Possible Breakthrough In Hydrogen Energy

destinyland writes "MIT researchers have developed a method of splitting a water molecule by emulating the way blue-green algae separates oxygen from hydrogen. One chemistry professor called it 'an extremely clever piece of work' that addresses 'the nanoscale organization of the components.' Using sunlight rather than electricity to make hydrogen from water could greatly improve the efficiency of the process. The hydrogen can be stored for generating electricity or burned as fuel for cars. The project is being led by the winner of a 2004 MacArthur Foundation genius grant, who uses genetically engineered viruses as templates for nanoscale electronic components. 'Suddenly, I wondered, what if we could assemble materials like the abalone does — but not be limited to one element?'" Here is the press release from MIT; the research paper is available only to subscribers of Nature Nanotechnology (or those willing to part with $18).

Comments

What happens at night?

[R3d M3rcury]

Using sunlight rather than electricity [...]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

You go back to regular Grid?

Re:What happens at night?

[wizardforce]

If you want to store energy at night you'd probably be better off going with solar thermal + liquid salt thermal storage + water thermochemical cracking. Hydrogen is better used as a chemical fuel or used in synthesizing other chemicals. It's very good at reducing things or powering fuel cells but as a method of storing solar energy on a daily basis, not so much.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called sleep. Try it sometime.

Re:What happens at night?

[Mitchell314]

As any good geek would know, that's what the day is for.

Re:What happens at night?

[masshuu]

OR he could just buy another tank so he doesn't run out again.

Yeah, wonder how safe that is. The neighborhood has a couple thousand tons of hydrogen in buried tanks.

Re:What happens at night?

[Hurricane78]

You’ll kick yourself for not thinking ahead and building a plant that creates enough hydrogen in advance to get to even the worst night times 10? ;)

Seriously. The granary is what... the second item of all you’ll ever build in a city in Civilization? Its advances should teach you something about buffering. ^^

Re:What happens at night?

[feepness]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

You have to make H while the sun shines.

Re:What happens at night?

[ArsenneLupin]

You have to make H while the sun shines.

And where the sun doesn't shine, you can always make CH4...

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if you run out of wheat in winter?

Re:What happens at night?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

You switch to weed, obviously

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

the same as what happens if you run out of gas at night, your car stops.

Re:What happens at night?

[tzot]

So the driver sits on a pipe sticking out from the driver's seat? Kinky! Instant refill!

Re:What happens at night?

[ooshna]

They already made a vehicle like that. IT

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

The energy density of hydrogen as compared to liquid hydrocarbons is pathetic. The best use of hydrogen would be to to synthesize hydrocarbons, of course at that point you'd wonder why you bothered with hydrogen at all instead of just making biodiesel from algae.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anarki2004]

its better than what the airlines put you through!

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

You have to make H while the sun shines.

No use in the UK then :)

Re:What happens at night?

[jonnat]

The energy density of hydrogen as compared to liquid hydrocarbons is pathetic. The best use of hydrogen would be to to synthesize hydrocarbons, of course at that point you'd wonder why you bothered with hydrogen at all instead of just making biodiesel from algae.

First time I hear of a molecular property being described as pathetic.

Nonetheless, you are wrong. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel) is kind enough to show us that the specific energy density of hydrogen (120-140 MJ/kg) is much higher than that of hydrocarbons (55 MJ/kg, Methane). The low density of hydrogen makes it less energetic only in volumetric terms

Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water.

Re:What happens at night?

[drinkypoo]

Nonetheless, you are wrong. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel) is kind enough to show us that the specific energy density of hydrogen (120-140 MJ/kg) is much higher than that of hydrocarbons (55 MJ/kg, Methane). The low density of hydrogen makes it less energetic only in volumetric terms

Doesn't the effective energy density of hydrogen depend on the pressure to which you can reasonably compress it, and the pressure at which you can effectively store it?

Re:What happens at night?

[Pharmboy]

...and how much energy you have to spend to get it compressed enough so that a given volume has a similar energy density as hydrocarbon, making it a viable replacement.

Re:What happens at night?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It probably isn't so bad with proper engineering. And I like the idea of having a local reservoir of energy.

Re:What happens at night?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

That is a concern for vehicles, certainly. Not so much for buried tanks.

Re:What happens at night?

[MarkGriz]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

Drink beer and switch to methane.

Re:What happens at night?

[Grapes4Buddha]

Using sunlight rather than electricity [...]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

Oh, that's easy. You just turn the light on!

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen doesn't pollute at all when its used as fuel, thats why.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

go to sleep

Re:What happens at night?

[Ex-MislTech]

If it is used in the presence of pure oxygen that is correct.

If it has access to other elements then you will get some pollution,
but it beats everything we are currently using in green terms.

Re:What happens at night?

[EL_mal0]

Probably not less safe than having pipes and/or tanks of natural gas scattered throughout neighborhoods like they are today.

Re:What happens at night?

[drinkypoo]

That is a concern for vehicles, certainly. Not so much for buried tanks.

It is less of a concern in stationary installations, but you have to compress the gas, and since we're using methane as a comparison, it's dramatically easier to store methane simply because it's a larger molecule, and it's easier to use due to lack of problems with hydrogen embrittlement. You can convert existing gasoline engines to run on methane, though nobody does because it's not sufficiently available. Instead, they do it with propane, from which the difference is probably a re-jetting, or perhaps a change in working pressure. But converting existing engines to hydrogen would fail because the metals are not treated to resist embrittlement, and extended use would lead to engine destruction. Presumably, valves would go first, and frequently.

The simple truth is that hydrogen is not a satisfactory energy storage mechanism until we figure out how to better store it. And it's looking more and more like the storage mechanism is going to be something with a lot of surface area rather than an empty tank. That means more mass overall, further reducing the potential lead of hydrogen over batteries. Given that practical fuel cells are perpetually 5-10 years away, the total efficiency of a system using hydrogen today would be extremely poor due to the use of an internal combustion engine, and since hydrogen engines are in their infancy compared to gasoline or diesel engines, they could be expected to be highly unreliable for a time.

Or in short, it makes far more sense to make biodiesel right now than to do anything else. In the medium term, perhaps full-EVs will be the best value proposition for most people; If the Nissan LEAF takes off it could bring about real change. Maybe in twenty or thirty years we can use hydrogen.

Re:What happens at night?

[geekoid]

Well you could sit by the road and stare blankly at your fuel gauge like a slack jawed idiot.
or you could see you were getting low on energy and pull into a filling station.

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

Even if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant burning biodiesel in a well-constructed engine is equally clean since you aren't adding any carbon to the atmosphere that wasn't already there.

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

So how much energy does it take to cool hydrogen to liquid form and keep it there? Do you expect carry around liquid hydrogen in your car?

Re:What happens at night?

[geekoid]

ahha...no.

well not no but stupid.
It's about density, volume, and storage. That's it.
If something like this works in mass, then we will be able to create plenty of hydrogen.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

there is nothing wrong with a hydrogen car. It's just a matter of creating a good method of hydrogen creation and storage.

As an alternative energy source bio-diesel from algae may be great. it may even be the way we goy.
Personally I hate the smell and noise of diesel.

For the record, where I work used bio-diesel and I have volumes of reports showing it's costs and effects on maintenance. So I actually have good real world data on it.
We are moving away from it because it isn't practice or cost effective. Not by a long shot. If it was a little more expensive we would of stuck with it, but tripling the maintenance costs? no way. we will go back to 5 or 10% biodiesel.

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

It's just a matter of creating a good method of hydrogen creation and storage.

...which doesn't exist yet. So using the materials and technology we have at the moment, any practical deployment of hydrogen storage would have a much lower energy density than its hydrocarbon counterpart.

Re:What happens at night?

[colonelquesadilla]

Unless you think about the rise in the cost of soybeans leading to deforestation.

Re:What happens at night?

[colonelquesadilla]

Everyone relying on normal physics is simply recognizing the first law of thermodynamics. Even if you can make hydrogen at 100% efficiency, you still don't get a free lunch.

Re:What happens at night?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water.

Which is irrelevant when the carbon is obtained from CO2 in the atmosphere - in which case the amount removed when producing the fuel is equal to the amount added when burning the fuel so the net effect is zero.

Re:What happens at night?

[networkBoy]

I already do this.
I story my hydrogen in a liquid for ease of use. This way I can use hoses to get it to my engine where I then allow it back into a vapor form (by pushing it through small nozzles at about 135 bar.
My storage method is really cool:
I stick 34 hydrogen atoms onto a chain of 16 atoms of element 6.
Best thing is that this method of storage is nearly explosion proof, even with a 20% oxygen atmosphere around my fuel storage, I can put a lit match out in it while it is in it's liquid state. It is only under extreme pressure that it detonates, and that is how I drive my car.

Re:What happens at night?

[Amouth]

i think what Wonko meant by pathetic energy density of hydrogen is NOT i'ts specific density which you listed.

Sure by weight/mass Hydrogen is one of the highest in energy density.. But take a look at the volume difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

that is a great chart.. the optimal energy storage solution will be a 1x1.

example on that Aluminum has the most Per volume but very little for it's weight (not that bad really)

Hydrogen is on the far right.. it has a lot of energy per kg but very little per L - and you will notice that pressurization even liquefaction helps but not much. at least not compared to Gasoline or diesel.

Re:What happens at night?

[networkBoy]

you were using BD and it tripled your maintenance costs? Either I call BS or you were using common rail injection systems over 16KPsi, which are specifically *not* compatible with BD above 5%.
If your injection system runs at a lower pressure then your maintenance costs should have gone down, as BD is an awesome solvent and tends to clean things out quite well. There will be a spike in maintenance on older engines as the gunk cleans out (mostly fuel filters and earlier oil changes) but once you're past the hump, cost should fall quite nicely.

That or you used rubber hoses... Viton all the way if using BD, much like if converting a gas engine to E85 or higher, exhaust and fuel delivery components have to be changed out.

Re:What happens at night?

[CarpetShark]

So how much energy does it take to cool hydrogen to liquid form and keep it there?

I'm not certain about this, but I gather that most steel gas cylinders store gas compressed as liquid, keeping them that way not by cooling, but by mechanical force. If the liquid is in a strong steel cylinder, it physically can't expand, unless heated to such extremes that it deforms and eventually breaks the cylinder (or the valve). I've noticed that gas cylinders tend to be cold (even frosty) compared to the environment though, so I'm not sure where that fits in -- presumably a compressed gas should be warmer, since there's no room for it to absorb heat.

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

I don't know where to begin.

but I gather that most steel gas cylinders store gas compressed as liquid, keeping them that way not by cooling, but by mechanical force.

Yes, increasing the storage pressure raises the boiling point. The amount of pressure necessary to keep hydrogen liquid at room temperature is only found in places like the center of Jupiter. Those tanks you see sitting next to Airgas don't hold that much pressure.

. I've noticed that gas cylinders tend to be cold (even frosty) compared to the environment though, so I'm not sure where that fits in

Depending on what type of gas you are talking about it's because the contents of those cylinders are stored at cryogenic temperatures. Those cylinders are double-walled and insulated but a little bit of heat leaks in anyway. In order to keep the tank from exploding they are equipped with pressure release valves that will blow off every once in a while to release the pressure built up from the slowly-boiling liquid.

Any pressurized cylinder will get cold as you use its contents because the gas is expanding as it leaves the tank.

presumably a compressed gas should be warmer

Yes, the act of pressurizing a fluid makes it warmer but it doesn't magically stay warm forever. It eventually cools down to ambient temperature just like anything else would.

Re:What happens at night?

[Orange Crush]

It's the volume that really matters here. Right now, the best way we've got to "compress" hydrogen into a suitable vehicle fuel is by building it into bigger molecules that can be conveniently dense liquids at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures. Hence biodiesel and liquid hydrocarbons.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water."

Remove the crucial from you statement, and I'd agree with you. Otherwise, crucial to whom? We already burn and store propane and natural gas/methane; we are used to exhausting the combustoin products from our homes and vehicles (if you have a CNG or propane powered engine). Synthesized hydrocarbons would be just as closed cycle as a hydrogen economy, as the CO2 would provide the carbon component to the hydrocarbon.

The clean burning advantage of hydrogen is offset by safety and storage concerns. I'm well aware of the CO issues with propane and natural gas, but the volumetric advantage of hydrocarbons is real and a *practical* issue, since liquid hydrogen is difficult to handle and energy intensive to store long term in a home or vehicle environment. If a hydrogen tank has to store the same energy in a larger space than what is currently used in propane tanks, that still means it has the same overall energy release, and we've all seen or heard of propane tanks going up and exploding. With hydrogen, you're making that more likely (larger tanks, harder to store molecule, energy generation inputting into the tank if onsite, etc.).

Re:What happens at night?

[szilagyi]

If we can demonstrate an 800-bar compressor that's relatively efficient, and carbon fiber composite or other tanks to store hydrogen, and somehow make room for the still-3x-bigger fuel tank [http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html] in a subcompact car, and also reclaim the energy that's necessarily used to compress the hydrogen when we release it (because otherwise it will really be too inefficient to store compared to the alternatives), that's awesome.

