Getting Serious About Fuel Cells 503
electroniceric writes "For those of us who moonlight as politics wonks as well as tech nerds, you may have noticed posts (1,2) in the Washington Monthly's blog pointing to interesting articles about the business community's new take on climate change, world oil supply predictions as well as a fascinating article about lower-cost ethanol together with a new fuel cell technology that can use impure hydrogen. Are we really about to turn a corner in global climate change response? Is this all vapor and breathless journalism about a world-saving new technology, or is it perhaps a brilliant investment strategy? Nobody knows (or claims to know) better than Slashdot..."
Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, why don't more people move back to city and thus not need cars as much? Before electric trolley cars used to be in place of buses. People could walk to work because of how close things used to be. American society has become too suburbanized and this is one of the biggest problems with regards to the fuel problem. Don't complain about fuel problems when you live 25 miles from your job and can't take the train!
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as more high-rises are built, hopefully city living costs will go down... but we can't pack as you suggest, we can't be a bunch of little Tokyo's.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, most of the people moving back have found that new construction is bad. The term "cardboard houses in cornfields" best describes the production line trait of new housing. Before homes used to be build out of stone, bricks, mortar, and plaster walling. The craftsmanship that used to go into a house was at one time immense. The new city dewellers realize this and love living in older homes that have much more character.
Don't forget about public transportation. You almost don't need a car in the city because of buses and trains. Newer cities lack good public transportation systems, but just come to the Northeast and look at the infrastructure that used to maintain the factories.
Living in the city once defined the American way of life. Sadly, we've lost this way of life and sense of community with the old cities' distinct neighborhoods. It seems to be returning with reurbanization, however more people need to realize the benefits and not just think that city life is only about high rise apartments.
If you're interested in this topic, I recommend you read Ray Suarez's book The Old Neighborhood: What We Lost in the Great Suburban Migration, 1966-1999 [amazon.com]. City life isn't as bad as most people make it out to be and I happen to think that it is superior to the disconnected feel of suburban living.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Insightful)
Houses were NOT built better back then. They took more time to slap them together in some cases, but modern engineering means that we know why todays houses stands. Back then they just knew a few things were bad, but didn't have the engineering to say why. They just overbuilt.
I lived in a house made in the 1930s for a short time. Despite having half the square footage of my current modern house, and fuel being half the cost back then, I spent more money on heat in that old house! Modern houses are insulated. I fail to see how spending my money on heat is any better than spending it on fuel for my car. (and as a bonus I have 1 acre of land - my windows don't look into the neighbor's bathroom anymore)
Yes a house is made out of cardboard, because cardboard is plenty strong in the direction strength is needed, while it lets the house breathe. If you put modern insulation in an old house, that old house would rot away quickly.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
But there are a huge differences.
The first, and most important is, once you are done with your mortage payments, you don't have to make any more. Not only that, but you OWN something very valuable. Not so in big cities... You rent your aparment, which is like a mo
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to live in Muenster, Germany, a city of 300k, and had no problem getting from day to day just by bike. There was also viable public transport, of course. And it's nice city too. I enjoyed living there a lot.
Now I live in Durham, NC, USA, a city of 200k, and you can't get anywhere by bike (no bike lanes), the public transport is not really an option, and I have to drive around by car. No choice.
Suburbia and the dependence on cars in urban area are a choice a society makes. It's not a law of nature.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
Comparisons with Europe doesn't work. Their populations are either static or declining, so they don't have to invest heavily in new infrastructure, only maintenance.
Re: Meanwhile, in the city ...Exploding Metropolis (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the South of England is getting to feel rather crowded just now. With the "White Flight" taking place from London, David Blunkett seems to think that the UK can easily absorb 100,000 immigrants/year from third world countries. Meanwhile, none of the Scottish natives can afford a house/apart
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:3, Insightful)
You also have to think of the COST of living in suburbia: maintaining a car, maintaining your own house, maintaining a yard, driving long distances to do anything.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:3, Insightful)
It just seems odd to me how high housing prices and rents are, and there don't seem to be any new high-density housing developments going up.
