NASA Reports Vast Hydrogen Reserves in Earth's Crust 822
Garin writes: "The Vancouver Sun is reporting that NASA scientists have discovered vast quantities of hydrogen stored in the Earth's crust while they were trying to explain the presence of living bacteria. Could this be the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil? I hope so."
Hydrogen mining! (Score:3, Insightful)
Kintanon
we'll have hydrogen power... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt about that. But the current powerful oil companies would not be very excited about that unless they could ensure that THEY would be the powerful hydrogen companies as well.
mark
End of Oil Dependence? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Could it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kintanon
1,000 liters per m³ of rock... (Score:5, Insightful)
This basically means that any particular volume of rock contains its own volume (at atmospheric pressume, presumably) in hydrogen. Unfortunately, that really isn't that much. It takes much more energy than that to extract and presumably, crush 1 m of rock. The article states this, too.
The article somewhat confusingly states The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined. Hydrogen is in fact the most energy-rich chemical fuel, per unit weight, in existence, the problem is that at the concentrations they're talking about, this won't be solving any problems any time soon, unless they find these things trapped. Not that unlike drilling for natural gas.
What might be a lot more promising is that some scientists have been working on bioengineering algae to produce hydrogen when deprived of sunlight. This basically amounts to a very cheap form of solar energy: grow algae in ponds, then pump them into a bioreactor where they produce hydrogen. Leave them in for a few days, then before they start to die off pump them back out. A lot cheaper than refined silicon covering all that area...
The Economy Crude Oil (Score:5, Insightful)
the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil
I guess I'll bite.
The problem with the dependence of oil isn't an alternative means. Someone has pointed/will point out that we have many alternative energy sources. Instead oil as a means of energy is dominant because it is cheap.
The world's energy infrastructure is based on using crude oil. There are oil power plants, oil refineries, gasoline engines, etc. Oil is simply cheaper to use. Companies spend billions of dollars researching new drill sites, lobbying Congress, etc. to maintain oil production because it is cheaper than investing in alternative energy sources; i.e. solar, nuclear.
Now what if this limitless source of Hydrogen comes on-line? What if we start using it instead of drilling for crude oil? At some point, the demand for oil begins to decline. Seeing as there is still a supply of oil (a diminishing supply, but still a supply) the price of oil will go down. Eventually, oil will be cheaper to use, and begin to rise in demand. A happy medium will be reached where crude oil drilling and this new hydrogen production will co-exist.
Admitidly, at this point there will no longer be a complete depedence on oil, but I would argue that we (the globe) are not as dependent as the media makes us out to seem. Alternative energies exist, but simply cost more. If we are willing to bear higher costs, we can reduce our oil dependence today.
As I see it the world's dependence on oil will not diminish with new energy sources. At least not until that source is so incredably inexpensive that it will replace all other energy supplies. Or all crude oil supplies run dry. Perhaps the correct question is not: will hydrogen reduce our oil dependence? But will this new hydrogen supply produce limitless inexpensive energy, so inexpensive that all other means of energy are outpriced?
There are economic challenges to recovery (Score:5, Insightful)
"The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined."
Any petroleum geologist would tell you that there is oodles of available oil in the ground, but it is unprofitable to recover it. That is, it cost more to get it than it would be worth on the market. Obviously, the same economies would apply to recovering the hydrogen trapped in the rock. The profits have to be available to make the business work
Also, the article says:
"Energy specialists estimate that oil production will start to decline within the next 10 to 15 years, as the economically viable reserves start to run out."
The key word here is "economically viable". Think for a moment, what would happen if oil supplies started running low because of a lack of profitable reserves? Demand for oil is pretty inelastic (not dependant on price), so the price would almost assuredly go up, just as when supplies are cut short for other reasons, like an OPEC quota. As the price of oil goes up, reserves that cost more to extract will now be profitable. We'll still have oil, but it will just be more expensive.
This is why the estimates for the amount of recoverable petroleum reserve are SO varied. When you hear doomsday predictions of running out of oil supply, remember these effects of supply and demand on price and profitability.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the rising CO2 levels at all, and I don't think fossil fuels are a sustainable energy source. I just think that clear-eyed skepticism is more productive than knee-jerk idealism.
energy scientists not getting economics (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a well written paragraph from an Economics point of view. What will happen is once the easier to tap reserves run out, production will shift to the harder to tap reserves. More likely than not, that'll lead to technology that'll make those reserves just as economically viable as the current ones now. Therefore, at worst, we may see a price rise, but I would be surprised to see a decline in production.
