough in fuel-cell technology that was ready for use right now, it still would not have a huge impact, at least initially. Let's assume this story, however probable, wasn't overhyped; People still have to be weaned off of their current vehicles, which are mostly large and gas-powered. In the U.S., that could take decades.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
There are better techniques being developed, that would allow the use of the corn stalks, husks, etc rather than the grain and that won't be so wasteful. But right now, the ethanol subsidy is a payoff to the state of Iowa that no presidential candidate dare touch, because Iowa has the first presidential caucus.
Well, there is a "hydrogen bomb" just the same way that most cars have a "gasoline bomb" underneath theirs. At any rate, the "bomb" in question is a needless worry--we don't fear our gas tanks exploding, do we? Why should we fear that hydrogen / fuel cells wouldn't be made just as safe?
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Are we really about to turn a corner in global climate change response?
Please keep the science fiction your read separate from the universe you live in. I'm finding it difficult to parse your buzzwords, but it sounds like you think fuels cells will offer a tremendously lower impact on the environment. Sorry, that's not how it works.
I don't have to be a fuel cell chemist to understand that the energy doesn't come for free. While hydrogen is certainly less polluting than other fuels, it still takes more energy to place that hydrogen in your hands than the energy you're going to get out of it. Sheesh, Newton didn't know anything at all about cracking hydrogen and even he knew that!
Your convenient energy is going to cause pollution of some kind (smog, chemical or nuclear waste, etc). It might be less pollution, but it won't be enough to cause a "global climate change response". And it will probably result in a redirection of otherwise productive efforts, such as growing crops for ethanol instead of for food. Even cracking hydrogen via hydroelectic energy is still going mean damming up an awful lot of rivers, with an unknown effect on the weather. Oh, and there's also waste heat on both the production and consumption side of the equation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against fuel cells. They sound extremely convenient, and I'll probably be one of the first customers. But don't imagine that it's going to solve all of our global climate problems. The only way to do that is to reduce our total energy consumption.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Fuel cells produce electricity, while a biodiesel powered engine produces mechanical energy. There are plenty of applications in which mechanical energy is not needed, and the loss of energy in converting mechanical to electrical is undesirable.
Where do you think the carbon in biodiesel comes from?
Indeed, If you calulate the total system input, consumption and output without using any fossil fuels what-so-ever along the way then I can't see there being any energy profit. People also tend to neglect the fact it takes enormous amounts of fossil fuels to grow and farm these biodiesel crops, In terms of fuel/oil cost farming isn't cheap...
Hate to be dullsville but,
It is the dull stuff that is easiest implemented. And reduction is the best way of adding more energy to the pie.
Fluorescent incandescents.
Wind power will not save us, and some birds will die, but from Oklahoma to Saskatchewan, quite cost effective means of supplementing. Yeah, the wind doesn't always blow, but then so Manitoba lost $436 million last year due to low water levels (hydro), the rains do returns as does the wind.
As far as solar, one of the easiest and most effective routes is for heating water. This should have happened in Arizona, southern California, etc. years ago. No, you don't have to do it all by solar, but you require a much smaller water heater that is used less often.
My friends off the grid via photovoltaics (over 10 years now) designed their houses - cabins to need as little electricity as possible. However photovolatiacs is tailor made to topping off banks of 12 volt batteries in third world countries for cell phones, computers, refrigerator (dc refrigerator). That is more where technology adding in a tiny bit more efficiency and lowering cost to manufacture could really have a big input.
You still have to store the hydrogen for fuel cells.
And you still have to figure out what you are going to run your tractors on and the energy sources for the fertilizer (lots of electricity to take N out of the air), farming chemicals, etc.
It isn't the flashy things that are going to do it. It is a lot of people doing dull things.
shalom,
mark
This is how you produce hydrogen. Notice the part about "electricity." That's right, in order to produce hydrogen you need the very same energy that we were trying to save in the first place. Your hydrogen-powered Prius may run as pure and clean as fresh snow, but if a coal-fired generator is supplying the electricity needed to electrolyze water and make hydrogen, then it's all for naught.