Could it be that the money-lenders are the same people who really own the existing property (mortgage lenders)?
Just an idea, if the mortgage lenders and the financiers for new housing were the same people it would make sense for them to NOT build high-density housing and maintain this rea
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:4, Insightful)
As to the second thing, I'm a suburbanite and will probably moving to another suburb of another city by the end of the year. The reasons to live in a suburb are next to endless so I won't even bother. Electric trolley cars were killed off by political pressure from the Auto industry. That and Americans love cars. That aside, you've missed the point with the trolleys I think. An electric trolley still uses electricity. How is that electricity produced? The difference between powering electric trolleys and natural gas buses is probably not that great. And even if we had the trolleys convincing people to use public transportation around here is comically difficult.
Now if you were talking about why people need to drive their urban assualt humvee 2 gallons per mile SUVs around instead of something that gets sensible fuel economy, that I'd support.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
As for diesel, look up biodiesel. The whole point of the diesel engine was to originally not even need petroleum. Only an abundance of oil has caused us to become reliant on it.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Interesting)
Andrew
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Insightful)
That works right at this moment. But as soon as you add new valuable uses for both new and used vegetable oil, its value and its price will increase.
Places with used oil will start selling it, and producers of new oil will start producing fuel-grade oil. Until the overall amount of oil production is increased, its price will be pushed up. Everything using vegetable oil will cost more. Eventually vegetable oil production will increase, but at what cost? More fertilizer (made from petroleum?)? Less land used for food crops (raising price of food)? An equilibrium will eventually be found, but even then, the price for vegetable oil will be higher.
Even in economics, you can't get something for nothing.
The long term question becomes "is it better to burn vegetable oil for fuel when compared to petroleum?" One advantage is that the carbon released into the atmosphere from burning was only recently trapped out of the atmosphere (where petroleum was trapped millions of years ago).
One should also ask if there are more efficient ways to take today's sunlight and turn it into locomtion?
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
And trains get worse gas-mileage, as do airplanes. Shall we ban them?
No, the big difference is that an RV has to do much more work than a Humvee. There is a reason why an RV has to use up so much gas, and in addition, an RV isn't something you use regularly to cruise around town, etc.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they, on a per passenger basis? I doubt it. If you fly 300 persons Montreal-Mexico vs have say 200 cars driving the distance, which will polute more? Trains are meant to be efficient. Rail reduce ground friction and because the wagons follow each other, air friction is also reduced. On a per weight basis, they are more efficient.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
Also there are succesful programs on going which clean both diesel and coal (not perfect, but progress).
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:3, Interesting)
I live about 500 miles from "my job". Actually, I have several, one of which is about 2024 miles from me. (a la MapQuest) See, I telecommute via the Internet. I can (and do) work anywhere, via any broadband 'net connection, from the Starbucks T-Mobile to some wifi hotspot in a residential area. So, I don't commute at all, though I tend to travel a lot.
But, I live in an area where you *could* do without a car,
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:3, Funny)
Since you seem to be one of those who like to go "it is neither A nor B, it is C", I would categorize you as neither part of the solution nor part of the problem. Instead, you are part of the smug.
Cheers,
e.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:2)
a. Diesel exhaust causes asthma attacks.
b. Diesel engines are hard to start in winter.
Apart from that, diesel is great and delivers better mileage than hybrid cars.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no diesel equivalent for the catalitic converter. So diesel is inherently more polluting.
In addition, there has been studies that have found the ultra-fine particles exhausted by diesel engines causes cancer. Not something we want more of.
But on a much simpler level, people don't drive diesel cars because you can't find inexpensive diesel cars in the US.
That's much more dramatic than your first suggestion. You'd just as well ask why people don't ride bikes all the time, or start drilling for oil in the national oil reserves.
The fact is, people don't want to live in the city, and for very good reason. Even if the cost of gasoline was tremendous, you'd see people doing extreme things to be able to afford it, but you'd rarely see people moving from the suburbs to the city.
