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
Re:Hydrogen mining! (Score:2, Funny)
Worse than that! (Score:3)
Re:Hydrogen mining! (Score:5, Interesting)
Dig a tunnel from NY to LA to enclose a near-sonic speed underground maglev train. The idea was dismissed 25 years ago as being too big due to digging the tunnel needed, but with the experience of the Chunnel under our belt, and the prospect of harvesting billions of litres of Hydrogen from the rock mined out of the tunnel, it might now be more economical.
If you didn't go to this extreme, you have to relize that we already mine millions of tons of rock in precious metal mines and just to produce gravel. If this crushing was done in a machine that captured the hydrogen trapped in the rock, no additional mining might be needed, just new crushing and extraction machines.
we'll have hydrogen power... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:5, Funny)
But wait until we've been burning hydrogen-powered cars for a thousand years, locking up all of the atmospheric oxygen in water. People will be gasping for air at sea level, and the 'dead zone' on mountains (which the oxygen level is too low to support human life) will include cities like Denver and Mexico City.
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:2)
Please explain how burning hydrogen is substantially worse than burning hydrocarbons for using up oxygen. You HAVE been thru a high school chemistry course, no?
Burning Hydrogen:
H2 + O2 --> H20
Burning Hydrocarbons:
CxHy + O2 --> CO2 + H20
(and no i don't feel like balancing the equations)
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:2)
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:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:4, Interesting)
Plants liberate O2 during photosynthesis. [maricopa.edu]
In fact, the single biggest and most important biological and geological change in Earth's history was probably when plants first began to spew oxygen which, at the time, must have been HIGHLY TOXIC to most life forms. Prior to that time, almost everything on Earth was in an (electrochemically) reduced state. Over some geological period of time, everything converted to an oxidized state. Most organisms must have become extinct or relegated to marginal environments when this happened.
However, eventually a new class of organisms arose which was able to take advantage of the new, oxygenated environment with the use of aerobic respiration. The rest, as they say, is history.
MM
--
It was a joke! (Score:3, Redundant)
What?! (Score:2)
In all seriousness, though, I think the extra water would pretty much end up in the ocean and not significantly encourage plant growth (unlike increased supplies of available carbon). Neither would the reduction in free oxygen, that I can see. There's no guarantee that the ecosystem will naturally balance a sufficiently huge influx of some active element in a way that doesn't kill some of the more sophisticated and sensitive forms of life (such as mammals).
We'd have to burn an awful lot of the stuff to make a difference, but who knows? Maybe it will be worrisome in a thousand years, and we'll have to start actively breaking down some carbonate rock to balance things out.
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:2)
Re:Oxygen crisis in 3000 (Score:3, Interesting)
If the primary product of combustion is CO2, you are OK becasue CO2 is a natural part of the carbon cycle--trees and phytoplankton turn it back into O2. So, as long as there are enough photosynthesizing organisms to complete the cycle, you can release all the CO2 you want.
I agree with the OP that H2 is another matter. Release twice the number of H atoms as there are O atoms, it all becomes water, and the only way to get the O2 back is by electrolysis or some other man-made process. As far as I know, there are no eletrolytic organisms or other natural process to get the O2 back, so we are screwed.
Of course there must be some natural process that liberates O2, otherwise the whole carbon cycle wouldn't have gotten set up in the first place. However, that O2 was probably liberated over a long period.
If we go to a H2 based fuel economy, perhaps we will need to have some kind of accounting for oxygen production. In other words, no license to produce H2 fuel unless you also release O2. This would be no problem for traditional H2 producers which (as far as I know) are using electrolysis and presumably putting O2 back into the system. It would only be a problem for "fossil H2" producers, who would have to find an O2 source.
Back to biology class! (Score:3, Informative)
Photosynthesis takes CO2, H2O, and sunlight to produce carbohydrates.
However, new CO2 goes into the air, spreads out more or less evenly, and its precious carbon becomes available to plants around the world. So carbon balances itself pretty quickly, and you have to really work at releasing it faster than plants can suck it up. New H2O vapor mostly falls in the ocean (or winds up there, eventually), where there's plenty of the stuff already, and doesn't promote new plant growth. So there's not much reason to believe that hydrogen will balance itself out naturally.