So let's stop beating around the bush: the only technology we have today that does not produce carbon and comes anywhere close to supplying Terra's present-day energy needs is good old nuclear. Or, nucular in the parlance of our current administration. Wind, water and/or solar simply don't. I think we need to bite the bullet, recognize this fact, and start building. The nuclear stigma is very unfortunate given the stakes of the global warming game we're playing. The fact is it can be done cheaply and safely, and few bad eggs seem to have spoiled the bunch... unless you have complete idiots at the helm, living in the proximity of a modern, well-managed nuclear power plant is probably a lot, lot safer than strapping into a rickety box of sheet metal and hurtling yourself down the freeway to work every morning in the presence of countless other drivers about whose skills and preoccupations you know nothing.
The depressing sticking point is that with a $100 billion, Manhattan-style research project we could probably get something like fusion power off the ground, thus solving our energy and pollution woes for basically forever.
By the way, that's about the same amount of money as we will be spending in Iraq in the coming years to ensure our oil supply and with it our ability to pump astronomical quantities of carbon into the air for the foreseeable future. Gallingly ironic.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
What's nice to see her is that global economic growth is leading us to cleaner technologies.
The oil price is so high because so many growing economies want access to energy.
Fuel scarcity is suddenly making cleaner alternatives economical, and once economies of scale kick in for them we won't be going back.
Demonstrating nicely once again that all the malthusians were (and are) full of crap.
We're not going to run out of things if we have flexible markets.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
"...Is this all vapor and breathless journalism about a world-saving new technology, or is it perhaps a brilliant investment strategy?..."
-You have my vote that this IS journalism about a NEW technology, not necessarily one that is world-saving at all. If anything, it is a step toward something that is all electric, but we are far from it without a major crisis.
-The agricultural and biochemical processes to produce Ethanol or Ethyl Alcohol (CH3-CH2-OH or C2H5OH) from Maize (you call it Corn) is not too clean nor environmentally perfect. Sure it does not require oil refineries, but there is significant production of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)in ways not immediately apparent.
-For example, growing corn produces lots of waste (cornstalks, etc..) that rots and releases CO2 and/or methane. The fermentation of the carbohydrates (sugars) in corm by yeasts produces carbon dioxide as well. Additionally, Corn is a C4 metabolism plant and it requires significant irrigation for maximum yields, and irrigation requires the burning of fuels either at the electric plant or rurally to pump out an aquifer to water the crops. Fuels are also needed for the large tractors, combines, and other equipment used to grow the crop. Another important consideration is the significant government subsidies given to grow corn in the US. The market is artificial and controlled, fluctuating with the weather (crop yields), whether a Democrat or Republican votes to adjust the already high corn subsidies (at taxpayer expense), and there is added manpower, use of significant agricultural land for fuel production, etc..
-With modern Oil/Gas production the COSTS are not as high to yield fuels of sufficient energy density (as in how many BTU a gallon of liquid fuel contains..) After all, we are all burning (oxidation) ~something~ to release energy whether it induces electron flow in a fuel cell or releases high pressure gases pushing a turbine or piston to do work. Think about the point. Alcohol fuel cells are really cool, yes. Bet let's not thing this in any case solves the CO2 or wasted resources issues. If it were Hydrogen (H2) produced from electrolysis (electric current through water yielding Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2) [2(H2O) + electricity = 2(H2) + 1(02)]), and that electricity was from a solar, nuclear, or hydroelectric generation station, then I would say that the use of that Hydrogen in a fuel cell solves much of the CO2 emissions and reduces dependence on oil.
But, the use of ANY alcohol means that there is Carbon present in the fuel and you will either produce CO (carbon monoxide) or CO2. The US Space Shuttle uses a pure Hydrogen - Oxygen Fuel Cell yielding only electricity, heat, and water as by products. ANY fuel cell that uses any Carbon in its FUEL other than Oxygen and pure Hydrogen, will release CO or CO2.
-In another example, what original starting material do you think was used to make all of those little plastic keys on your keyboard (and nearly any plastics we use today)... that's right, they are made from hydrocarbons (mainly natural gas)?
Imagine the world without fossil fuels realizing that everything plastic is from fossil fuel as well as diesel and gas... They are here to say.