Personally, I would go on a shooting spree with a fully automatic weapon if I was forced to live in a tiny apartment. I'd go crazy even in a huge appartment, if I was always packed like a sardine with tons of other people. If you like living in the city, good for you, but a hamster wheel just doesn't do it for me.
I don't think transportation hasn't changed where people live, all that much, it's just changed the jobs they can take. Instead of farming, people in rural areas may drive several miles every day to a high-tech job. If they couldn't do that, they'd be farmers, or something else which doesn't require living in a city.
I don't think taking a train is much of an option for most people. I'd have to walk 10 miles to get to the nearest train station anyhow.
Mass transit would have to be incredibly advanced to be an option for even a small minority of people... and it's not even close. Even if they had infinite money, it's questionable if they could be all things to all people... stopping very close to everyone's destinations, while not taking too long to get people where they need to go, and never having to wait more than say, 10 minutes at a station. It's just a fact of life that people don't all want to go to the same place, at the same time.
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I happen to like cars quite a bit, but I also see the value of city life. I don't advocate forcing people riding bikes everywhere either. Let's just look at simple logistics. You have to drive many miles to get to a store in the suburbs. You could walk, take public transportation, or drive a short distance to the same store in the city. The thing is that driving in the city is not a necessity, it can be done if you want to or not.
And about moving to the city, you don't seem to understand what city life is all about. City life isn't about living in Manhattan on the 50th floor of a high rise appartment. City life isn't about what you watch on TV or in movies. Most people who live in cities either live in apartments, row homes, doubles, or singles. One size doesn't fit all. No one forces you to live in any one kind too! You can live with your half acre of ground or you can live on a street with nothing more than a sidewalk or you could even live on a street with both. I know it seems like a bizarre idea since most people only know what they see on TV. The fact is that housing is incredibly diverse in most cities, especially ones in the Northeast. Just find your neighborhood and you'll be happy.
As for the whole train option, you seem to miss the point. Mass transit helps to lessen pollution because of economies of scale. If you get your electricity from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, etc. power, electric trollies are an excellent option. Riding a bus, subway, or train can lessening traffic and take advantage of having one engine power 40 people instead of 40 engines. The whole point of mass transit is that if you have a place you go everyday, like work, then you take the same bus, train, trolley, or subway everyday. You'd then have a car when you want to get somewhere on your own time. You could even take your car to work everyday and this is more desirable because the drive would probably be shorter.
I'm not saying everyone needs to ride bikes and take public transportation. I'm just saying that if more people lived closer to where they work or could easily take public transportation to where they work, then the need for fuels goes down greatly. If more people could easily walk places instead of being forced to drive, the need for fuels go down. My whole point is that people need choices. Choices don't exist when you live out in the middle of the suburbs and have to have a car to get anywhere.
the hydrogen economy, jeremy rifkin (Score:3, Informative)
It turns out that we are nearing that peak now, and since oil use is increa
Re:Meanwhile, in the city... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Well, quite simply, using biodiesel not only are you saving money and the environment, but you boost the economy via the agriculture industry!
From what I hear they are using it a lot in the midwest states, but I really would like to see some mainstream biodiesel technology.
Fuel cells, meh, they have their place. But accident safety with a hydrogen bomb under your hood is an interesting diversion from the subject in itself...
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
You've been watching too many movies.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.ballard.com/be_informed/about_bal l ard/n ews/2004/08/09/mcormack-27_0408091634-676
The resulting explosion and fire closed buildings and evacuated businesses for a 1km radius for almost a full 24 hours.
Is this ready to be on every street corner? In every garage?
I have no doubt that the safety issues will be solved, I'm simply pointing out that we've got a long way to go and the consequences may be sev
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Informative)
If it had helium instead of hydrogen, it still would have gone up in flames.
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be interesting if the greenhouse effect could really do what people think it will. Essentially it will be mother nature looking around "All I see is death, time to reboot".