Dependence on oil (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm quite well aware that the auto industry is dragging their feet, even on simply making more efficient use of oil fuels. But a car-maker conspiracy isn't the biggest obstacle to widespread adoption of hydrogen fuels...
...it's the fact that there are something like a billion (yes, that's completely a guess; the specific fact is irrelevant to my point) cars already in existence which run on petrol.
Even if every auto manufacturer in the world announced that, beginning tomorrow, they would completely cease production of gas-powered vehicles and sell nothing but hydrogen cars, what do you think would happen? Are you going to run right out and buy a brand-new car? Or convert yours to run on hydrogen?
Where are you going to get said hydrogen? How much time and money do you think it would require to build a hydrogen-fuel distribution infrastructure?
Ideas like hydrogen fuel, and "automatic refill" pint glasses, sound so cool except in the real world.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
<digression>
Instead of calling it "radiation" maybe we should call it "Patriot Power Rays" or "Atomic Nature Juice". Maybe we're just marketing it wrong, since everyone associates nukes with things like hysterical movies starring Hanoi Jane, or Chernobyl, which was poorly-maintained, obsolete technology run by a bunch of guys with eyebrows like caterpillars and atrocious taste in winter hats who are always calling each other "Comrade" in the hours-long bread lines. Stop thinking "Gamma World" and start thinking "The Jetsons". Hooray!
</digression>
The only reason we will ever switch from oil is either because we run out, or we develop something cheaper. From reading the article, it sounds to me like drilling down two miles or so and processing huge quantities of rock to release the hydrogen sounds a lot harder and more expensive than drilling for oil, regardless of how much there is.
I'm still waiting for a "Mr. Fusion" for my car so I can go 1000 miles on two banana peels and a quarter cup of coffee grounds.
Environmental Flamebait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What idiot thought this up (Score:2, Insightful)
Advice to Americans: your weight and measurement "system" doesn't make sense with modern physics. You don't know the different between a quantity and a volume, a force and a mass and whatnot. Cost you a martian probe already. When will you finally get this straight ?
Re:How bout ethanol? (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you look at most newer Fords, you'll see an extra badge on the car that signifies a flexible fuel vehicle, which can take up to a 15% ethanol concentration.
we have plenty of hydrogen! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the inavailability of H2 that has lead to our oil dependence.
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:4, Insightful)
One good thing about burning hydrocarbons is that it produces CO2. Yeah, yeah, global warming etc, but if we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere then it is good for the living things that need CO2 to live--plants. There is already some evidence that higher CO2 levels are causing increased crop yields. Here's one reference [epa.gov] that Google brought up. The plants will produce oxygen in return, and life will be good again. So even if we convert to Hydrogen for cars, maybe we'll keep a few dozen coal and oil power plants in service to produce CO2 for our friends the plants.
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh, never use common sense economics when a conspiracy will do.
Did it ever occur to you that energy company X might just want to one-up their competition by tapping these new resources? Why keep drilling new oil wells (and maybe increase your market share by 1 or 2%) when you can possible drill new wells and open up an entirely new market?
This is known as Capitalism, my friend. It's a beautiful thing.
Re:Could it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US really cared about being strategically strong (presuming that the administration wasn't in the oil company's pockets) they would impose a large tax (with proceeds going to alternative energy research) based upon energy efficiency, or rather lack thereof, in vehicles.
Sidenote: I was recently urged to buy a minivan because "What about when you go camping in the summer? You'll need the space!" : That in a nutshell defined why most people have inappropriately sized vehicles for daily commutes and runs to the supermarket -> For that once every two year event where they actually might need it. RENT SOMETHING FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I'm a big fan of rentals, and for a low cost you can have the larger vehicle for the period that you need it, going back to a more efficient configuration when you're done.
Re:Could it be? (Score:2, Insightful)
> > would allow it...
>
> Do you not think that there would just
> be a new group of powerful companies
> selling hydrogen instead?
Exactly. It comes down to whether they think of themselves as OIL companies or ENERGY companies. This could be a huge opportunity for them.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know how much energy it takes to make a solar panel?
I'm afraid I don't know, though I'd be surprised if a single 100W solar panel exceeded the 3.65 Megawatt-Hours it can generate over the course of its service life.