In fact, if we can just get people to pay for engines using inconel or ceramics and recuperators, that would also be awesome, since we could substantially increase the efficiency of existing engines using existing materials and technology. We could burn the fuel hotter to raise the Carnot limit and reuse more waste heat. At least we're pretty close to getting them to switch to turbine-electric drive trains, which is even better. (We already do mass-produce inconel turbine blades in the form of turbochargers, so we're in good shape to mass-produce Capstone-style microturbines. They are already produced at some scale. If only recuperators didn't weigh and cost so much...)

Until then, it makes some sense to at least talk about compounding hydrogen with carbon, if we have the hydrogen. We have relatively good ways to collect the carbon from the air in a well understood, not yet industrial-scale, process [http://academiccommons.columbia.edu:8080/ac/handle/10022/AC:P:6744], to obtain carbon neutrality. (I say "relatively" because you're really climbing a hill on that one, with the low concentration of CO2 in the air. That's why plants are so inefficient, and why they respond so strongly to more CO2, and why the latest evolutionary arms race is in collecting CO2 - see C4 plants [http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/C4plants.html].)

Or, as the GP suggests, let algae do the job for us, although I think we're already near the point where we can beat the land-to-wheel (system energy efficiency per unit land used) and dollar-to-wheel ROI of algae with industrial processes (limestone cycle above for the carbon, Fischer-Tropsch-style synthesis with reverse water-gas shift on the back end, solar thermal collection for energy in). (I am personally swayed by the arable land use drawbacks of biofuels, but, it really comes down to the numbers to know what's really more land-efficient. Anyway, algae have some potential to sidestep these arguments.)

So, we actually have a pretty good idea how to run a car on sunlight via hydrocarbon fuels, it's just not as cheap as pumping oil out of the ground, so we don't. We can even run a car on sunlight via various high temperature fuel cells, if you prefer more of a closed-loop system. None of these is really that efficient, but at least we can make favorable comparisons to, e.g., the corn ethanol boondoggle. (And we can, on that basis, for example, pretty much punt the zinc cycle due to the inefficiency of that particular calcination reaction.) What we can't compare to is gaseous hydrogen, because we don't even know how to build several components in that fuel chain, so we don't know exactly how bad it will be. Sure, it looks bad, but I can't claim it's guaranteed to be worse.

So, let's do research on light, high pressure (800-bar) tanks and thermodynamically efficient 800-bar compression / decompression cycles. (And especially on thermolysis and photolysis to produce the hydrogen.) But let's not pretend it's already done, and let's also work with what we have. When oil really starts to get expensive, we have several mature possibilities already on deck, which fit well into our existing infrastructure. We also have H2 in the future, when and if those problems are solved satisfactorily. And then, I hope, direct mass-energy fuel systems, for even more density and land use / environmental benefits than we can ever get from our pathetic chemical fuels.

(I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are claiming CO2-free combustion is good because it avoids

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal Hydride tank systems are an efficient way to store Hydrogen - check out this web site for someone who is developing a conversion system to do just this: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

The benefit is that you can run on either gasoline or Hydrogen - and using the solar powered generator, your ongoing cost is mostly that of the water you use to produce the Hydrogen.

Now, granted at the prices they will be charging at first, it will take a long time to recover the cost from the gasoline alone. But that doesn't cover the reduced wear on the engine, reduced need for oil changes, etc. (20K mi/yr 25MPG $3/gal = ~$2400/yr - the max I would estimate is approx 5 - 7 years)

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can put a lit match out in it while it is in it's liquid state

Please post your video of consecutive trials of this experiment on YouTube. Much appreciated, thanks!

Re:What happens at night?

[daveime]

Which matters because ? All we are talking about is water and algae, none of that messy Carbon stuff.

If your only practical objection is "oh, but we'll need a bigger tank", then maybe you need to rethink your priorities (or perhaps those of your grandchildren once there's no oil left).

Re:What happens at night?

[Sandbags]

1: that's for Liquid H2, which has SERIOUS issues being stored in that state. Look at some of the low pressure metal infusion storage methods, which are the only real safe and viable methods for use in motor vehicles (without having to keep them plugged in for tank cooling when not driving, or using ridiculously dangerous, aka bobs, as storage tanks), and you'll see the original poster is right. Any of the safe H2 options no only still leak H@ slowly, they also take 6-8 hours to fill a tank as well. only Liquid H2 can refuel as fast as SCIB batteries, and it;s too dangerous to do that except for military and other security managed vehicles.

2: fuel cells are subsidized by millions of dollars per vehicle, and will not-in-your-lifetime be a viable system in a car, even if we can solve the size issue (ever seen a compact car with a fuel cell? No, because they can't make ti that small and have enough power to drive a car). Even best case, in 15 years, fuel cells will be $50K+ for the cell, and they have short lifespans. H2 in cars is realistically only a combustion method.

3: Fuel cells make H2O, sure, but electric motors make O3 which is both a biological and human hazard. CO2 can be scrubbed as a post process, or otherwise mitigated, and if the C in fuel comes from sequestration to begin with, then we're not adding any additional CO2 to the system, and its essentially a closed loop. Sequestration can come from facilities as well, run by excess wind and/or solar, instead of the inneficiency on doing it on-vehicle.

4: See Dotyenergy.com (no affiliation to me, my family or my company: disclaimed). H2 can be used to very effectively make very clean hydrocarbon fuels, which burn without sulfers or pollutants, and once full scale facilities are in place can be made for about $3-4 a gallon. This CO2 emitted from this will be CO2 sequestered from other sources, meaning cars will not add to the Climate issue any more, and we can eliminate all the other toxins in fules. This is a 30-50 year fix until full electric is a more viable and affordable option, and 75-100 years until we're weened completely from fuels. Its also an industry that can't be monopolized given Doty's stance on licensing and limited facility costs vs profits. (no more big-oil lobbys).

Re:What happens at night?

[Nesman64]

Well, you make a light battery by lining the inside of a box with mirrors. The trick is positioning the mirrors so that light can enter the box and not exit until you're ready to use it.

Re:What happens at night?

[riverat1]

Ah, AC, networkBoy is talking about diesel which is something you can put a match out in without much danger. I wouldn't try it with gasoline though.

Re:What happens at night?

[networkBoy]

Mythbusters already did this ;) (Episode 88: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode88) Even with a propane torch they couldn't keep it lit. Makes excellent lamp oil though.

Re:What happens at night?

[Sooner Boomer]

Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water.

Every time I hear people say that combustion "only results in water", I am extremely frustrated. Unless you're piping pure oxygen into the combustion chamber, you're burning/combusting using air. Air is 70% (or so) nitrogen. Combustion in nitrogen results in the creation of nitrous/nitric oxides. You can't get away from this simple fact: you're still going to make pollutants. Of course this doesn't apply to fuel cells, but the fuel cells fall under the rule that rates of chemical reactions double/halve for every 10 degree C rise/fall in temperature.

Re:What happens at night?

[rthille]

I'm amazed by the low energy density (by weight) of liquid hydrogen. I expected the density if liquid hydrogen vs gaseous hydrogen to be much higher.

Re:What happens at night?

[randyleepublic]

Yeah, "a re-jetting"

I did that under the shade tree on my lawn. That you're standing on. Get. Off.

Re:What happens at night?

[Fluffeh]

Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water.

Which is irrelevant when the carbon is obtained from CO2 in the atmosphere - in which case the amount removed when producing the fuel is equal to the amount added when burning the fuel so the net effect is zero.

Not irrelevant at all. Sure, the initial outlook may be that it's not producing any additional carbon going into the air, but it's still not as good as another source that is providing a negative carbon emission (ie, taking out and not replacing).

Using the "it was already there" logic you end up with some people being careful not to add anything, while others don't care at all. Result, carbon going into the air. If you have certain people taking out of the air and not putting as much back, it at least subtracts from the overall amount going in. They sort of make up for the slack folks in the department. Result, LESS carbon in the air.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, they need to find a way to convert beer farts to hydrogen. Think of all the energy that could be harnessed that way! Of course, certain technical challenges would be involved with separating "particulate matter" from the fuel stream. :))

Re:What happens at night?

[BonysGambit]

If you want a 440 page long answer to this question, you'll find it in a novel called Napoleon's Gambit: Sailing through history to commit the perfect crime. A story about a modern sailor whose hydrogen powered time machine sails him back to 1813, onto the deck of HMS Imperieuse as she sails into battle against overwhelming odds. More at www.napoleonsgambit.com

Re:What happens at night?

[demonrob]

granary? you're not playing it right. Barracks and units is all you need.

Re:What happens at night?

[proxxy]

Using sunlight rather than electricity [...]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

Just use your solar powered flashlight.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy more on your carbon credit card

Re:What happens at night?

[Phoghat]

I guess you've never heard of tanks to store the hydrogen. At least this process is better than converting corn to ETOH

Re:What happens at night?

[Amouth]

by weight it is still one of the best.

remember 1kg is going to be 1kg no mater the state Gas/compressed/liquid.

Its the density by volume it lacks so badly at.

Re:What happens at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

rates of chemical reactions double/halve for every 10 degree C rise/fall

please tell me where you learned chemistry?

Re:What happens at night?

[rthille]

Doh. That, "by weight" was meant to be "by volume".

Tx.

Re:What happens at night?

[rthille]

Oh, and going back and looking at the source for the SVG, it looks like the energy density (by volume) is ~1000x higher. It's just difficult to tell by looking at the graph, because the energy density of uncompressed hydrogen is so close to zero. So, it could be infinite or if that looks (visually) to you like uncompressed hydrogen is ~.5 or ~1.0, it could be 10x or 20x.

I guess I'm saying the graph isn't the best at transferring the information ;-)

Re:What happens at night?

[Amouth]

but while liquefied is much higher density than gaseous - it still does not compare to normal Hydro carbons in energy per volume.

example

Gasoline = 34.2 MJ/L
Liquid Hydrogen = 10.1 MJ/L

so right now you can get 35 mpg of Gasoline and most cars average around 300-350 miles a tank

so right now you have a 10 gallon tank if you where using Liquid Hydrogen you would need 10*(34.2/10.1) = 33.8 Gallons for the same range.. (equivalent energy potential by volumes)

now granted it would weight would be reduced (46.4/143) = .32 - so 1 third the weight even though your holding nearly 3 times the volume.. but it still is an issue..

look at storage requirements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen

sorry but while it might be possible to make a liquid hydrogen powered car.. i just don't see it happening.. fuel storage is too much of an issue.. let alone producing that much Hydrogen.

Re:What happens at night?

[MJMullinII]

Which matters because ? All we are talking about is water and algae, none of that messy Carbon stuff.

If your only practical objection is "oh, but we'll need a bigger tank", then maybe you need to rethink your priorities (or perhaps those of your grandchildren once there's no oil left).

There will be oil for centuries to come...these scare tactics by the Environmental Lobby are what makes us all look like nothing but fear-mongers.

The problem is not that the world will "run out of oil", the problem is that the world will run out of cheap oil. There will most probably still be oil when English is held with the same respect as Latin is today...it will simply be far to expensive to simply burn.

If seeking alternatives would stop the pointless debates about Global Warming/Environmental Damage, etc. (because, let's face it, if the public hasn't seen enough already of those, then no amount of talking is going to change their minds now) and get to what everyone pays attention to OIL COST MORE THAN ALMOST EVERY ALTERNATIVE.

You start talking to people's pocket books, they'll start listening to you.

which is better

[drDugan]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

Humans have shown over and over that in large groups we use all the resources available, don't slow or restrain ourselves in time to save ourselves, and unless there are consistent, strict rules and provisioning in place, we exhaust available resources.

I think it would be better for the long term survival of the species if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources for several generations, and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth. If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

Re:which is better

[init100]

If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

Except sunlight isn't expected to run out in a timeframe that humanity can fathom.

Re:which is better

[cgenman]

Considering that all life on this planet has a tendency to expand to consume all available resources, I wouldn't count on a cultural change to rectify the consumptionist problem.

But don't cry a tear for poor H20. The water is not consumed when you create Hydrogen; when recombined with Oxygen it forms water again. You're not getting energy "out" of water. You're getting energy out of solar radiation. The water is merely a temporary medium to be broken apart to store energy, and re-combined to release it.

Re:which is better

[wizardforce]

Clearly the solution is to both develop advanced cheap energy and work to "live within our means."

Re:which is better

[Aqualung812]

Except sunlight isn't expected to run out in a timeframe that humanity can fathom.

The surface area of the Earth is finite. Our appetite for energy is not. The amount of surface available for energy production is much smaller when you subtract oceans and places to grow our food.

Re:which is better

[Merls the Sneaky]

Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the surface?

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You start. Turn of your computer. We'll have another industrial revolution and you'll be left in the dust with that kind of attitude. Would you like to move to Africa or Cuba?

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

170 petawatts. We use 10 terrawatts. But our energy demands are fixed. Even the hated USA uses 10 kW per person. And as societies get more industrial, people have less kids (apparently, people like cars, computers, cell phones, etc. more than kids). The best way to conserve energy is to promote economic development, so we start to reduce population growth. One thing about the sun though is that if you fill the whole planet with solar panels, you do not run out of energy. You just get 170 petawatts. We can't use it up until peak solar in the year 1 billion (approx) because the sun will start to explode. When we do, I think we won't care about sunlight anymore, except to light our crew cabins :-p.