Would be nice to find clean energy though. Honestly I vote we dump nasa and focus on making
Carbon cycle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Carbon cycle (Score:2)
The only difference is you have to keep creating life in order to use your fuel, where as oil you just need a pump. But I dont believe that oil creates any more carbon per energy then biodiesel. So instead of growing corn, proccessing it and burning it we could just create the same amount of corn, use it for something else, and burn the equivilent amount of oil. But I think we would come up with some serious resource issues trying to grow en
Re:Carbon cycle (Score:2)
Oil on the other hand is sequestered underground and when we use it we take from the ground and put it in the air
This is not a cycle but a one way trip
So a recap: Burning something that is mined takes things from under the ground and puts some of it in the air: Bad
Burning things that are grown takes things from the air and puts them back in the air.Not Perfect, but better
All is clear?
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
Do you mean carbon dioxide? [wikipedia.org]
-jim
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
It's essentially recycled carbon, though - you're burning carbon which was collected by the plants during their recent growing cycle, versus releasing carbon stored in fossil-fuel deposits which are millions of years old.
If you can keep growing the plants that you're using to create the biodiesel fast enough, then you can have a sustainable carbon cycle.
I'm a little more interested in the "thermal refining" (I think that's what it's called) process that a company is devel
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
I just think its smarter to grow something that eats the carbon and use it for something other then burning. We already have alot of burnable fuel.
Right now biodiesel is expensive. I would suggest you skip the refinement. Get waste vegtable oil from your local resturant and run from that. This wont work for everyone, not even I eat enough
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
Actually, it's the conversion from chemical energy to mechanical energy that's inefficient - engines waste most of their energy producing heat. Generators, I believe, are pretty efficient. If you can convert straight from chemical energy to electrical energy with a fuel cell [wikipedia.org], you can bypass the inefficient engine, and if necessary, produce mechanical ene
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, at least in the US the central power plants generally use coal rather than oil, which is at least a domestically produced resource. (At the moment I'm more concerned about the fa
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
but I have to agree with you: it's not in cars...yet.
Thermodynamic analysis of biodiesel.. (Score:2)
Second: I am skeptical of both biodiesel and ethanol from argiculture. I do not believe either produces a net energy gain once ALL factors of production have been accounted for - this includes gas for the equipment to harvest, energy used in processing and refining, oil and energy used in the creation of fertilizers, etc etc etc ad nauseam. Biodiesel lowers the amount of waste i
Re:Thermodynamic analysis of biodiesel.. (Score:3, Informative)
Guess what? Nothing in the universe produces a net gain. It's all just a matter of converting evergy from one form to another. The only real question is, are any of the forms of energy we are using in the process, going to have serious health or environmental effects?
Re:Thermodynamic analysis of biodiesel.. (Score:2)
What brilliant insight! This got modded informative?
Relative to MY current existance, the big puddle of flaming goo in the middle east I can (or used to be able to) scoop up with a bucket sure is an energy gain. Roughly 10 or 8 barrels of oil gained for every one you spend sucking it out of the ground. It's the collected energy from millions of years of solar output, all stored up for humanit
Re:Thermodynamic analysis of biodiesel.. (Score:2)
And until I read this article a couple days ago, I thought that was the whole story. Well, the article linked at the bottom of the #1 link is all about celluloid ethanol. This is produced from corn stalks, which are agricultural waste. It also suggest a plant known as switchgrass, which can be farmed in desert locales unsuitable for food crops.
It also presents a new way to ex
Do your research before making things up (Score:2)
plenty of links to read [journeytoforever.org] In short, ethanol is getting better. At one time (early 80s) ethanol was energy negative, but currently ethanol is energy positive. One link also claims that gasoline is not energy positive!
None of this account for other uses that can be taken from corn before and after ethanol is made. Biodiesel can be made from corn, without much effect on ethanol production (corn oil doesn't convert to ethanol easily) corn to biodiesel alone has been estimated as high as 4 times as much e
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
The (sub)products of fuel cell reaction => ???
Answer: electricity, water
I don't know abut Biodiesel, but to my eyes fuel cell is much safer a power source than nuclear reaction. I wonder if there will be any use of fuel cell for household, to ease our dependency to distributed electricity generated by nuclear reaction.