They are energy carriers, because it takes more energy to produce them than you get from burning them.
That's because the production energy for crop based fuels includes all that solar energy lavished on them for months. The available solar radiation is approximately 1.4 kW/m^2 [hypertextbook.com]. Spread that over a 2 month (for sake of argument) crop with about 8 hours a day of energy and a single square meter of crop took in 672kWH of energy. BP [bpsolar.com], a manufacturer of solar cells, cites figures that show that 1.4kW/m^2 figure is for solar radiation outside the earth's atmosphere, and puts the available solar radiation at about 1 kW/m^2 at sea level, meaning the same crop took 480kWH to grow.I'd also like to note that, with the same calculation, a theoretical 100% efficiency solar panel of 8m^2 (or about 9'x9') could power a large house with air conditioning and have room to spare. (alternative energy advocates frequently point to how great their house is because it uses so little energy, but they also fail to mention that air conditioning is the first thing to go since it is such an energy hog. I prefer to compare to the current average homeowner's situation, for a more realistic picture) That's calculated as 1.0kW*5H*30days*8m^2=1200kWH/month assuming only 5 hours/day since a fixed solar panel isn't always exposing a 100% cross section to the sun.
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
We're supposed to be running a free society. The theory is that we explain things to people, and they decide what to do. We explain that we feel that gas is too important to waste, and people (perhaps) agree with us and use it carefully. Or maybe they don't, but that's because they're free adults, and they don't have to agree with anybody, not even the Forces of Truth and Justice.
If it's really urgent, then be up front about it. Ration gas, if you think the situation warrants it and the public will stand for it. But rationing through taxation is a horrible idea -- it creates the impression that taxation is arbitrary, certainly encouraging tax evasion ("Oh, they don't need the money -- they're just using taxes to manipulate you!"), it creates a government dependance on the very thing that they're supposed to be discouraging (how much has gambling increased in the US since states found it such a lucrative thing and started actively encouraging it? What would they do if gas tax revenues rose for several years and then fell?), and it's simply dishonest. If you feel it necessary to be the nation's parent, then be an honest parent -- don't let people buy their way out of the rules.
Once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
It wont.
As long as there is oil left in the ground the large multinational corporations and every single oil mogul will not let this happen. There are plenty of good and efficient ways to replace the use of oil right now. Not gonna happen; the billionaires will never ease up on selling oil until there isn't an extractable drop left anywhere. Even then, they'll probably synthesize it themselves, strongarm the energy concerns, and sell it at incredibly high prices.
But hey, I'll be long dead before then. Until that day, screw em, I'm walking.
Re:Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
ah, very good. I'm glad to finally see a poster with a clue.
However the nuclear waste isn't much of a problem, not really. The fractions that are highly dangerous (cobalt-60, strontium-90, etc...) have short half lives, around 30 years. So these really only need to be worried about for a hundred years or so and then they'll be cool enough that they won't cause major problems. The actinides (Thorium, plutonium, etc...) are the ones everyone always bitches about, and yes they do have half lives of around 25,000 years or so. Very long, but they're not that intensely radioactive. Consequently they're not such a problem. And even so, they can generally be put back into nuclear reactors and burned again, no problem. This is known as reprocessing, and should we do it our stash of nuclear waste becomes about 1% of it's current size.
What people always complain about is something like "What if someone takes plutonium from a reactor....." What's he going to do? Run in with a coffee mug and fill it up? What if someone steals nuclear waste? Nuclear waste is its own best defense. No simple terrorist could steal it, especially not if it's fresh (under a year or so) out of a reactor. As long as we transport it within a year or so of pulling it out of the reactor nobody can get close enough to it to steal any. And after that, it's at a single secure site, separated, and the fuel is sent back out and dumped right back into the reactors. The remainder is highly radioactive, so once again nobody can get close to it, and it's buried for all time.
Think of it this way. Lets imagine we do use reprocessing and breeder reactors. In that case, the nuclear waste we have now (including depleted uranium) could produce enough energy to last us for about 400 years, as a guess (using 10x as much as we averaged from 1960 - present, it would last 10x as long as we have 100x as much fuel in the nuclear waste as we have already used). By the time that 400 years is up, most of the waste will have decayed (mostly 30 year half lives or so) and the rest won't be much of a problem.
Tyler