Re:which is better

[MichaelSmith]

Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the surface?

Then its a bit like putting the Earth at the focus of a mirror. We would need to find a source of cooling at the same time. Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the hydrogen gas is burnt. If it escapes, it is capable of leaving the earths atmosphere

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the right thing. Kill yourself and all your family to conserve the resources.

Re:which is better

[Jace of Fuse!]

And that's what happened to the Martians.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

dr douchebag, you mispelled your name.

Re:which is better

[fryjs]

Yes, how horrible it would be to have another "industrial revolution" type of growth where the abundance of cheap energy allows another massive increase in standard of living. If you are actually concerned about the long term survival of the species, we need ever cheaper and easier sources of energy to expand into the galaxy, and the quicker the better (in terms of odds).

Re:which is better

[Redlazer]

Yeah... except we're still here. And don't give me that "For now" bullshit - even near-total devastation of the Earth, massive nuclear war, there will still be that 1% struggling on.

And I honestly don't believe it'll get that bad. We are fortunate to have people like you to watch people like me like hawks, so that all the alarms are sounded, and far away, in a distant room, a scientist bursts into an office and shouts "MR. PRESIDENT! WE HAVE GOT TO STOP USING OIL!", he gets thrown into jail, the public finds out, Britain has another revolution, France gets invaded, and so on.

tl;dr: You're wrong, but you can't stop shouting.

And I say that with respect, good sir.

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

The amount of hydrogen that escapes that way will be very small. That's wasting money, and no self-respecting capitalist pig would let that happen! But seriously, most of the hydrogen would be reacted with CO2 to create the liquid fuels we all know and love.

Re:which is better

[dudpixel]

If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

Except sunlight isn't expected to run out in a timeframe that humanity can fathom.

neither is hydrogen :)

Re:which is better

[Shakrai]

Africa is his best bet. Life expectancies in the 40s. That should be suitable pre-industrial age nostalgia.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd take Cuba, at least they have universal healthcare.

Re:which is better

[TheNarrator]

Exactly! We need to further our research instead on ultrasonic birth control. It's terrible that we didn't stop inventing new power sources before we came up with nuclear fission power back 80 years ago in the 30s. If we had just had the forsight to shutdown all these new power technologies before then we would be well on our way to keeping the human population within controllable limits.

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yeah. Maybe we should start coming up with a way to send all these anti-tech people there? Should we pay for flights back?

Re:which is better

[fractoid]

Then its a bit like putting the Earth at the focus of a mirror. We would need to find a source of cooling at the same time. Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

Two heads and your brain in your ass?

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

The surface area of the Earth is finite. Our appetite for energy is not.

Our appetite for REPRODUCING is not.

There... Fixed it for you...

It's not only energy that's going to run out if we don't adopt the lead of the Chinese and start cracking down on humanity breeding like fucking rabbits.

If any"thing" HAS developed sufficiently to have invented FTL and ever visited, they'd probably have hi-tailed it out of here saying "Nice planet, shame about the infestation that's destroying it"...

Re:which is better

[Jedi Alec]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

Does it have to be either/or?

Humans have shown over and over that in large groups we use all the resources available, don't slow or restrain ourselves in time to save ourselves, and unless there are consistent, strict rules and provisioning in place, we exhaust available resources.

I think it would be better for the long term survival of the species if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources for several generations, and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth. If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

Either we work on technology *right* now or when we do run out, the economy grinds to a halt and shit really hits the fan. There is a reason governments that have their eyes 20 years down the road take money from our collective taxes and use them to fund research in sustainable energy solutions, no matter how much the Atlas Shrugged-thumpers would like us to believe the free market will take care of everything.

Steering the usage of energy is relatively simple. I pay about 8 eurocents of taxes on every kWh of electricity I use, so I have a vested interested in not using more than I need. Same principle applies to gasoline. Whether or not these taxes are then used for their proper purposes is a different debate ;-) Of course this would never work in the US...

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know it runs out at the end of each day. Having only half the earth's surface capture enough solar energy for the whole surface is a big challenge.

Re:which is better

[Hurricane78]

I guess the molten rock does. ;)

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I'm an Atlas Shrugged thumper and I want investment in clean energy. Why, because it's free! Turn something free (sunlight) into energy, megaprofits! Sell people devices to do that, megaprofits! The people have spoken, the market is following.

Disclaimer: the poster is not an extreme freemarketeer, and sees value in regulation and taxation.

Re:which is better

[wye43]

The surface area of the Earth is finite. Our appetite for energy is not.

Don't take infinity so lightly. Our current appetite for energy is definitely finite. If you intended to say that from an infinite timeframe point of view, many things are infinite, and while humanity's appetite for energy in an infinite timeframe is possible to be infinite, it’s improbable, as it's over optimistic to assume we are going to exist forever.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

"Population: The elephant in the room"

Re:which is better

[rossdee]

The molten rock is another source of energy.

Re:which is better

[Rogerborg]

Flights? You technophile monster. Gaia demands that we make a raft by lashing them together with hemp, then throw them in the sea and give them a shove to get them started.

Re:which is better

[Rogerborg]

When we run out of cheap, easy energy sources, the "new culture " is going to be based on grabbing what's left, same as every "old culture" we've ever had.

We can choose two futures: Star Trek, or Mad Max. The difference is availability of energy.

Re:which is better

[Rob Kaper]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

The two are not mutually exclusive, so why not live within our means and try to find sustainable solutions to expand those means?

Re:which is better

[FreeUser]

You start. Turn of your computer. We'll have another industrial revolution and you'll be left in the dust with that kind of attitude. Would you like to move to Africa or Cuba?

He'd fit right in in Northwestern Pakistan...9th century Taliban mentality, eschewing all modernity, and waxing self-righteous as they force themselves and others into deprevation. He'd even get to keep the hypocrasy of using modern technology (chemicals, bomb-making materials, land rovers) while depriving others. He might even make it through the next predator-drone strike if he keeps his head down, though life expenctancy isn't great, and the retirement benefits pretty much suck.

As for the rest of us, we'll continue going about trying to improve our world, rather than demanding others shrink theirs, thank you very much.

Re:which is better

[tehcyder]

Cuba would be a lot better off if the fucking 800lb gorilla on its doorstep agreed to, you know, let it trade fairly.

Re:which is better

[xtracto]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

It is better to find new ways to harvest and manipulate energy (remember kids, energy can not be destroyed or created, only transformed) because:

a) Population growth is a clear trend in humanity (nobody wants to die!)
b) More resources(food, space and tools) are needed for bigger population.
c) More energy is needed to produce such resources.

and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth.

You are going against the basic cycle of any living ogranism, born/reproduce/die. As I said, nobody wants to die; everybody wants to live more, therefore the population growth trend will likely continue.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be better for the long term survival of the species if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources for several generations, and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth

Yeah, that worked out so well in Mad Max. Great idea.

Re:which is better

[TaoJones]

...so why not live within our means and try to find sustainable solutions to expand those means?

Convince China, India, and the US to all do that... all at the same time.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer if you Nazis just stuck to grammar.

Re:which is better

[chrb]

if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources

It might happen sooner than you think.

come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too

When the sun dies, all life on Earth will end. The only hope of surviving such an event is to discover a non-Earth non-Sun based energy source and travel to the stars. However, there might not be such an energy source, in which case the human species will end - the only questions are how and when.

Re:which is better

[khallow]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

Clearly the former. Because without attempting that sort of thing, you don't understand what "our means" are.

Re:which is better

[your_neighbor]

I believe the limitation with H2 are storage issues.

Re:which is better

[Cornwallis]

'Suddenly, I wondered, what if we could assemble materials like the abalone does — but not be limited to one element?'

My thinking when I make a sandwich.

Re:which is better

[mlts]

I'm cynical. If energy producing items such as fossil fuels started running out, resources are what a lot of wars end up being fought over. You wouldn't find a culture becoming energy sustaining if energy producing resources ran out. Instead you would find a culture teetering on the edge of survival at best due to so many wars. Even if there were usable resources, before a country would be overrun, they would be destroyed. A good example of this is how Saddam set fire to every oil well in Kuwait before he was pushed out.

Numerous examples of this exist. One of the reasons that the Mayans went into decline is because they required such high temperatures for their cement that they ran out of trees, which caused drought conditions similar to the Dust Bowl.

When resources get scarce, countries go to war. If push came to shove, I'm sure even nuclear powers would rather see an enemy have all oil wells destroyed and all mineral mines nuked, the classic, "if I can't have it, nobody can".

Re:which is better

[demonlapin]

I have no idea what your personal political views are, so this is not a commentary on them - just something your comment reminds me of. I have always found it incredibly amusing that hard-core socialists and communists have pointed to the US trade ban with Cuba - i.e., insufficiently free trade - as the source of so many of the island's ills..

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Except sunlight isn't expected to run out in a timeframe that humanity can fathom.

The surface area of the Earth is finite. Our appetite for energy is not. The amount of surface available for energy production is much smaller when you subtract oceans and places to grow our food.

Sure, but there is a major difference here. The surface of the Earth (or rather, the available sunlight you can get, however you can get it) only affects the power you can generate, e.g. how much stuff you can run and for how long over any given period (say 24 hr). The energy generation capacity is infinite, however, because you can continue generating this power forever as long as your facility can get the sunlight it needs.

With fossil fuels, the power is related to the rate at which we can extract and refine oil, while the total energy capacity is limited to the amount of fossil fuels remaining in the Earth for us to harvest. The problem with this is that even if we live within the current power bounds, we will eventually consume all of the available energy. With an energy source based on sunlight, then as long as we live within the power bounds, we can continue using it forever without running out.

Aikon-

Re:which is better

[Bongo]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

Humans have shown over and over that in large groups we use all the resources available, don't slow or restrain ourselves in time to save ourselves, and unless there are consistent, strict rules and provisioning in place, we exhaust available resources.

I think it would be better for the long term survival of the species if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources for several generations, and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth. If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

I also think it would be better if children skipped ages 1 to 12 and started life as 13 year olds. No even better, as 21 years olds.

Whilst it would be nice to imagine a new culture which transcends material growth, our development thus far has come along side material growth. The material side is related to the cultural side. It is no accident that the most underdeveloped cultures (female genital mutilation, widespread corruption as a daily fact of life, religious intolerance, deep racism and sexism) are all places that are materially poor. Like, green grass is a luxury. Clean water is a luxury.

So when you champion "living within our means", you're talking about your current cushy oil based lifestyle. If you took that away, how do you know that the next generation won't develop a harder culture? In history, men and women segregated because life was dangerous and the men were sent to do the most dangerous jobs. In South Africa, Apartheid started because the white poor miners were on the verge of losing their jobs to even poorer native Africans. In Zambia, my own mum couldn't get a driving license because the "driving test" was dinner with the examiner. In Pakistan, life is still essentially feudal today, with forced arranged marriages and family members being disowned for not following the strict traditional rules. I mean, there's places where it is not so bad, and some are more progressive, but my point is, it is easy to forget how tenuous is our hold on rational liberal secular humanistic culture.

it is not that those other cultures are "bad", they are just the best that ordinary humans can manage when the living conditions are harder.

The way to sustainability is better technology that can do more. Anything else is stagnation and eventual devolution to death.

If we fail to invent that new technology, we will fail to progress culturally beyond nation states and dogma.

There is a line in Pygmalion where the well-to-do gentleman asks the thief, "have you no morals man??"

And the thief replies, unashamed, "can't afford them."

Re:which is better

[Jer]

That's wasting money, and no self-respecting capitalist pig would let that happen!

I hope that you meant that as a joke because right now as we speak money is being wasted into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate that makes capitalist pigs the world over weep in pain. Short term profits will often trump long term gains, and if you're losing a few pennies off into space but it would cost you a few million to fix the system, the system isn't likely to get fixed outside of a government regulation requiring it. And then they start weighing how likely it is they'll get caught and what the size of the fine will be if they do...

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself. I intend to.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

You have little faith in the human race to be able to adapt the environment and develop technology to suit their needs. Yes there will be periods of scarcity, but evolution doesn't favor those who lay down and die when competition gets stiff. Multiply (read: grow the population), or have fun getting naturally selected.

Re:which is better

[delinear]

When the sun dies, all life on Earth will end. The only hope of surviving such an event is to discover a non-Earth non-Sun based energy source and travel to the stars. However, there might not be such an energy source, in which case the human species will end - the only questions are how and when.

It's perhaps typical human thinking to assume we'll be here in 5 billion years time considering "modern" humans have been around for, what, 200,000 of the Earth's already 5 billion year existence? If the sun running out of energy is ever our biggest worry, I think we'll have done pretty well as a species.

Re:which is better

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You start. Turn of your computer. We'll have another industrial revolution and you'll be left in the dust with that kind of attitude. Would you like to move to Africa or Cuba?

Why should he turn off his computer - a device which, at least in some implementations - draws just a few watts of energy - and not, for example, use public transport instead of a car at least a few days a week, or not to take a plane when it's not necessary to somewhere, or build a properly insulated house etc.? I guess most people willing to reduce their contribution to per-capita energy consumption would be well advised to first check other things than modern computers.