Besides, we are getting close to time for another Ice Age onset, some added CO2 may push that back a few centuries. -Zymergy
1. it takes infrastructure to make more oil, you cant double supply, where are the people/pumps/stations
2. you cant double the oil tankers to transport the stuff, it takes time/money and steel to build another 1000 oil tankers
3. china is increasing its energy use 15% up each year, its going to need another 5000% more if everyone just buys 1 more light bulb, thats 1.2billion lightbulbs dude. 15% increase in demand each year with 0% inrease in supply is equal to 15% decrease each year.
4. human price/labor will go up, more people will want their share of the profits, prices will go up.
So its mute if there is even unlimited (10000 cubic kilometers of oil in the earth, even if our magma is 10% oil) It still takes ENERGY to take it up and process it and store it and transport it. You cannot double your infrastructure overnight what took 100 years to build.
KEY WORD, C H I N A + MASSIVE DEMAND = stress on supplies.
Got it man?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
We are not running out of oil. In 1982, proven world oil reserves were 696 billion barrels. Since then the world has consumed 452 billion barrels, but proven world reserves are now over 1 trillion barrels. And we still have tremendous coal, natural gas, gas hydrates, and other energy alternatives available.
U.S. oil production is only declining because we have stopped looking and stopped drilling domestically over environmental concerns. Of course it may be our best interest not to drill now and save it for later, the oil deposits are not going anywhere. However, we need to explore how much oil we have now so that we know when best to start extracting. All of the recoverable oil on the planet will eventually be extracted. And if we don't buy Mid-east oil now, someone else will, and terrorism will still be fully funded. And it's probably best that we buy Mid-east oil. We have a real army and are the only country strong enough to get out of bed with the devil when the appropriate time comes.
Scientific advancement will most likely eventually end our oil dependence. There is no shortage of scientists working on the problem, the economic benefit to finding better energy than fossil fuel is enormous. But I don't think that any scientist who wants be a big hero and benefit from solving the world's oil problem is going to want to hear "You're not paying your fair share", "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" if they succeed.
Uh, no. The primary problem with your reasoning is that the issue isn't whether or not CO and or CO2 is produced when burning a fuel. The issue is the total amount of Carbon present in the active worldwide Carbon cycle. Burning BioDiesel or other plant based crops does release Carbon into the atmosphere; The exact same Carbon that the crop removed from the cycle a few months ago. The main problem with Fossil Fuels is that they take Carbon which was previously removed from active circulation and reintroduces it. This upsets the balance of the cycle and has long reaching effects on all of the other natural processes (weather and biodiversity come to mind).
In terms of forestalling "another Ice Age", excessive Carbon may in fact, be hastening it. There is evidence that Ice Ages are closely linked to the cold water conveyor currents in the Atlantic. Temperature changes caused by the additional Carbon we introduce may cause the collapse of the currents and cause and Ice Age.
Other than that, it was a very nice post.
The Revolution. Now available as a convienent six tape series from PBS.
All this talk of CO2 emissions is no more than a martial arts type feint to distract you from the real action....
Yes, CO2 emissions *are* high, but then again oceanic absorbtion of CO2 is double what people have been predicting / expecting, and you'll find fuck all comment or investigation into that fact in the meedja, interesting when you are talking about by far the single largest CO2 absorbtion system on the planet.
The other thing everyone forgets is "recent human history" eg "the last hundred years" = "fuck all" on a global timescale.... or do you propose that the MASSIVE global warming at the end of the last ice age was caused by mammoths driving around in CFC leaving 25 litre V16 cars?
There are hippo bones buried in and around the Thames in the London area, something again caused that climate change, and it wasn't the hippos creating an extended nuclear winter.
You driving a biodiesel harley or a itchyfanny fuel cell smart car isn't going to alter sunspot activity.
No, the real issues here is per capita energy consumption, and per capita energy efficiency and per capita energy by products.
There is quite simply only one way forwards for the human race, and it is this.
In the short term, for the next 50 years, MASSIVE investment in traditional nuke plants to vastly increase electricity production.