Thermal inversions (Score:3, Interesting)
We still have those inversions (and "no burn days"), but the bad smog was largely eliminated as newer, cleaner cars replaced the older fleet. Unfortunately we still have a stupid oxygenated fuels program in the winter months, and pollution levels are rising again (but still below Federal guidelines) due to large number of people who moved into Denver and insisted on big SUVs for the "lifestyle" nonsense.
1000 Litres....in Your Dreams (Score:2, Funny)
When asked what this could possibly mean, Dr. Freud said that it meant that he secretly wishes to engage in sexual relations with his mother.
Wow, Thank goodness! (Score:2)
(Yes, I know it's more costly to derive [H] from other molecules than to recover from the earth and store for immediate use. It's called "vain attempt at humor.")
I doubt it can reduce dependence on petroleum (Score:2)
I haven't read the linked article yet, as it appears to be /.-ed. So my comments are made in more than just the usual bit of ignorance.
Article text (Score:5, Informative)
LONDON -- Scientists have discovered vast quantities of hydrogen gas, widely regarded as the most promising alternative to today's dwindling stocks of fossil fuels, lying beneath the Earth's crust.
The discovery has stunned energy experts, who believe that it could provide virtually limitless supplies of clean fuel for cars, homes and industry.
Governments across the world are urgently seeking ways of switching from conventional energy sources such as coal, gas and nuclear power to cleaner, safer alternatives.
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.
Hydrogen gas has been hailed as the ultimate clean fuel, as it produces only water when burned. Until now, however, moves to switch to a "hydrogen economy" have been dogged by the cost of making the gas. The two most common ways -- extraction from natural gas and sea water -- are expensive and create environmental problems.
Now scientists at the American space agency Nasa have found that the Earth's crust is a vast natural reservoir of hydrogen which has become trapped in ancient rocks.
The team made its discovery while trying to explain how bacteria live many miles below the Earth's surface. Such bugs have no access to sunlight, forcing them to rely on another source of energy for life. Scientists suspected that hydrogen was the source.
According to Professor Friedemann Freund and colleagues at Nasa's Ames Research Center in California, the gas is produced when water molecules trapped inside molten rock break down to release hydrogen.
"In the top 20 kilometres of the Earth's crust, the conditions are right to produce a nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrogen," said Professor Freund.
Studies by the team of common rock types such as granite and olivine have revealed extraordinarily high levels of trapped hydrogen. Professor Freund said that his team had "tantalizing evidence" that as much as 1,000 litres of hydrogen may be trapped in each cubic metre of rock.
Although formidable engineering problems remain to be overcome in abstracting the gas, the sheer volume of the Earth's crust means that such a high concentration would solve the world's energy problems.
"Everyone thinks of gas and oil as the main sources, and it's very difficult to get anyone to take alternatives seriously," said Dr. David Elliott, the professor of technology policy at the Open University in London. "The possibility of vast reserves of hydrogen in the Earth's crust could change that mindset."
The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined.
Professor Freund believes that the extraction and crushing of rock to extract the trapped hydrogen is likely to be prohibitively expensive. The reaction which creates the gas takes place at depths far below those involved in oil extraction, which are typically about two miles down.
The most promising source of the hydrogen may be geological "traps" similar to those now drilled for natural gas. Professor Freund said: "One of these natural hydrogen fields is already known to exist in North America, and extends from Canada to Kansas."
stop the oil use? no (Score:3, Interesting)
Forcing huge and multiple industries to completely re-tool for a new fuel source will first cause gigantic resistance. The oil companies will scream no way, the car companies will scream no way, and finally the consumer will scream no-way-in-hell!
Why the consumer screaming? simple.. GM,Ford,Toyota,etc... will intentionally hike prices even higher due to the "forced changes" making you $17,000 budget sedan cost $36,000 and the stupid SUV's costs soar even higher..
it wont happen, not in our lifetimes, and possibly not in our grandchildrens lifetimes.
Re:stop the oil use? no (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:stop the oil use? no (Score:2)
a change to Hydrogen as an automotive fuel will make 6 dollar a gallon gasoline look cheap... and again the consumer will scream no-way.
A real budget vehicle is $17K. and vehicles that should be bought by most (honda Insight and the other super green cars) cost insane prices ($32K for the insight and more for the GM offering)
The corperations are not interested at all in any change from diry/nasty/super inefficient oil fuel cars... otherwise they'd make the green cars affordable.. and start switching the entire lines of vehicles to green-er offerings.
so again...It will never happen.