Re:which is better

[heathen_01]

Why care about a species that "multiply , and multiply, until every resource is consumed"?

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people are trying to evolve in this direction by having their heads firmly planted up their backsides.

Re:which is better

[ArcherB]

When the sun dies, all life on Earth will end. The only hope of surviving such an event is to discover a non-Earth non-Sun based energy source and travel to the stars. However, there might not be such an energy source, in which case the human species will end - the only questions are how and when.

It's perhaps typical human thinking to assume we'll be here in 5 billion years time considering "modern" humans have been around for, what, 200,000 of the Earth's already 5 billion year existence? If the sun running out of energy is ever our biggest worry, I think we'll have done pretty well as a species.

The fact that we even know the sun's fate in 5 billion years tells me we've already done pretty well as a species.

And, like you, I believe that we should be able to find a solution at some point over the next 5 billion years considering that we've gone from hand written sheet music to iPads in about a hundred years.

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

the jet stream currents could handle all power needs,
but getting it back down to earth is posing a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Future_power_generation

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

Between jet stream power, and ocean current power we have much
more power than 10 current earths would need.

I think food will be an issue far before power.

At present we use zero jet stream power, and
less than .1% of ocean current power.

The antarctic circumpolar current alone equals over
100 times the flow of all the rivers on earth.

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

Solar farms in 24 time zones and a buried super conducting global transmission power bus line.

Any excess thermal stored in molten salt.

Big project ? Oh yeah ... possible in theory ? yes it is possible.

Also 1% of the jet stream would replace all current forms of power usage on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Future_power_generation

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

Sometimes what you are told is not actually what is going on.

The healthcare in cuba has limitations.

Some procedures that can be done in the US are not available in Cuba.

I totally agree our healthcare system has turned into a profit chasing nightmare,
but I think both sides are using disinfo to sell their agenda.

Both sides are fundamentally corrupt and flawed.

We need something like a co-op for health care, by the ppl for the ppl
and run as a not for profit so it is not even taxed.

This would drop the costs massively, and lawsuit reform would get
the malpractice insurance out of orbit cost wise.

I hate to say it but greed is killing citizens, and the corporations
and the government will not fix that for you.

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

I tend to think of the US as a giant squid or octopus
with 700+ tentacles in 130+ countries.

Because that is how many military bases it has.

Re:which is better

[Urkki]

Clearly the solution is to both develop advanced cheap energy and work to "live within our means."

The nice thing about that "live within our means" is, that we don't really have to work for it if we don't want to. We can just wait until it happens automatically, and avoid the pain of making the necessary difficult choices ourselves! Let's just let nature take it's course!

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

Agreed,

My list:

01) Jet Stream Power
02) Ocean Current power
03) Vertical Hydroponic Algae Oil Bio Fuel
04) Solar Thermal
05) Wind Power
06) Pneumatic shoes for 6+ billion
07) Sewer methane capture system ( use it in a fuel cell )
08) Solar Thermal ( best solar long term bang for the buck )
09) Geothermal
10) Shrouded Tidal Turbines ( see the bay of fundy ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_fundy

Re:which is better

[GodfatherofSoul]

There's a difference between trade and "free trade." An embargo that shuts down *all* trade with the largest nation in the hemisphere is only the opposite of free trade in the simplest of minds.

Re:which is better

[shaitand]

So you propose we wait and change human nature before trying to develop anything. I'm sure we'll all note that.

Being a masochist and all I'm sure you think the ideal solution is restraint. Not being a masochist I believe the ideal solution is one where no restraint is required.

For instance, I can drink all the water I like. No restraint is required. I don't see where being put on a water ration would be a good thing.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

and nice beaches ...... oh nevermind

Re:which is better

[shaitand]

"Our appetite for energy is not."

That's a pretty wild assumption. Who says our appetite for energy is not finite? On the contrary our appetite for energy is finite. I can effectively tap as much juice from the lines as I want and my bill is ridiculously low I could double or even triple it without concern.

Re:which is better

[shaitand]

ps why subtract the oceans? It seems like the ideal surface area to use for harnessing solar since we aren't using it for anything else.

Re:which is better

[MooseTick]

Who says we can't park solar collecters in the ocean?

Re:which is better

[Bemopolis]

I hope that you meant that as a joke because right now as we speak money is being wasted into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate that makes capitalist pigs the world over weep in pain.

Bite your tongue. The current disaster is a triumph of capitalism's frugality. BP and the other oil companies spent millions buying congressmen and putting their champions in the White House in 2000. In exchange they got a ridiculously low damages cap and no requirement to install a $500,000 shutoff valve on offshore rigs. Not only is that a shining example of captialism, they are going to teach this case in business school for decades to come.

Re:which is better

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Which is why concentrative mirrors in space, in the form of millions of small square aimable mirrors is a better solution. You get to adjust the planetary temperature in the bargain.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

humanity is not lost, if some of the people still have some common-sense. greed and laziness abound "for free". now using that as a source of energy would be something of a breakthrough!

Re:which is better

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Recognizing overpopulation is not human hating. I would argue that suggesting that humans reproduce until disaster is inevitable is far more "human hating" than restricting reproduction.

Re:which is better

[Beezlebub33]

It turns out that China is already doing this. Take a look at this Pew Report on renewable energy research and investment. China is now ahead of the US.

I think that China is broken in a number of very important ways, in terms of human rights, freedom of expression, and representative government. But, they seem to think in terms of decades and centuries. I'm sure that the British thought that it was a good deal to have 100 years of control of Hong Kong, but look who's controlling it now. I have no doubt that the leaders of China have no qualms about doing whatever is necessary to make sure that they become energy independent and win in whatever area of research they think is important in the long term.

Re:which is better

[Beezlebub33]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

It is better to find new ways to harvest and manipulate energy (remember kids, energy can not be destroyed or created, only transformed) because:

a) Population growth is a clear trend in humanity (nobody wants to die!) b) More resources(food, space and tools) are needed for bigger population. c) More energy is needed to produce such resources.

and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth.

You are going against the basic cycle of any living ogranism, born/reproduce/die. As I said, nobody wants to die; everybody wants to live more, therefore the population growth trend will likely continue.

Demographics disagrees with you. Multiple countries have made the 'fertility transition'. The fertility rate is now below replacement in Europe, Russia, China, and multiple others. In the long term, you can't fight demographics. See Sub-replacement fertility. There's no guarantee that fertility will remain the same, or go lower, in any particular country, but there is a trend, and it's down.

Humans are really complex, and the decision making process about how many children to have varies widely. It can be influenced by economics, survival rates, culture, religion (and not always the way you might think), contraception availability, government and media campaigns, education, women's rights, and lots of other issues. Your 'a)' is simply too simplistic to be the basis of any argument.

Re:which is better

[blackraven14250]

One thing about the sun though is that if you fill the whole planet with solar panels, you do not run out of energy. You just get 170 petawatts.

You may very well run out of oxygen due to the lack of trees, and materials to create the panels long before you get there.

Re:which is better

[Almost-Retired]

In a way that relates to long term survival of mankind, I have to look at the consequences of this when it has replaced about 95% of the petro-crap we use now to run everything. That could happen as the petro becomes ever harder to extract in a safe mode, which as we are seeing, doesn't seem to be the case for deep sea drilling.

Hydrogen, once split, is a very small molecule, and like helium, is hard to store in a pressure vessel because it will slowly walk right through the walls of the vessel, even Monel metal ones. Since the other side of the vessel wall is at local atmospheric pressure, and hydrogen, being even lighter than helium, will head skyward as fast as its weight difference can make it go in the presence of the viscosity of the air. And AFAIK, it never stops, escaping into space because we don't have gravity sufficient to retain it by a factor of 20+.

Why is this important? Simple, really. Eventually we will run out of the raw material to make water, and since we are breaking it down to make this fuel, if this leakage is not being re-combusted, therefore giving the planet back its water, there will come a time when water will become scarce. Fresh water for human consumption already is a problem in some locales.

Since hydrogen can be stored in a manner similar to the acetone soaked foam filling in a bottle of welding acetylene, at very low pressures compared to direct storage as a compressed gas, such storage should be mandated from the gitgo as it will reduce this loss by 95+%...

I don't see us running out of water nearly as quickly as we have run out of petro stuffs, but in the Lazarus Long view, it may well happen. We will have made a replica of the planet Dune and I don't think that is what the folks promoting this envision. Too many will see this as a short term profit generator, and will not care what happens 100k years in the future, its not their watch. Those folks should not be trusted with your investment dollars.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:which is better

[geekoid]

appetite is not relevant. When we start to run out, we will be limited. Until then we will expand as far as our environment will allow us. Just like every other creature.

Re:which is better

[mtrachtenberg]

"Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?"

Both/and, not either/or.

Re:which is better

[geekoid]

Communism is not opposed to free trade.

Why you even bother to put socialists in the same sentence does lend itself to the idea that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Re:which is better

[Almost-Retired]

But you are forgetting that hydrogen is very light, and any leakage heads for outer space as fast as it can get there.

This is equivalent to losing the water, forever.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

49KW is what we should use! hahahaha Muahahahaha

100KW platform generators! stacked with forklifts, yet feed back to the grid!

FUCK THE SMART GRID
WE NEED THE HIGH UNLIMITED CURRENT GRID!

Oh yeah and uh, the resonant frequency of water MIGHT be the 02 part, where you bombard the 2 with the two resonantly tuned spheres of RF - EMF whatever ya call it. e.g. The SIZE of 02 = the SIZE of the WAVELENGTH of the transmission.

I fucking just know it's something like that. Or magnets where you have coils and you forward bias the signals to keep the fucker spinnin!

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to point out the obvious, but Mad Max was a work of fiction.

Re:which is better

[MrLizard]

Which is better?
To find new and amazing ways, etc, now. Like, duh.

There's so much wrong with your post I have no idea where to begin. First, cultures aren't designed -- they evolve. Second, "strict rules and provisioning", in the real world, mean the Commissars dine on caviar and the peasants starve. Everyone who advocates such systems tends to see themselves as a Commissar-to-be, of course. THEY know what the peasants "should" and "shouldn't" want, what the peasants "need", and if they have a small amount of extra luxuries compared to said peasants, why, it's perfectly acceptable given the hard work they do keeping the poor dears from killing themselves. Third, ever hear the expression "The only thing more common than hydrogen is stupidity"? Yeah. I think we have proof that is true.

Your doomsday scenario has happened many times in the past, and it follows the same pattern -- vital resource begins to run low, the professional doomsayers and people who think the world would be perfect if only THEY were in charge of it begin squawking, and, meanwhile, as the cost of the old resource goes up, the value of finding a replacement does as well, lots and lots of people try to find a replacement, eventually someone does, and the doomsayers march sullenly back to their caves. The only times this fails to happen is when people are foolish enough to LISTEN to the doomsayers.

Re:which is better

[colonelquesadilla]

That's why I voted for cthulhu

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

The best solution to overpopulation is more energy per person with a corresponding higher standing of living. Countries with high standards of living have negative population growth from births.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Agent smith flunked bio.

Re:which is better

[Wonko the Sane]

Humans have shown over and over that in large groups we use all the resources available, don't slow or restrain ourselves in time to save ourselves, and unless there are consistent, strict rules and provisioning in place, we exhaust available resources.

ORLY?

Re:which is better

[CarpetShark]

Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

If we have the means to create new forms of energy that will sustain our lifestyles, then by definition, we WOULD be living within our means. Arguably, since Nuclear energy works, that's already true.

Also... while I'm all for harmony with nature and saving the planet and all, this government-led propaganda about saving energy on an individual basis is a bunch of crap. I mean, have you ever actually went out for a walk at night, and looked at a house with a few lights on? They don't exactly blind everyone in a 5 mile radius. 60-watt bulbs are nowhere near daylight, and we get by on them without complaint. How about heat? Do you feel the heat on your skin from across the road as you walk by a house? No, because the heat is used in a managed, controlled burn that just heats what's required, and little else.

We're ALREADY pretty efficient, simply by instinct and the existing economic forces that shape power/fuel use. Go much beyond that, and major sacrifices have to be made in terms of time and effort, which are probably better spent on other things.

Re:which is better

[CarpetShark]

if you fill the whole planet with solar panels, you do not run out of energy. You just get 170 petawatts.

This idea that we can somehow have free energy by harnessing the sun or the wind or the waves is crazy. Only a certain amount of light energy reaches the earth. If that weren't true, the earth would bake in less than a nanosecond. Now, if you suddenly start collecting all that energy in solar cells, then it will change the amount collected by soil, the amount heating convection currents, etc. Likewise, if you start collecting wind or wave energy en masse, that's bound to affect weather patterns etc.

Re:which is better

[BreazySpeculation]

No, referring to humans as an "infestation" even in the third person is human hating. I just knew it before I got to the last sentence.

Re:which is better

[BreazySpeculation]

BTW, the inevitable disaster is what will moderate the population. It is called nature.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries with high standards of living have negative population growth from births.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Population growth is (births + immigration) - (deaths + emigration). In the United States (which has a very high standard of living), there are approximately 14 births per 1000 annually, and 8.2 deaths per 1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate So you're saying there are fewer live births than deaths in such countries every year?