Just as a huge proportion of Abu Dhabi's (United Arab Emirates) energy budget has gone for 30+ years into desalination of water to turn AD from a dusty desert town into a green and verdant city (human consumption of desalinated water is minute compared to the amounts used to water everything daily) then huge proportions of this future nuclear capacity will need to be used to recharge traditional traction type lead acid cells, crack water into hydrogen for new fuel cells, and power tram style over head power cables for urban heavies stuff.
In the meantime everyone needs to make a JFK style "do in within ten years, that's an order" style push to commercially viable fusion plants.
From the inidivdual's point of view we can reduce energy consumption (and therefore all the by-products of energy use) by running lighter and lower performance vehicles, ceiling fans instead of air-con in hot climates, reverse air-con instead of simple radiant electrical resistors in colder climates, and generally look at the overall efficiency of everything we use...
Simply switching all urban one person in a vehicle journeys to little 150 mpg (must be 4 stroke motors though) scooter would have a huge positive overall benefit, of which the total fuel saved would be only a small part, but you aren't going to get this or anything else when the total media output is pumping out the message that your big performance vehicle is a symbol of the size of your genitals.
And that brings us to the real problem, and it is by definition a greater problem in countries with a higher per capita energy use, so the US is the top of the pile.
The real problem is the profit motive inextricably bound to every joule of energy you use... there is no problem with there being a profit motive in there, but when the profit motive becomes the single over-riding force you have severe problems.
_EVERYTHING_ is geared to making you a larger net consumer of energy next year than this, because more energy = more product shifted = more profit.
In europe we have issues similar to these, but nowhere near as bad as america, which is literally a society built around the concept of universally available personal transport, the car is god, many americans simply do not have the option to live even as I do, motorcycle only, because the motorcycle will not carry the shopping etc etc etc, plus of course I can simply leave the bike parked, and walk the mile and half in the the centre of town, get my shopping and if I'm lazy get the (overpriced and expensive) every 15 minutes bus back for 3 bucks.
Americans (and I mean the United states, not south americans etc) like to
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Damnit, I hate this argument. Of *course* more energy will go into hydrogen than you get out. That's called Conservation of Energy.
The point of Hydrogen is that it provides a convenient storage format for energy which can then be produced in large quantities at central generation facilities. This is very advantageous, as energy production benefits from scale. Moreover, centralized generation means that it's easy to upgrade to new, cleaner, more efficient production technologies, as we only have to upgrade thousands of plants, rather than millions of cars.
And if that wasn't enough, centralized generation also means you can take advantage of other energy generation sources that wouldn't normally be available, such as solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, etc, etc. So, you can really have your "solar powered car", at least indirectly... you use solar energy to generate hydrogen, which is then used to cleanly power your car.
So, yes, a hydrogen-based economy really is that revolutionary.
True, but the hope is that centrally-generated hydrogen will be more efficient overall than hundreds of millions of small internal-combusion engines. You can run them at high speed continuously, rather than at variable speeds and having to start and stop them. You get a guy to maintain them in top form all the time.
In addition, at least in the US the central power plants generally use coal rather than oil, which is at least a domestically produced resource. (At the moment I'm more concerned about the fact that Americans send their fuel dollars to the same places that terrorists come from than about the environmental implications, though those are important as well.)
I am not certain whether the tradeoffs balance: fossil fuel-to-hydrogen-to-fuel-cell-to-motor vs. fossil-fuel-to-heat-to-engine. One may be more efficient than the other, or they may be roughly equivalent (or, as in the case of hybrids, it may depend heavily on the kind of driving you do.)
I'd love to believe that somebody with more knowledge than me did these calculations before pushing the fuel cells. Or some engineer may have blue-sky'ed it to some politician who promptly decided to sell it to the American people as a solution (or more to the point, to sell himself).
But my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations about moving the energy costs to a central location, even if ultimately fossil fuel based, mean that the efficiencies may work out despite the extra transition step. They certainly give more flexibility by reducing the number of engines that absolutely must have gasoline and potentially replacing them with nuclear/coal/wind/house-based solar/hydro/etc, which have the advantage that they don't have to move. Hydrogen solves (maybe) the mobility problem, not the energy crisis, but it gives more options on the energy crisis.