Re:stop the oil use? no (Score:2)
Re:stop the oil use? no (Score:2)
Minivans are passenger vehicles, if you carry a lot of passengers they are a good investment. They also tend to get better gas mileage than SUVs. SUVs are 'Sport Utility Vehicles' so you get a vehicle that kind of looks like a cross between a truck and a van, but also stuffed full of luxury crap and with worse gase mileage than both.
And you don't have to be driving a Scooter or a Yugo to have an efficient vehicle. The new Volkswagen Beetle gets 50mpg and has enoug room in it to carry 5 people, or 2 people and a whole bunch of stuff. SUVs are an uneccesary, unsightly, blight on the landscape. And SUV drivers had damn well better not be complaining that I choose to walk. I'm trying to make up for their gas guzzling lazy asses so those pathetic whiny entitlement minded me-me-me children they are hauling around will still be able to breathe without a gasmask when they grow up.
Kintanon
Re:stop the oil use? no (Score:2)
Bullshit. The car companies are working on hydrogen powered cars, both with fuel cell technology and internal combustion engines. BMW is pursuing the latter approach.
Re:stop the oil use? no (Score:2)
Do not think for a minute that any large industry in the US would act responsible.
How bout ethanol? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:How bout ethanol? (Score:3, Interesting)
I still don't understand why the government isn't looking into this (and corn) as a means to produce energy, it would be in everyone's best interest, and losing our reliance on middle east countries for oil seems like a pretty good idea now, considering all the crap going on over there lately.
Re:How bout ethanol? (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? Support for this, please? (Farmers having trouble making their loan payments or going bankrupt I might believe...)
I mean, if they really couldn't eat, they could, I dunno, consume some edible plants. If only there were some way farmers might have access to those...
Re:How bout ethanol? (Score:2)
beware! (Score:2, Funny)
Any extraction of this 'hydrogen' should be persued with caution. Especially if this so called 'hydrogen' is in the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide form!
Consider some of it's effects and the consider the whole cover-up and conspiracy [dhmo.org] surround dihydrogen monoxide!
Please, for the children's sake, reconsider!
Instead of rocks, use traps. (Score:5, Funny)
So instead of crushing rocks to extract the Hydrogen, we can just pump it up like we do with oil. As an aside, we can pump in CO2 which is much heavier than H2 and solve the worlds CO2 [slashdot.org] problems as well!
Yeah! No more oil dependency! (Score:3, Funny)
We'll just convert the 200 million cars in the country to hydrogen by Friday
It's like being in a Microsoft-free world, it's possible, it will just take time.
What idiot thought this up (Score:2, Interesting)
2nd problem. Isnt 1000 liters exactly equal to the volume of one cubic meter? So where is all the granite?
I am in Vancouver literally across the street from the Vancouver Sun. Nobody reads it for a reason....
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 ?
Yes but... (Score:2)
Right. (Score:5, Funny)
I can think [exxonmobil.com] of many [bpamoco.com] reasons [chevrontexaco.com] why it won't [congress.gov].
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.
How to get the hydrogen... (Score:2)
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?
The Catch (Score:2)
You knew there had to be one.
Down in the article...
Although formidable engineering problems remain to be overcome in abstracting the gas...
At least the hydrogen is only trapped physically and not chemically. For a while I was afraid they were going to say you could get all the hydrogen you wanted if you were willing to chemically decompose water.
If you have to pulverize a cubic meter of rock in a vacuum to get 1000 liters of hydrogen at STP, then you still have a ways to go to compete with conventional processes that rely on getting it from natural gas.
I don't know if in-situ pulverization would even help enough in terms of the economics.
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.
Somebody mod this guy up.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Too many people get confused. If you have 100J of energy, and it takes 150J of energy to pump a liter of oil out of the ground, even if I give you a million dollars for that liter, you can't get it out of the ground. Unless, perhaps, I give it to you in paper money that you can burn to get the extra energy. See the problem?
If this hydrogen can be extracted at a net energy profit, and there's as much as they say there might be, I'll start worrying about retirement savings again.
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.
News Flash (Score:3, Funny)
In other news (Score:2)
New wars (Score:2)
Moreover to you think Dick and W. will lets us mine hydrogen? I doubt they have any money invested in the resource
Deep Hydrogen and Extraterrestrial Life Forms (Score:3, Interesting)
As noted in this press release [nasa.gov], similar hydrogen-consuming microbes may some day be discovered on Mars.