Re:which is better

[enslaved_robot_boy]

This view is expressed in the book Eaarth (spelled wrong to indicate that the planet is no longer the Earth we once knew!).

I find the idea of halting growth to be abhorrent.

What is growth? Growth is an either an increase in population or an increase in wealth.

Population increase is problematic but that is not a problem in the western world where population is basically stable, our real problem is increasing wealth. The problem with our increasing wealth is not that it is necessarily harmful to the environment and usustainable and thus destined to end in a catastrophic collapse (see Jared Diamond's book Collapse). The problem with our growth is that it is poorly defined.

A private company that borrows money from the bank cannot report that money as profit, if they did their shareholders would eat them alive. Similarly if a company borrowed money from the bank and spent it on things other than infrastructure that allowed them to make more money (like new equipment) they would be in big big trouble.

If borrowing money that you later need to pay back is not "growth" then depleting the resources of the planet without increasing the long term value of those resources is not growth it is just borrowing value without a plan to pay it back. Our version of growth is just doing the same stupid thing only doing it more. The skills and technology exist for us to increase our wealth in a real sense. If the incentives were correct we would be motivated to develop technologies that utilize resources in a more and more efficient manner such that we never end up running out of resources.

We are no where near efficient enough at the moment to talk about living within our means we need to grow out of this wasteful local minimum and continue to progress towards a world were every individual is free to pursue life to it's maximum potential.

Here is an example of what I would consider growth: A plant that grows steak (at this point I would be a vegetarian).

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to point out the obvious, but Mad Max was a work of fiction.

Suuuure. Next, you'll be telling us how Gilligan's Island isn't a documentary.

Re:which is better

[daveime]

Negative population growths from births ??? So once a baby is born, both parents commit hari-kari ?

That's the only way I could envisage a negative population growth.

Re:which is better

[jafac]

"we"?
"designed"?

You have a lot of insight in your posting. . . but you still have a lot to learn about sociology, and human nature.

"we" are likely going to fight eachother to near extinction over the last drop of oil that we can suck out of the ground. IF the collapse of the biosphere, and global climate change does not make our world uninhabitable first.

Whatever "new culture" is designed, people will resist it, and fight it, and die to preserve their traditional values and beliefs. Against all rational facts staring them in the face. Because that's what we've always done.

Re:which is better

[daveime]

For certain values of "forever", but long enough that the human race will be long gone from the Earth before it's a problem.

But what never ceases to amaze me is the mentality that an energy source that is only good for 200 years (of which about 150 we've already used) is somehow better than an energy source that is good for 1 billion years or so.

Re:which is better

[fyngyrz]

This idea that we can somehow have free energy by harnessing the sun or the wind or the waves is crazy.

Yes, absolutely. Sailing ships, solar panels, and geothermal energy just don't work. And never will.

Oh, wait. Yes, they do. And always have. And always -- for any humanly significant value of always - will. :)

Unless you meant "crazy like a fox"?

Nah.

Re:which is better

[Morric]

"will not care what happens 100k years in the future"

100k years in the future we'll be importing water from the Kuiper Belt.

Re:which is better

[fyngyrz]

But what never ceases to amaze me is the mentality that an energy source that is only good for 200 years (of which about 150 we've already used) is somehow better than an energy source that is good for 1 billion years or so.

You're only amazed because you're looking at the wrong mentality. The key here is the attitude that the recovery, sale and subsequent consumption of petroleum products ensures that the people and companies that are currently in power, remain in power.

Since they'll be dead and gone by the time the resource runs out, they are not concerned about oil running out; they're in business to recover it, and so they need to make sure that continues. Since they don't have an inexpensive means of making the transition from oil to solar - oil and gas leases and machinery and skills and refining and transport infrastructure being 100% useless in solar terms - they're not concerned with how well solar performs; they're not concerned with the transition to solar, except in how to delay that transition to keep themselves in power (hence, the better and better gasoline and diesel engines we're finally seeing coming out of auto manufacturers); and they also work quite hard to see to it that inexpensive solar cells and the support electronics do not reach the consumer in any significant quantity.

Creating a solar plant and running it - solar cells, electronics, batteries - is FAR less expensive than paying current power bills for even a few years (I designed and built one for a BIG house with BIG energy demands, so I should know.) The fact that the average consumer outside of an urban area and in the sunbelt doesn't have one should make it very clear to you that there are artificial market forces at very serious work.

Re:which is better

[fyngyrz]

Who says we can't park solar collecters(sic) in the ocean?

Hmm. So you're suggesting that we limit the amount of sunlight that reaches the sea. My first concern would be, what happens to the sea life, then? The sea is not the equivalent of a desert; it is the equivalent of an incredibly vibrant and thriving forest that depends directly upon sunlight (except where we've screwed it up already.)

The right place to do this is in the desert; in the US, the desert southwest is a great candidate. We could easily obtain enough power from there to cover all our energy needs. Storage is the big deal, and for that, pumping water uphill for later downhill runs through turbines is a great way to go until/unless we can come up with something better.

The desert is also a lot less violent area to try to setup a large physical infrastructure. If you'd ever been out on the ocean watching 10 meter waves stir things up, you'd be less sanguine about the feasibility of ocean solar installations, let me tell you.

We do have an "energy problem", and it is defined by two words: 1) government, and 2) corporations.

How to get them out of the way is the problem. Available energy is not.

Re:which is better

[riverat1]

The amount of solar energy that strikes the surface of the planet in one day is over 80 times the amount of energy used by humanity in one year. It's not a problem for now.

Re:which is better

[camperdave]

Solar cells are basically silicon dioxide... rock. We gots plenty o rock.

Re:which is better

[mattack2]

Put the solar collectors on top of the Pacific Garbage Patch.

Re:which is better

[h4rr4r]

Taking a boat to visit relatives across the pond would suck a big one. Also Public transit is great in Europe in the USA it is a total joke.

Re:which is better

[joocemann]

Clearly the solution is to both develop advanced cheap energy and work to "live within our means."

That sounds like balance... /sarcasm on

We can't fix problems without being extreme! /sarcasm off

The balance comes whether we like it, accept it, or cope with it --- or not. Life is less of an unexpected roller coaster when we stay closer to natural balances --- but that's not what WE do. We want to push everything in one direction, maximizing benefit, waiting for that ultimate deficit to kick in (or apathetic or ignorant to the fact that it WILL kick in).

Re:which is better

[jwhitener]

Unless we have one world government, we won't stand a chance of living in a completely sustainable manner. Country vs Country competition will always bring out destructive business practices. And even if we were one nation, assuming we retained a political system similar to the US now, politicians would be governing with 4 and 8 year goals in mind, not long term.

But regardless of that, we are going to need more energy if we want to do more. And by 'do more' I mean everything from every farm in Africa having an electric tractor and recharging stations all over, to synthesizing some new exotic fuel in mass quantities to power space flight.

Unlimited power opens up tons of doors, and I don't see mankind ever moving towards less energy consumption. So lets move to cleaner sources as soon as possible, and increase research into better and better energy production methods.

Re:which is better

[daem0n1x]

hard-core socialists and communists have pointed to the US trade ban with Cuba - i.e., insufficiently free trade - as the source of so many of the island's ills..

Funny, here in Europe only hard-core right-wingers and US-ass-lickers think the embargo is a good idea. I would risk saying most of the world is like that, too, since most of the UN vigorously condemns the embargo every single year. With no result, of course.

That the embargo only affects trade with the US is a lie that's repeated ad nauseam by the embargo defenders. Actually, it's a lot worse. The USA put foreign companies between the rock and a hard place by telling them they can't have any business with Cuba or they are, and all their commercial partners, forbidden to make business in the USA. Any company with a sane mind, faced with this outragous blackmail, gives in, of course. The whole fucking world has business with the USA. As a result, Cuba has a very hard time getting any supplies. They pay a premium for every little fucking thing they import. Medical equipment and medicines, for instance. They pay excruciating interest rates for any loan they make. This is making it a huge sacrifice to recover from the devastation caused by hurricane Ike in 2008, for example. They can't export the stuff they make, because nobody wants to make business with them and piss off the big bad USA. Besides, the US make pressure on all other countries to isolate Cuba diplomatically. Cuba has suffered countless terrorist attacks on its soil, from groups that operate freely in the USA.

Even so, Cuba is ahead of most Latin America (and most of the world by the way) in the Human Development Index, a fact that the Western "democratic" and "free" media forget to mention too often.

This is not a matter of defending Communism or Capitalism. The matter is, is it OK that a big, rich and powerful country treats a small, poor and weak country like this? Fuck no! And no spinning can change a basic fact like this.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone who defends Cuba feel an overwhelming need to curse?

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Nope. Because all the energy that hits a solar cell gets converted into heat anyway. Wind, yes if you really, really put in a lot of wind farms. More wind farms than is sane, really. But solar, all that heat just ends up in the soil anyway.

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

And, in order to get silicon, you're going to get rid of the oxygen.

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

My list:
Primary batteries -> rechargeable batteries
Solar air conditioning
Synthetic gasoline from hydrogen
Solar thermochemical hydrogen production
Solar thermal for your rooftop
Metal air fuel cells
Solar thermochemical metal smelting

Not in that order, particularly.

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Actually, he could promote economic development in Africa, to reduce pop growth.

Or he could build an EV, insulate his house better, install solar, wind (generation > conservation).

Public transport is not a good idea. Ride a motorcycle.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words for you: Dyson Sphere (and I'm not talking about the silly vacuum).

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... Humans are just like every other species. Someone will always want more than someone else and your new culture based on sustainability is toast. It's a pipe dream that can't happen. Get over it and move on. I'm not saying to abandon sustainability. I'm just saying utopias won't ever exist. Add some reality to the mix.

We need to find alternative and cleaner energies now. Since we know combustion engines and all the infrastructure is in place, why not Hydrogen? Why care about its efficiency? If it moves a car, who cares?

Electric is a nice. It's also way to new. Battery technology isn't really up to snuff. A car with a distance range of less that 300 miles or so in this country is useless. Yes, you can get around a big city where everything is close. Unless you need to go across town and have to sit in traffic for hours to get there. One snow storm last winter, and most people had a 4 hour commute to get to there homes 10-20 miles away.Then there's the rest of our country, where a 30-100 mile round trip to the store is common. And what about traveling by car on vacations? I don't think I want to take 3 days to drive to the next state. I take simple day trips that cover 400+ miles on a Saturday or Sunday.

(And have you taken a close look at the solar energy plant sites that have been built? There are glass shards everywhere because the mirrors break rather frequently, rendering the entire land completely useless for the near and long term future. They suck up vast amounts of water in areas that have relatively little. But by all means. Go solar. It's perfectly sustainable. Right up to the point where the water table is depleted.)

Re:which is better

[BraksDad]

Except sunlight isn't expected to run out in a timeframe that humanity can fathom.

Yes, but there is a limit to the amount of sunlight that hits the earth (Plus orbiting satalite range) Perhaps we should hurry and get that solar energy going so we can refine it before we reach THAT threashold. Maybe we could look at horse power again... I mean Horse Head Nebula this time.

Re:which is better

[fyngyrz]

Put the solar collectors on top of the Pacific Garbage Patch.

How about we clean it up, instead?

Re:which is better

[mattack2]

It was a joke.. a place to use that wouldn't cover up ocean already used by animals (since the garbage patch is taking the space).

Re:which is better

[init100]

Hydrogen, once split, is a very small molecule, and like helium, is hard to store in a pressure vessel because it will slowly walk right through the walls of the vessel, even Monel metal ones.

I'm aware of the many problems of storing raw hydrogen, but cheap production of hydrogen does not mean that the end product is hydrogen. Hydrogen is also an important raw material for e.g. the Fischer-Tropsch process, which combines hydrogen with carbon monoxide and results in liquid hydrocarbons. As we all know, liquid hydrocarbons do not have the storage and handling problems of raw hydrogen, but since the process to create them uses hydrogen as a raw material, a cheap source of hydrogen would certainly be very useful.

Re:which is better

[CarpetShark]

Good thinking, batman.

Unfortunately there's a big difference between pushing traditional boats across water, and harnessing the wind to satisfy most of the energy demands of a planet.

Re:which is better

[wye43]

Aw c'mon man, don't get bitter. You never posted drunk and got a good moderation? ;)

efficiency

[wizardforce]

This is from what I've read on the subect, quite impressive in terms of how it works however, this isn't a technology that is very likely capable of exceeding the efficiency of a few other methods of producing Hydrogen. 10% solar => Hydrogen efficiency would be impressive for a biological system but well within reach of other technologies like solar thermal + water thermochemical cracking This technology might be of use if alternatives remain comparatively expensive.

Re:efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

The advantage I could see is smaller scale. Solar thermal takes a large investment. A biological system potentially could be even scaled to home sized or at least to provide hydrogen for refueling stations. Transportation and storage are still the biggest things that need to be over come to make hydrogen practical. It's one thing to make the fuel but it's still hard to transport. For infrastructure it's always better to have a hundred sources rather than one for a given area. One plant goes down and no hydrogen, one filling station goes down and it has little affect.