And if we ever did figure out a way of "mining" this trapped hydrogen, there would be a way to fill up your tank if you went planet hopping :)
Environmental Flamebait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhhh.. (Score:2)
Call me crazy, but, isn't 3/4ths of the Earth's surface covered with stuff that can be easilly converted to clean-burning hydrogen and oxygen?
I definitely think the big H is the way to go. Petroleum is a stinky industrial-age relic that costs too much money to purify into something useful. To make matters worse, its non-renewable, and synthetic replacements are too expensive to produce.
Solar --> Electical --> Decomposition of seawater --> Hydrogen. Whats so hard about it?
Cheers,
1000 litres per M3? (Score:2, Interesting)
That doesn't leave much room for the rock...
Depends who owns the hydrogen (Score:2)
Greed will eventually settle in. I'm sure lots of legislation would be passed by our corporate controlled government to make sure that the WTO and Free-Trade agreements put us in full control.
Wells on fire (Score:2, Interesting)
Just to assuage public opinion, they'll have to drill far away from public places. That runs up the cost of packaging and transporting the hydrogen, making it tough to do this as "economically" as oil drilling today. (OK, nobody counts all the costs of oil drilling, e.g. smog control in all those cars, higher healthcare costs, etc.)
Another possibility would be to put electrical generation next to the H2 mines and take advantage of the electrical distribution grid.
Maybe we'll see H2 fuel when the oil supplies have dwindled far enough to force a look at alternative sources. Maybe.
we have plenty of hydrogen! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the inavailability of H2 that has lead to our oil dependence.
Key word: RENEWABLE (Score:2)
Nitpicking details (Score:4, Interesting)
There's probably hundreds of times the earth's mass of methane in Jupiter, but that doesn't make it a viable energy source.
Detail #2: Water is a potent greenhouse gas.
Any New Englander knows that it's usually a good twenty degrees warmer in the winter when you have a good cloud cover. Of course, burning gasoline generates water too, so it's a win as a gasoline replacement. However, it is not an energy source that is limitless in the sense it can be used in any amount with no consequences.
Who cares? Hydrogen is a sucky fuel anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
a) its energy density is pitiful (about 1/14 IRC of gasoline, so you'd have to have a tank 14x bigger)
b) its best stored in liquified form for maximum energy density (liquid hydrogen needs incredibly high insulation values, and tends to freeze things solid, or condenses oxygen- trust me, either is very bad, and its density still sucks- check out the Space Shuttle main tank, its enormous!)
c) alternatively you store it in a pressurised tank. Pressurised tanks are heavy as heck. Or you can use a rare earth catalyst to store it in. However, the overall weight is about the same if you do so, TOO HIGH. So big deal.
d) Hydrogen can go bang (in an enclosed space the explosion can be awesome). Sure, gasoline does that too. However hydogen leaks out much more easily.
e) Hydrogen embrittles many kinds of metals, once that has occured the metal fails catastrophically.
f) Hydrogen escapes from just about any container; the molecule is just too small to keep in in most cases; still you can control it in most cases, but it's awkward.
All in all, hydrogen is at best a waste of space and at worst a waste of time. Yeah, so it doesn't make any CO2. So what? We've got this handy recycling system called plants. Please go out and grow some, so I can carry on burning my hydrocarbons
more about oil dependence (Score:3, Informative)
According to Oilcrisis.com [oilcrisis.com], when we hit the point (within the first quarter of this century) that we need to switch over to an alternative energy source, it will be too late. Our infrastructure depends on oil, and switching every motor vehicle, truck, airplane, cargo ship, and train to an alternative energy source will be a massive endeavor. Perhaps impossible to perform without the support of the infrastructure itself.
I would like to encourage everyone to support alternative energy before this point. We can't afford to wait until it is cheap.
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.
I Think That This is a Hoax... (no, really!) (Score:3, Informative)
As much as 1000 liters of Hydrogen gas may be stored in each cubic meter of rock!
Wow!
Let me see now... 1ml = 1cc
100^3 cc = 1m^3
10^6 cc = 1m^3
1L = 1000ml = 1000cc = 10^3cc
(10^6 cc/m^3)*(1L/10^3cc) = 10^3L/m^3
= 1000L/m^3
Gee, either that's some REALLY HEAVY hydrogen or som REALLY LIGHT rock!
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you not think that there would just be a new group of powerful companies selling hydrogen instead?
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
Re:Could it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kintanon
Re:Could it be? (Score:2)
And you just think the hydrogen will jump out of the ground when we tell it to? IF there are truly large pockets of free hydrogen in geologic traps, it has to be gotten by drilling. Who has the equipment, the experience, the distribution networks, and most of all, the money to drill? The oil companies. They'll be the only ones able to exploit the resource.
The article was very light on on details, but indicated that any such reserves would be very deep. And if it requires drilling through granite, you'll be wearing out cutting bits quickly. To drill and complete one of these wells will easily run into the multi-millions of dollars.
Re:Could it be? (Score:4, Interesting)
Offtopic, but there's something that's been bothering me for wa while: Perpetually the US Administration talks about reducing the dependence on foreign oil, promoting the opening up of the Alaskan Wildlife Refuges for drilling, and basically writing a blank environmental cheque for oil companies to sign. All of this is done under the pretense of being patriotic by reducing the countries strategic vulnerabilities (namely having a primary energy source externally controlled). Yet this is the same administration (I'm not talking about one particular party, or even one make-up of politicians, but I mean government momentum on a whole) that continually refuses to enforce basic fuel efficiency (NOT conservation. There's a difference between conservation and efficiency) directives. I don't have the metrics (nor have I ever looked), but the highways are full of grossly inefficient vehicles (not just large vehicles, either, but additionally inefficient small vehicles. The Chevrolet Cavalier is some ~25% less efficient than most comparably sized competitors). If people want to feel patriotic, they should forsake getting that new Expedition and buy themselves a Dodge Neon or a Toyota Corolla : You're doing a great service to your country.
Re:Could it be? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Funny)
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:3, Informative)
They do (well, I'm not sure it goes to alternative energy research, but the tax exists). This is why those ultra souped up sports cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Below a certain fuel efficiency level, there's something like a 100% tax. The problem is, if you eliminate the bottom half of vehicles in fuel efficiency, then the 25%-50% group will become the new bottom half. There will always be vehicles that seem fuel inefficient compared to their bretheren.
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.
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like Saturn was the American manufacturer you should have mentioned for fuel economy.
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if there was enough hydrogen to power our cars around, there is a problem with using hydrogen in cars. The gas must be stored under tremendous pressure which creates a bit of a predicament in terms of crash safety. This is the same reason that we aren't using natural gas or propane in cars (both of which have advantages over gasoline).
I suppose that you could use the hydrogen to power power plants which could in turn charge the batteries on electric vehicles but then we are limited by battery technology which is still lacking in terms of energy density (too heavy!) and rechargability (takes too long).
It would be really nice to see the average gas station converted into a potential energy station. Cars could drive in like they do today, but instead of refuelling with the conventional method, the station could load up the car's flywheel with rotational energy that could be converted to electricty as needed. With the advent of the CVT [jsonline.com], the flywheel could even power the car directly for a more efficient use of the rotational energy.
In this respect, it doesn't matter *how* the energy is ultimately obtained as long as the "filling station" can convert it to rotational energy to be stored in the car's flywheel.
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a fan of flywheels too, but there are some serious safety issues with them. If one breaks up (as it might in a crash), the kinetic energy of the flying shapnel is pretty nasty.
Re:..the next thing you know (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, a tank of gasoline probably has as much destructive force, but the potential to release it all at once is much, much smaller. Liquid gasoline won't even burn, and has a much higher vapor pressure. A bottle of compressed anything has a ton of potential energy, which is going to be released very quickly as soon as the containment unit is compromised. At that point, it will return back into the gaseous state, which only requires a small amount of energy to start a very large chain combustion reaction.
Is gasoline safe? No, it's fairly dangerous, but it's safe enough that we allow Joe Sixpack to go down to the Texaco and fill his car without any supervision, and in some places, without any vapor recovery. Even if a tank of gasoline catches fire, you still have plenty of time to escape from the area. It's only when you have a large area filled with gasoline vapor that it becomes extremely dangerous. That takes at least several minutes with gasoline, but only a few seconds with compressed gas.
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:5, Informative)
Economics. Oil is cheaper to use than any of those. Solar, Wind and Nuclear require big capital investments up front and provide electrical energy which can't be stored without a big drop in efficiency. Oil and hydrogen, depending on how difficult it will be to mine it, don't have this problem.