Re:efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who both worked on this biological route and saw this thesis defense (FYI, this is a dupe of an earlier story), and someone who is now working on the solar thermal route, I agree so heartily I was amazed to actually read this comment here. This is exactly the correct analysis -- extremely cool science, brilliant work, but no chance of being an actual engineering solution. As far as "comparitively expensive", the solar thermal routes we work on use metal oxides like FeO/Fe2O3 which is completely recovered while the biological route we use incorporates IrO2... and degenerates after 4-5 cycles. This seems like a no-brainer to me. However, the quantum efficiency trends due to cross coupling, the gel method of suspending wires, etc were all absolutely fascinating ideas.

I should probably start logging in at some point so that people actually read my comments. A shame I can't be bothered to remember my password.

Re:efficiency

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I should probably start logging in at some point so that people actually read my comments. A shame I can't be bothered to remember my password.

Yes you should. This is very very interesting that someone who works on thermochemical reads slashdot!!! Are you on the CR5 at Sandia? I'm a highschool student who spent a lot of spare time looking at various thermochemical schemes. Trying to understand the chemical engineering behind them. You can read my conclusions if you want. Please keep in mind that I have no real lab and haven't done any experiments.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that I liked FeO/Fe2O3 the best. The problem I saw was passivation of the iron oxide. So I looked many ways to get rid of this problem. By either misting molten FeO, grinding FeO into smaller particles, reaction with acids, etc. But one I found that I think has not been considered is the disproportion of the FeO. FeO disproportionate at temps below about 500 C as 4FeO -> Fe + Fe3O4. I have no idea what the resulting mixture looks like mechanically when this happens, but according to stuff I read it does indeed happen. Thermodynamic calculations with NIST data show that the reaction is favorable. Metalic iron reacts much better with steam than FeO, AFAIK.

The next cycle I liked was the ISPRA mark 2 sodium manganese cycle:

1. Na2O.MnO2 + H2O -> 2NaOH(a) + MnO2 at 100 C
2. 4MnO2(s) -> 2Mn2O3(s) + O2(g) at 487 C
3. Mn2O3 + 4NaOH -> 2Na2O.MnO2 + H2(g) + H2O at 800 C
This seemed quite good except for that high temperature NaOH.

This weird cycle came up in one of Ken Schultz's papers and I found it quite interesting. It's all liquid, and it seems quite strange. Could it work? I have no idea. There could be corrosion problems, with the KOH.
1. K2O2 + H2O -> 2KOH + O2 at 100 C
2. 2KOH + 2K -> 2K2O + H2 at 725 C
3. 2K2O -> 2K + K2O2 at 850 C

Another idea I had was what I call the thermoelectrochemical engine. Here's how it works. You have two metals, A and B. A can be smelted from it's oxide by hydrogen or CO, and B can reduce water or CO2. There is a non-trivial potential difference between the two metals. For example, A = iron, and B = tin. I'm guessing you can see where this is going.
1. 2Fe + SnO2 -> 2FeO + Sn + 0.5ish V in aqueous electrolyte
2. Sn + 2H2O -> SnO2 + 2H2 at some slightly elevated temperature.
3. 2FeO + 2H2 -> 2Fe + 2H2O at some elevated temperature
There are probably better metals than iron and tin but I picked them because I'm pretty sure they'd work.

Thanks for reading. I'm thinking that FeO is better than sulfur-iodine because there's no high temp separation, and no corrosives running around at high temperature.

Re:efficiency

[wizardforce]

The UT-3 cycle + the ferrite cycle might work better in combination. Ferrite water cracking until the material is passivated at which point UT-3 takes over in a separate reaction chamber

Re:efficiency

[Malc]

What happens to the oxygen in this process? Could it be easily recombined with the hydrogen and thus another desalination method?

Re:efficiency

[wizardforce]

It would be far more efficient to use salt water as a coolant in conventional power stations using the waste heat from producing power to evaporate pure water from sea water. Using sea water in these thermochemical processes would be disasterous from a design standpoint due to side reactions and contamination of the reactor with salt.

Re:efficiency

[Menkhaf]

Nice post!

Next time spice it up with links for references and further reading, but you' could on your way to /. fame if you keep up! Who knows, one day you might even append your initials to your comment like all the oldtimers and people who think they're something does! ;)

Re:efficiency

[geekoid]

Yes, becasue remember ing a password is so difficult.

Seriously genius, just fing a pattern and use it for site like these.

Example:
Firt pet name plus mothers intitals.
I would have:
TobySWL

If I wanted to get crazy, I could change the o to a 0 and and my siblings initals and birth years.
T0bySWLGET71EGT69

Easy to remember, usable on every generic site. There is nothing on slashdot so important people are going to spend hours trying to break your password. If someone does do that what would they get?

Hard to break passwords are easy to come up with.
Normally I wouldn't bother, but when someone who seem to actually have something relevant to add to a conversation it drives me up a wall they might be buried under AC.

It's like going to a frat house of drunk people who are also literally crazy to try and explain relativity. N one their cares, and people who do care would never be there.

Re:efficiency

[geekoid]

Man, I love slashdot.

well done. You should look into getting some money and do this experiment. NO matter the out come, it can only be good for your carrier.

Re:efficiency

[Lehk228]

I found UT2003/2004 to be more fun than UT-3....

Re:efficiency

[Black Gold Alchemist]

It's not the issue of money only. Its that the experiment scares the living daylights out of me. Lye, will blind you if a drop gets in your eye. One drop. Now, we're going to have that at 500+ C. Scary.

Re:efficiency

[Black Gold Alchemist]

The problem I see with the UT-3 is that hydrogen bromide running around at 700+ C. Corrosion is going to be a real problem.

Re:efficiency

[NorthDude]

I'm a highschool student who spent a lot of spare time looking at various thermochemical schemes.

You get all my admiration and I hope my children grow up to be like you, the world needs way more high school student and young people interested in something else then video games!

Re:efficiency

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Thank you. Video games actually got me here, because I wanted to make my own games, and thus learned programming. The problem is that schools these days are all about sports and art. Less Shakespeare, less football, more business, and more science please.

Re:post is another kdawson screwup

[lordharsha]

But... but... splitting oxygen from water leaves you with hydrogen, which is the same as splitting hydrogen from water.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[wizardforce]

The only reason viruses are hard to deal with has to do with the fact that we can't accidentally kill the host trying to "kill" the virus. Since there isn't a host worth worrying about in this design, we don't have to be nice; we can just wipe the virus out without mercy.

Efficiency doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be a winner even if efficiency isn't great.

Yes, there are nightmare problems handling hydrogen (invisible flame, leaks through many materials)

BUT - provided it's durable and cheap you have Solar power that works 24 hours/day. Turn electricity to hydrogen by day, burn hydrogen or run a fuel cell by night.

 

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[MichaelSmith]

Burn the Hydrogen down to Methane, then use the methane with existing technology and infrastructure. Crack atmospheric CO2 to provide the carbon for Methane so you have a closed cycle.

Some buses run on methane right now.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[jobst]

wonder how many current (global/giant/energy) firms will be trying (very VERY hard) to clobber this ... starting with large advertising campaigns aka "this will not work blah blah blah"! I have got solar power on my roof and I hear a lot of people saying "not efficient enough" ... well bugger them, at the current rate I will have paid this off in 5 years time and from then onwards ...

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Actually, you don't want to burn down to methane, and it's not really "burning" (maybe it is). It would be better to make gasoline, instead of methane (easier to transport, runs a normal car). The process is here. Here's the chemistry:

CO2 + H2 = CO + H2O
xCO + (2x+1)H2 = CxH(2x+2) + xH2O
Where x often equals 8.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[jurgemaister]

Actually, methane is a really good idea. Normal petrol fueled cars run fine on methane gas if you install a pretty cheap injection kit. Also, burning gas in stead of petrol leaves close to zero particles in the air, and drastically reduces the emission of NOx gasses.
Infrastructure is not very hard to achieve, and is actually already in place in parts of Europa.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[wizardforce]

No... the GP is right... Methane is a gas and gases like Methane are a lot harder to store in comparison to gasoline. Methane can be stored in two major ways: 1) high pressure/adsorbed on to a sponge-like material or 2) in cryogenic liquid form. The former isn't terribly good at storing enough Methane to be competitive with Gasoline and the latter requires active refrigeration and spills are extremely dangerous.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[Ihlosi]

Methane can be stored in two major ways: 1) high pressure/adsorbed on to a sponge-like material or 2) in cryogenic liquid form. Err ... no. You're confusion methane and hydrogen.

Methane is much easier to store than hydrogen. And storage facilities for methane already exist and would just need to be expanded, compared to hydrogen which requires new technology. Produced methane could be fed almost directly into the already existing and well-established natural gas distribution and storage network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[zippthorne]

Ahh, but how long until you have the unsubsidized price paid off?

It might be good for *you* because other people are paying for it, but it's not as good for *everyone*.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[s122604]

Correct

Compressed natural gas vehicles already exist, and they work just fine. You don't get quite the range you do out of a gasoline car, but its still pretty good, better than any electric vehicle. You can get this range without relying on any hyper-advanced compression/liquification/storage technologies.

You do get CO2 out the tailpipe, but pretty much nothing else, with very little emission control technology (which adds a lot to the price of a car BTW) needed.

Nat gas can too, of course, be used to do silly things, like heat our homes, make electricity in combined cycle power plants, make fertilizer ...

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This option is probably the best because you can convert gasoline engines to burn natural gas relatively easily.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[ArcherB]

Methane can be stored in two major ways: 1) high pressure/adsorbed on to a sponge-like material or 2) in cryogenic liquid form.

Err ... no. You're confusion methane and hydrogen.

Methane is much easier to store than hydrogen. And storage facilities for methane already exist and would just need to be expanded, compared to hydrogen which requires new technology. Produced methane could be fed almost directly into the already existing and well-established natural gas distribution and storage network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage

You are correct, but I believe the parent was comparing methane to gasoline, not hydrogen.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[myspace-cn]

Use the resonant frequency force LUKE!

Force the O2's out with LARRY'S SPHERES

Redesign the " plasma / burn " it to be "resonant" e.g. redesign a 70's era muscle car

Never store more H than you need to buffer you power requirements. DUMP H when things don't need it, or AIR BAGS deploy ;o)

Toss out text books and study what exists. like that guy that kills virus's with RF!

Your PHD/ whatever is p3wn to me

After the bugs are worked out

RE-TOoL the fucking planet

Fly to the moon and steal all the water!

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[Black Gold Alchemist]

The problem is that in my country, the EPA is preventing that. It does not cost much of anything to convert to gasoline from the same material. In fact, it's an exothermic reaction, and it's really just as easy. Swap one catalyst with another and you methanol instead of methane. Add in a zeolite catalyst and remove the water. Gasoline.

it's nothing, kapitalist dogs!

[justleavealonemmmkay]

North Korea has achieved fusion

Re:it's nothing, kapitalist dogs!

[morty_vikka]

Yes, that's why it's so bright at night .

Re:it's nothing, kapitalist dogs!

[fractoid]

North Korea has achieved fusion

Don't be silly, everyone knows that the soviets developed it first!

Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[Black Gold Alchemist]

This story appears to be a dupe.

Iridium, a form of unobtainium, is used. This costs upwards of $13,000 per kg. About 3 tons are produced a year.

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[MichaelSmith]

This story appears to be a dupe.

Iridium, a form of unobtainium, is used. This costs upwards of $13,000 per kg. About 3 tons are produced a year.

We should hope for more cometary impacts then.

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[grimJester]

"Iridium oxide catalyst". It's unlikely to require much iridium. Catalytic converters in cars use platinum and still aren't horribly expensive.

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[eclectro]

We should hope for more cometary impacts then.

Or we could finally justify the space program to send astronauts up to mine them instead.

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Space travel is great and I'm all for it, but EROEI.

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yes, it won't require all that much, but iridium is rarer than platinum, and it's still obnoxious to have iridium. Can't we use scrap iron instead?

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[mr_mischief]

In other news, Slashdot editor kdawson has engineered a method to take credit for stories fellow Slashdot editor Soulskill posted to the front page one month earlier. The hope is to eventually never worry about a slow news day, but there's still a lot of research and development to done before it scales to widespread production.

Re:Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[aqk]

1953 called.
Randy Ayn needs to talk to you.

Not so fast . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

The algae have hired a lawyer and are suing the viruses, bacteria, and MIT for patent infringement.

Re:Not so fast . . .

[BluBrick]

Wait, what? The pond scum is not the lawyer?

Re:Not so fast . . .

[LoverOfJoy]

Shouldn't that patent have expired already? Stupid ip laws.

Re:Not so fast . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Blue green algae is not an algae. It's actually a bacteria in some kind of symbogic relationship.
Effectively one of the few animals able to perform photosynthesis.
In the freshwater aquarium it's a fucking pest ant typically signifies a low nitrogen condition. You can overcome this by adding some KNO3 to the water(but not to much, you'll kill you fish).
Alternatively stock more fish so you'll have more fish piss in the water (NH4 -> NO2 -> NO3).