Are you sure? Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. If we've found a large, easily tapped reserve, this is a good thing, I think.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:2)
Within a certain definition of "easily" when said definition includes hauling up megatons of rubble from two miles below the earth's crust and somehow extracting the hydrogen.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:2)
Solar power: cells are expensive, relatively inefficient, and are not suited for all locations.
Wind power: ?? this is used where its effective, but again, not always on, you need _lots_ of mills or huge ones to get anything useful?
Nuclear power: considering that they are gunna start burying waste below mountains in nevada, isn't this somewhat self explainitory? nuclear power is great, but anything that makes garbage always comes back to haunt us, especially if that garbage is pretty dangerous.
And none of these three energy collection/production methods is suitable for the 'on the go' purposes of the car (except maybe solar I guess).
I think the unbquity with which hydrogen could be used is it's big selling point. Anywhere, anytime; and I'd imagine lots of things could be retrofitted to use hydrogen much easier than the alternatives?
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.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
And never be late again, either, with the flux capacitor under the hood.
Politics (Score:2)
Re:Politics (Score:4, Informative)
How many people have been killed mining for coal?
They are orders of magnitude in difference yet no one is screaming to stop coal mining, which would save many more lives.
Modern nuclear power plants (unlike wheezy old vintage 1950's Russian Nukinators with big chrome tail fins) have so many protections against runaway reactions its not funny. The only real issues with nuclear power in the U.S. are heat pollution (_not_ radiation) in nearby water and what to do with the waste.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:2)
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:2)
Wind power: Wind poweris a viable supplementary energy source. Have you crossed California coast ranges recently, or visited Palm Springs? Wind power is being developed there on a massive scale. Farmers in other places are finding that it makes a good supplemental "crop", for example when combined with cattle. The loss of productive acreage for the towers and access roads is readily paid for by the power generated.
Nuclear: limitations are currently political. Got a bad rap from current generations of reactor designs which require complex, active sytems to prevent runaway reaction. Newer designs are far superior. Despite their antiquated designs, western reactors have a pretty good safety record if you factor in the deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution.
The place where you see alternatives the most now is in electricity generation. This is because the energy forms are converted into a fungible form (electricity) which is easily distributed. The electricity you use is generated from oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, and hydropower. If fossil fuel plants were magically replaced tomorrow with nuclear, the consumer would never notice.
Energy for transportation is a much tougher problem, because the distribution and end-use is much more tightly coupled to the source of the energy. Converting other energy sources into gasoline would be too inefficient to be practical. The existing distribution system is in place, paid for, and gasoline has a pretty good energy density. For that reason the first practical electric cars are hybrids that run on gasoline.
Re:Dependence on WHAT? (Score:2)
Alternatives don't work. Solar power, you make me laugh. Do you know how much energy it takes to make a solar panel? Do you know how nasty to the environment semiconductor manufacturing is? Are you aware of how inefficient solar power is? You'd need solar panel area near 100 times the land mass of the United States to come close to meeting the energy demands. That's assuming the panel doesn't take more energy to make than it produces!
Windmills are the same problem. You need too many of them all over the landscape to have any benefit. Small scale? Sure. Large scale oil replacement? You are living in a dreamworld. Before you call me a freak, bush supporter, bunny-killing lunatic, or any other choice names the environmental lobby uses instead of numbers, look up some of your own. Hydrogen, biodiesel, and ethanol are not energy sources. They are energy carriers, because it takes more energy to produce them than you get from burning them. If there were huge hydrogen reserves under the earth, that would change.
There are two alternatives: Fission and Fusion, and people would rather burn up oil instead of finding ways to make nuclear power safe, or investigate safe nuclear power (Witness the flames to the cold fusion article awhile here on slashdot, of all places). Nothing else has the energy density.
Huge hydrogen deposits in the earth might be evidence of a higher power, because it will pull our bacon out of the fire. do some research [dieoff.org] as to the state of the world's petrochemical reserves. Like I said in a previous article, Global Warming won't mean much in a few years, because the oil won't be economically viable any more. Uh-oh!
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:Oil as a lubricant... (Score:2)
Re:Oil as a lubricant... (Score:2)
While there may be advantages to using alternatives (as referenced by other responses), from and economic or environmental standpoint, it's just a drop in the ocean compared to fuel usage.
Re:Calling for social responsibility! (Score:2)
Re:Calling for social responsibility! (Score:2)
Your point being?
Re:Hydrogen Car (Score:2)
Re:Theres more to our oil dependance than just fue (Score:2)
Re:How vast is vast? (Score:2)