Over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

Some genuinely incredible work has come out of the labs at MIT; however, the work described in this article is pedestrian. Frankly, Prof. Belcher is a seriously over-rated, one-trick pony. Don't get me wrong, it's a hugely impressive trick - essentially directed evolution of viruses to get their capsid (i.e., proteinaceous component) to selectively bind to [whatever], but she applies it to whatever the current hot topic is, such as the photocatalytic splitting of water, and has absolutely done it to death. It's her hammer for the world of research nails.

Some of you may recall one of her papers a few years ago on virus-based lithium ion batteries. That work was also Belcher's brainchild, used the exact same techniques as are found in this Nature Nanotech paper, and was also ridiculously over-rated.

The problem with MIT is shameless self-promotion - and it's self-perpetuating because people (even the MIT professors spouting their own greatness) believe it. Another example is Robert Langer, whose work is fine but unremarkable. However, because he's so well known and great at self-promotion, he gets papers in Science/Nature/etc. As a result, his fame continues and the accolades continue to pour in.

It's frustrating to watch, knowing that fame and accolades are often undeserved when brilliant work from lesser known researchers goes unnoticed, but there's really no solution other than to point out when particular academics get more recognition than they deserve and hope that others reading agree and spread the word.

Re:Over-rated

[rubies]

Thanks Sheldon, say hi to Penny for me.

Re:Over-rated

[tehcyder]

Frankly, Prof. Belcher is a seriously over-rated, one-trick pony

Great name, though.

Re:Over-rated

[khallow]

Some genuinely incredible work has come out of the labs at MIT; however, the work described in this article is pedestrian. Frankly, Prof. Belcher is a seriously over-rated, one-trick pony. Don't get me wrong, it's a hugely impressive trick - essentially directed evolution of viruses to get their capsid (i.e., proteinaceous component) to selectively bind to [whatever], but she applies it to whatever the current hot topic is, such as the photocatalytic splitting of water, and has absolutely done it to death. It's her hammer for the world of research nails

Creativity is not the only measure. The question then boils down to "How good is the hammer?" As I see it, if this can be developed into a powerful tool with a lot of competitive applications, then it's not pedestrian and is work worthy of a scientist at MIT.

Re:Over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry? Larry Summers, is that you?? Damn it man, aren't you supposed to be saving (|| ruining) the economy or something?

Re:Over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

U just hating because she's a woman!

Re:Over-rated

[geekoid]

Let's see you do better.

Re:Over-rated

[bobk37]

there's some similar research (getting algae to produce hydrogen when exposed to sunlight) going on at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Oak Ridge - http://www.alt-energy.info/biofuel/is-hydrogen-from-algae-the-answer/

Re:Over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

you made me read the whole comment with sheldon's voice !!

Re:Over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

Its gotten so bad that I reflexively translate these headlines as
"MIT researchers discover own navels"

I'm a bit concerned now that if something substantial actually does come out of MIT, I will completely miss it.

All the buzzword

[oldhack]

MIT, hydrogen, green, McArthur grant winner, genetic engineering, nano something or other, all these buzz bullshit in the short summary paragraph.

Stinks of bullshit to the high heaven.

Re:All the buzzword

[Anonymous Coward]

Stinks of bullshit to the high heaven.

I think you're right.
Let's see,

We have photosynthesis used to split H2O apart. No mention of CO2 anywhere,

Yeah, I'm sure that soon they will be able to split bullshit into its components and provide an un-extinguishable source of energy.

I like my consumer electronics virus-free

[bitrex]

...uses genetically engineered viruses as templates for nanoscale electronic components...

What could possibly go wrong?!

Re:I like my consumer electronics virus-free

[jamesh]

What could possibly go wrong?!

Nothing. Didn't you notice the word 'harmless' appear twice in TFA? That was all the reassurance I needed. I'm sure the chance of the virus invading your body and splitting apart your molecules when you step out into the sunlight is very close to zero.

Re:I like my consumer electronics virus-free

[mjwx]

Nothing. Didn't you notice the word 'harmless' appear twice in TFA? That was all the reassurance I needed. I'm sure the chance of the virus invading your body and splitting apart your molecules when you step out into the sunlight is very close to zero.

We thought we were god.

And we pretty much were, everything went according to plan, yeah sure the movie about this is going to be boring as bat shit but at least the UV-Ray disk will only cost $139.95 due to our abundant cheap energy.

Re:I like my consumer electronics virus-free

[Anonymous Coward]

Twice is the worst number of times for it to appear in the TFA! Double negatives cancel out and make positive, so double positives would cancel out and make negative! The TFA needs to use the word 'harmless' an odd number of times.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, these viruses escape and replicate. Imagine the scientist's surprise when 70% of his body is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen! I'm also fond of the 3/4 of the Earth's surface.

  I'm only half joking.

Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Ihlosi]

Last I heard, hydrogen generation by electrolysis was well over 50% efficient.

The problem with hydrogen isn't making it. That's easy. The problem is storing it, which involved dealing with energy losses through compression and diffusion. Or with getting a carbon source and attaching the hydrogen to carbon, which leads to a convenient storage form.

Wake me again when they can efficienty make, say, methane from electrolytically generated hydrogen and CO2 extracted from the air. Then we're talking.

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel, so you get %14 solar to hydrogen. Wouldn't it be great if we could skip that solar panel and all the associated pricing, and go right to hydrogen? That's what this is about.

Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline. Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system. We pretty much already have the technology, and I wish someone with a real lab (not me) would do a tech demo.

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Ihlosi]

Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel,

True. But there are other renewable source with intermittent output that can be used for electrolysis, like wind power. And where I live, the potential power from wind is about five times that of solar.

Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I'd be happy with methane first, since it's already much easier to handle than plain hydrogen. Synthesizing longer chain hydrocarbons might make the fuel more convenient, but also requires more effort.

Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system.

The problem with CO2 is that you'll need _lots_ for the industrial process, and there's only very little of it air (300-something ppm). Extracting that is a major pain in the rear (i.e. requires lots of energy).

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[M8e]

The problem with CO2 is that you'll need _lots_ for the industrial process, and there's only very little of it air (300-something ppm). Extracting that is a major pain in the rear (i.e. requires lots of energy).

Don't forget that you can take the CO2 direcly from the sources, and here is a lot of CO2 sources.
Powerplants
ethanol factories(fermention)
air destilators(making nitrogen, oxygen, argon and CO2)
+other stuff...

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Ihlosi]

Don't forget that you can take the CO2 direcly from the sources, and here is a lot of CO2 sources. Powerplants

True, but we eventually want to/have to stop burning coal. ethanol factories(fermention)

Good point. air destilators(making nitrogen, oxygen, argon and CO2)

And that requires lots of energy. Air only contains a few hundred ppm of CO2, so you need to process a few tons of air for a few kgs of CO2.

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[zippthorne]

Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system..

Not if you bake with it...

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[M8e]

Powerplants can burn other things containing carbon than fossil coal, for example garbage and waste from food- and wood-production.

Some time in the future we might also burn a lot of biproducts from when making ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels.

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[szilagyi]

You do need lots of energy to collect the CO2, apparently around 6-15kJe/mol CO2
[http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/84.Stolaroff.AirCaptureGHGT-8.p.pdf], by my layman's interpretation of the paper. Then you also need a lot of energy to break the CO2 up via, e.g., reverse water-gas shift, maybe 38kJ/mol. (You get all this back, and more, if you then put the resulting CO through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, but you need to supply extra H2 to drive the reaction. The extra O2 from the CO2 ends up in an H2O byproduct, which represents a lot of energy sucked out, having been supplied as a lot of extra H2 in this case.)

So, hopefully one of the researchers that's commented will address this point, but it appears to this layman that the limestone cycle isn't too bad. (Capital-intensive, since efficient calcination requires a recuperator with particulate mass flows, but at least that's an industrially solved problem.) It's more that the thing you're pulling out of the air, CO2, is extremely stable.

You're lucky to live where you live, if wind is viable. I live near Buffalo, NY, in a moderately windy lake plain location. It sounds like a good place to favor wind, but I got a load factor of like 8 for wind, even if I cut out very early and throw away most of the wind energy. More like 20 if I did the math with a higher cut-out speed, where my plant cost was totally dominated by generator capacity, which is expensive. So the lower cut-out was more economical, but still much worse than solar, which is maybe 3-4 load factor, and it's relatively cheap to store heat, even high temperature heat. (This is all on paper, in early planning, so not very convincing. Still, I did several hours of analysis to estimate capital costs and ROI, and you'd have to live in a place with extremely steady wind to favor wind over solar. On the other hand, a wind plant is much simpler and scales down much better than a solar thermal plant, and if you don't have to store the electricity, because you use it immediately in some process, then that's not an issue. I know I can build a wind turbine, but my solar design-under-evaluation is risky and more of a hobby idea than a sure-fire solution.)

Synthesizing longer chair hydrocarbons rather than methane is not much harder, thermodynamically, if I recall. There are the various synthesis processes, which use different catalysts and conditions, but I don't recall methane synthesis being all that much easier or more efficient. Again, I guess we want to hear from an expert, not a layman such as myself that has merely surveyed some random sample of the literature from a position of ignorance...

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

15 kJ is nothing and so is 38 kJ. You get much of it back anyway. The energy needed to split water is 243 kJ/mol, so the energy is not really a big deal. Synthesizing larger chain hydrocarbons is actually an exothermic process, so it's not a big deal.

The issue of CO2 capture is not a totally solved problem. Current calculations indicate that 1/8 the total solar input would be CO2 trapping with limestone. However, the question is whether you could get other oxides and hydroxides to react with baking soda. I.E., iron oxide or copper oxide. Also, it appears that the following reaction occurs at around 70C-200C: 2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2

Thanks for bringing up that recuperator issue. I was not aware about that one.

Hydrogen == Battery

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not getting energy "out" of water. You're getting energy out of solar radiation.

Yup, hydrogen is just a battery: you charge it by removing the oxygen, then discharge it by burning it (which recombines the oxygen atoms and reforms water).

(unless, of course, you're doing fusion, then hydrogen IS a power source)

Re:Hydrogen == Battery

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Yup, hydrogen is just a battery: you charge it by removing the oxygen, then discharge it by burning it (which recombines the oxygen atoms and reforms water).

This is one of the weirdest arguments I've ever heard. How is hydrogen any different than any other fuel? I could say that oil is just a battery: you charge it by decomposing dinosaurs, then discharge it by burning it. Hydroelectric power: you charge it by bringing water up a mountain and discharge it by letting it fall through your hydro plant. Wind: you charge it by getting the air to expand in certain locations and discharge it by letting it go through windmills. How is any source of energy not exactly like this?

Re:Hydrogen == Battery

[cgenman]

Because in hydroelectric power, something else does the work of lifting the water up the hill. In wind, you're not applying energy to cause the differing atmospheric pressures. In both cases, we're tapping into a larger system, and our involvement begins once a power differential exists.

For non-nuclear hydrogen, you have to have the power source to tap at the beginning. Usually that's something which generates electricity to break the hydrogen apart, but in this case it is solar. Either way, you actually have all of the energy before you even get to the converting hydrogen phase. The hydrogen part is actually a net energy-loss, but hydrogen is such a powerful and portable store of energy that it just might be worth it. Also, due in part to being an intermediary, the water is not consumed in the process.

For nuclear hydrogen, you're completely right in asserting that it is a fuel. The energy that you're extracting comes from the hydrogen itself, and the hydrogen is converted in the process. But for conventional hydrogen, you're putting the energy into the system from somewhere, and then it returns to its original state.

Re:Hydrogen == Battery

[Anonymous Coward]

I could say that oil is just a battery: you charge it by decomposing dinosaurs, then discharge it by burning it.

And you'd be right, over the course of millions of years natural processes compressed carbon and hydrogen into oil.

However, in the case of hydrogen in water, WE are the ones spending energy separating the H20 to get the hydrogen.

Hydroelectric power: you charge it by bringing water up a mountain and discharge it by letting it fall through your hydro plant.

Correct, but again, YOU are not carrying the water up the mountain, water is deposited uphill from you by weather.

Wind: you charge it by getting the air to expand in certain locations and discharge it by letting it go through windmills.

There's no way I know of for humans to "get the air to expand in certain locations" (other than a really big bomb).

This is one of the weirdest arguments I've ever heard. How is hydrogen any different than any other fuel?

Basically, the argument is that hydrogen isn't just sitting around waiting for us to burn it (like oil is).

You're taking energy from other sources (in this case, solar) and using it to separate water to get the hydrogen. Then, when you burn the hydrogen, that exact same energy is released.

In fact, the process of "charging" hydrogen is a net loss: more energy is spent separating the hydrogen from water than we get from burning it.

Think of it as:
Energy+Water = Hydrogen
Hydrogen-Energy = Water
You could even make a duracell/energizer/whatever "battery" which contains water and the electrolysis equipment. You put energy in, the battery splits hydrogen from the oxygen.
When you discharge the battery the hydrogen gets burned and combined with the oxygen to reform water. It can be a completely closed system.

Or, check out the Wiki:
Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, and thus it must be generated by electrolysis of water or another method. Hydrogen is therefore an energy carrier (like electricity), not a primary energy source (like coal).

Smith knows the answer

[wye43]

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

Re:Smith knows the answer

[camg188]

Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment

Yep, a natural equilibrium due to predation, disease and starvation.
You see overcoming these things as a disease, others see it as an achievement.

Poor, poor self-hating humans...

[msimm]

A bacteria colony might do the same. It seems to be a side-effect of life and the alternatives are usually catastrophe, starvation, pestilence/disease or whatever thinning, decimating or simply eradicating the organism 'naturally'. Personally I like humanity warts and all, so I vote amazing ways to create energy from resources now please.

As an added bonus if we prove to be clever enough as an organism our reach (and therefore our available resources) might extend far beyond this beautiful little rock we call home.

Re:Poor, poor self-hating humans...

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Actually, the fact that we think ahead and find new sources of energy, like this, indicates that we are above a bacteria colony. If we're a bacteria colony, we would just burn oil until we ran out. But, we would not have oil in the first place, because we would have died when we ran out of whale oil.

Re:Poor, poor self-hating humans...

[msimm]

Says the Human!

Re:Poor, poor self-hating humans...

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Sorry, earthling. My disguise is broken.

Beat my idea

[zmollusc]

Damn, I thought i had the perfect way of breaking water molecules up: lending them to teenagers while saying 'be careful with these molecules' . Sadly, when it came to harvesting the hydrogen atoms, they had become lost or 'there was no atoms in the molecules' or 'what water molecules?'.

Re: Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

[MRe_nl]

Inventing Stepping Disks, the Quantum II Hyperdrive, and the General Products Hulls?
No, we should really try to avoid that ; ).

Re: Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

[fractoid]

Quiet or I'll tasp you! ;)

Dr. Belcher

[ionymous]

Of course Dr. Belcher would be an expert on making gas.

The problem with hydrogen's waste product

[plopez]

If you burn hydrogen, you get water vapour. The same is true of fuel cells. Unfortunately water vapour is a green house gas, worse than carbon dioxide.

We need to think these things through.

Re:The problem with hydrogen's waste product

[geekoid]

But it's easy to capture, and once you have done that, you can release it again.

Yes, it will evaporate, but since we are getting the Hydrogen from a source that would have evaporated anyways it doesn't matter.

If we where pumping it out of the ground and releasing it as a vapor that would condense and fall back to the earth in a reasonable time, you might have had a point.

And no, it is not worse then CO2. Sheesh.

Re:The problem with hydrogen's waste product

[riverat1]

Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas but it's not a concern for global warming because when the relative humidity reaches 100% it precipitates out. The total water vapor in the atmosphere is limited by temperature.

Re:The problem with hydrogen's waste product

[Black Gold Alchemist]

If that was really a problem, you could just condense it and get clean water. We should think things through, but nothing is possible to the overly cautious. Corollary: if preventing everything is your goal, be overly cautious.

Re:The problem with hydrogen's waste product

[plopez]

if it get released, watch out for the impacts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[somersault]

Why do you sign your name on your posts when it's right there in the username, or could be put in your signature? I'm merely curious :P

This is old news

[Ex-MislTech]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/mustread.html?pg=5

About 8 years old, maybe older.

Yummy.

[MRe_nl]

I can't wait. It seemed "reasonably" healthy and affordable. On par with say Sid Meiers Civilization, Quake 3 Arena or Tetris.
I can so imagine myself spending a year (or two) "making my day".

Too many issue with H2 use CH4

[KiwiCanuck]

CH4 (natural gas) is currently near a historical low. Plus exploration companies are still finding large reserves. Add in that all this deficit spending is going to stagnate the private sector (a la Japan). And voila! Clean, cheap fuel for large vehicles and small to med power generation. Plus it shouldn't too much of a stretch to convert existing coal plants to nat gas.

so close...

[MiniMike]

...'Suddenly, I wondered, what if we could assemble materials like the abalone does -- but not be limited to one element?'

Man, I wish I had a MacArthur Foundation genius grant for every time I thought that...

Hindenburg

[DarthVain]

Sweet, now I can finally get those airships I have been waiting for!

still solar powered, however you extract it.

[buback]

Where does all that energy come from? The Sun. all atmospheric processes are driven by the heat energy from the sun. Heat transfer between the poles, which get less sun heat, and the equator, which gets more, creates the jet streams (plus Coriolis effect). So this is just another method to extract solar energy. the question is; Is it the most cost effective and least destructive?

Re:still solar powered, however you extract it.

[CarpetShark]

Precisely. Surely it's more efficient to go straight to the source, than take it from secondary, lossy processes. But as mentioned elsewhere, I don't believe we can extract the sun's energy (or secondary energy) from our world for "free" without it affecting the heating of the earth, the weather patterns, etc.

Re: Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

[wtbname]

LA LA LA LA LA

Please tasp me please. Please oh please do it. DO IT.

Re: Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

[geekoid]

ah TANJ! he's pwned.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[CarpetShark]

"Tom.." is not a signature. He's been trying to recall his surname for a while now.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you use a percentage first and then a fraction?

And then the word "half".

so did you get rejected for admission?

[peter303]

I did not.

What's the Efficiency?

[Doc Ruby]

The PR only mentions that the process is "efficient", vague without some numbers. 1% efficient is "efficient", but not very. Electrical hydrolysis is already about 50% efficient, though the electrical power generation for it is (usually much) less than 50% efficient. So efficiencies over 25% are interesting, and over 50% are worth getting excited about. What is the actual efficiency of this new process?

This has been done before

[Shompol]

Gorbachev was able to achieve energy savings on unprecedented scale in just one month, by cutting Lithuanian gas consumption by 80%. European and American energy experts have been dispatched to study the technique to replicate the energy saving success at home.

So, let's convert to Communism! Everyone gets equal share of energy. It will be rationed by energy allowances and dispensed to the long queues of energy-starved populace. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Single element?

[bradbury]

This isn't accurate, nor is it new. "Suddenly, I wondered, what if we could assemble materials like the abalone does -- but not be limited to one element?" The problem with this is that abalone isn't limited to a single element. All organisms which produce common shells are dealing with molecules of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Many plankton produce silica shells (SiO2). Some magnetotactic bacteria produce magnetite crystals (Fe3O4). There are ~20 proteins in the human genome involved in manipulating or using selenium (Se) not to mention many more involved in dealing with iron (Fe), copper (Cu) and sulfur (S).

Life has actively used available resources (in terms of ions or molecules) for several billion years. Nor is it new that one could use biological systems to assemble nanoscale parts. That was anticipated in a paper I wrote in 2001 [1] and if one goes back in Drexler's writings the concepts were clear in papers he wrote as early as 1981 (bacteria and eukaryotic cells are nanoscale manufacturing plants -- though not general purpose nanoassemblers). Further the applications for synthetic genomes and nanoscale assembly were seen and incorporated into a business plan as early as 2002 (Robiobotics, LLC). Unfortunately, in terms of fund raising, that was about the same time as the dotcom crash and all the VC's were trying to seek out a rock to hide under.

1. Bradbury, R.J. "Protein Based Assembly of Nanoscale Parts" (2001).
http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/PBAoNP.html

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the luxury of choice

Anything is "possible"

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything is "possible"

It is "possible" that my ass will produce unlimited H2 as well. Not likely, but "possible."

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[c 0xFF]

His surname is "17" ... didn't you look at the user name?

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[tom17]

And what is YOUR surname, Mr c++Ox?

Interesting process but not a hydrogen breakthough

[dtjohnson]

This is an improved method of producing hydrogen from water using a biologically-derived process. Interesting, even great, but hardly the breakthrough that the article says. The major technical hurdle to using hydrogen as an energy source for stationary or mobile sources is the difficulty of economically storing hydrogen for later use. An improved method of hydrogen manufacture (hydrogen is currently produced industrially in very large quantities from methane) while useful, would not overcome the storage hurdle.

Re:Interesting process but not a hydrogen breaktho

[Lehk228]

if you make the hydrogen production cheap enough then the costs of concentrating it don't matter. if a facility can produce enough H to burn/catalyze for energy to drive it's compression systems and still make a profit then the compression being inefficient won't matter so much, and once said facilities are built there there will be much greater incentive to find cheap ways to concentrate the H since it will be a large existing market looking to buy such technology.

It's no Unobtainium, Just Difficultium

[shadowbearer]

  Iridium is much more common in some types of asteroids than it is in the Earth's crust, as it is very dense and most of it has ended up in the mantle. Asteroids aren't generally as differentiated.

  If we need iridium badly enough we can get it. At $13k/kg it's probably not expensive enough for that sort of investment (although iridium would be only one of the elements we could mine) but as it becomes rarer, and demand goes up - there are a lot of other applications - mining it from near earth orbit asteroids could become profitable.

  There are likely to be NEAs with compositions similar to Earth's, as some percentage of them would have formed in the same part of the solar system as Earth did. The metals inside them will be easier to get at than the ones that have cycled into the Earth's mantle...

SB

 

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[mhall119]

Yes, just image the horror of organisms that convert water into it's base parts, and are capable of growing, reproducing and spreading.much

Re:which is better? Drain the oceans!

[aqk]

DRAIN the damn oceans.
They're too salty for drinking or watering crops anyhow.
But first we get rid of all the fish.

Mitsubishi has a big lead on us in this regard: Kill 'em and freeze 'em!
When there's none left, sell 'em to the public.
Hey, Mitsubishi- Thats the idea!
Getcher Tuna now! Soon they will be extinct, like the Cod.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[mjwx]

What happened to Tom's 1 to 16?

Re:Interesting process but not a hydrogen breaktho

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You can find a very effective method of hydrogen storage here.

You can also find a variety of hydrogen vehicles.

What you can't find is a way to get hydrogen cheap enough without CO2 release.

Hydrogen leakage

[robla]

From the Hydrogen economy article on Wikipedia:

There have also been some concerns over possible problems related to hydrogen gas leakage.[50] Molecular hydrogen leaks slowly from most containment vessels. It has been hypothesized that if significant amounts of hydrogen gas (H2) escape, hydrogen gas may, because of ultraviolet radiation, form free radicals (H) in the stratosphere. These free radicals would then be able to act as catalysts for ozone depletion. A large enough increase in stratospheric hydrogen from leaked H2 could exacerbate the depletion process. However, the effect of these leakage problems may not be significant. The amount of hydrogen that leaks today is much lower (by a factor of 10–100) than the estimated 10–20% figure conjectured by some researchers; for example, in Germany, the leakage rate is only 0.1% (less than the natural gas leak rate of 0.7%). At most, such leakage would likely be no more than 1–2% even with widespread hydrogen use, using present technology.[50]
...
[50] ^ a b "Assessing the Future Hydrogen Economy (letters)" (PDF). Science. 10 October 2003. Retrieved 2008-05-09.

The implication there is that even if leakage were a major problem, the gas doesn't escape the planet. Even if it did, and we switched entirely to hydrogen, and consumed 100 times the current rate of energy, I have a hard time believing we'd actually make a dent in the oceans. I'm going to guess that, by volume, the amount of oil that was ever on the planet is pretty trivial compared to the size of the oceans. Unlike what happens to oil when we burn it, most/all of the hydrogen would eventually be converted back into water.

Re:Hydrogen leakage

[Almost-Retired]

Bear in mind that the sources of this info most assuredly do have a dog in this fight. A big enough dog to make them be a little loose with the facts.

Now, since I am not that much of a chemist, I have NDI what free radicals the UV at stratospheric heights might, or might not create. What I do know is that hydrogen is lighter than helium. And I know that helium, once leaked from your kids party balloon, is headed for outer space, never to come back to this planet. This is why, 50 years ago it was considered a strategic war material under total control of the feds. We used it for testing fuel pressure regulators that went into the birds that gave John Glenn his first ride, and it was used to pressurize the ullage volumes of the fuel tanks in all of that generation of birds. In fact, the Atlas tanks had to be kept under enough pressure to prevent collapsing when they were laid down on the trucks for shipment. But for shipment, nitrogen was used as it was the leftovers from almost any air reduction process and cheaper than dirt.

But because helium has such a large expansion ratio, it was the gas of choice once the bird was standing up, and this pressure had to be scaled by the regulators such that there was just enough to keep them from collapsing once the weight of the fuel was added. And of course it was raised considerably when the bird was launched. How much was classified, and may still be.

While I was testing these regulators they had to maintain the correct pressures within a 2 or 3 psi range of what they were programmed for based on the weight of the fuel in the tanks, so they had to be able to raise the pressure quite rapidly when the launch acceleration kicked in.

I was in the office collecting some 12AU7 tubes to repair the strip chart recorder when the driver of one of the helium tank trucks came in and was paid by check made out to the treasury, in the amount of $11,500 for the load he was about to feed into our tanks. That of course was 1960 dollars.

I believe today it is treated as a commercial resource as they have figured out how to recover it easier from wherever they get it. But its still a one time use resource, the leakage is gone forever. I don't see where an even lighter gas, even if its not as chemically inert as helium, isn't also largely lost forever if the gas itself leaks. I also have serious doubts about any claims of .1% leakage. By the minute maybe.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[tom17]

I had to have them killed :(

I did come up with one solution for hydrogen tho..

[drinkypoo]

You could use NASA's sterling engine technology with MDI's articulating connecting rod to burn hydrogen efficiently. It doesn't let you convert existing cars, but it does allow you to utilize existing plants and technologies. Theoretically.