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
Re:Why Fuel Cells? (Score:2)
A good deal. I can't seem to find any thorough studies to reference righ now, but for a rough idea - if all of the US farmers grew biodiesel crops inplace of what they are growing now, we could replace 50% of the US oil usage, and the agriculture industry account for anywhere near 50% of the petroleum use, so it does indeed produce far more energy than
Turn a corner (Score:5, Funny)
What about ethanol? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about ethanol? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are better techniques being developed, that would allow the use of the corn stalks, husks, etc rather than the grain a
Re:What about ethanol? (Score:2)
Seems to be the buy-line for the oil industry, with very little legitimate research behind it... Just a few scientists, possibly paid-off (ever heard of "Think Tanks"? do you know what that really means?) saying this.
Ethanol from corn (Score:2)
I see ethanol more as a replacement for MTBE than as a pure fuel, personally, as opposed to biodiesel, which works muc
A revolution in fuel consumption? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuel is not a source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuel is not a source (Score:2)
Quite correct. Hydrogen is a means of safely storing and transporting energy that has been produced from renewable sources. For example, you can produce hydrogen from solar energy in desert regions and then transport it to industrialized nations.
But the previous poster brought up Biodiesel which is far more mature and cost effective for the state of the world econo
Re:Fuel is not a source (Score:2)
Re:Fuel is not a source (Score:2)
Re:Fuel is not a source (Score:3, Informative)
Ranging a bit further afield, parts of the Namibian coast are equally arid.
Re:Fuel is not a source (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing in the air hydrogen will react with is oxygen, giving water. Hydrogen is non-poisonous. And while it is flammable and explosive, it is far less of a risk than most other fuels (among other things because it is lighter than air). An accident like the Exxon Valdez with hydrogen would have no impact on the environment.
I know that Ford is working on using hydroge
Re:Fuel is not a source (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of Hydrogen is that it provides a convenient storage format for energy which can then be produced in large quantities at central generation facilities. This is very advantageous, as energy production benefits from scale. Moreover, centralized generation means that it's easy to upgrade to new, cleaner, more efficient production technologies, as we only have to upgr
What have you been smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please keep the science fiction your read separate from the universe you live in. I'm finding it difficult to parse your buzzwords, but it sounds like you think fuels cells will offer a tremendously lower impact on the environment. Sorry, that's not how it works.
I don't have to be a fuel cell chemist to understand that the energy doesn't come for free. While hydrogen is certainly less polluting than other fuels, it still takes more energy to place that hydrogen in your hands than the energy you're going to get out of it. Sheesh, Newton didn't know anything at all about cracking hydrogen and even he knew that!
Your convenient energy is going to cause pollution of some kind (smog, chemical or nuclear waste, etc). It might be less pollution, but it won't be enough to cause a "global climate change response". And it will probably result in a redirection of otherwise productive efforts, such as growing crops for ethanol instead of for food. Even cracking hydrogen via hydroelectic energy is still going mean damming up an awful lot of rivers, with an unknown effect on the weather. Oh, and there's also waste heat on both the production and consumption side of the equation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against fuel cells. They sound extremely convenient, and I'll probably be one of the first customers. But don't imagine that it's going to solve all of our global climate problems. The only way to do that is to reduce our total energy consumption.
Re:What have you been smoking? (Score:2)
Oh, but it does... This big spinning sphere we live on is not a perfectly insulated box, with nothing inside it but the machines we are using. The fact is, this planet has had forces which use energy, and output waste and pollution long before we set foot on it. This planet has magical little things called plants that are able to convert many of our waste products into other forms. The only problem today is that
Re:What have you been smoking? (Score:2)
I think a man called Newton might have an issue with that. I was not implying that the incredibly complex world was merely a zero-sum game. Rather I was asserting the fact that no technology is without consequences.
Re:What have you been smoking? (Score:2)
water levels were to rise 18 feet, then lots people will be affect. This rise will not be so slow that you can't discern, or so fast that it will drown people. Rather, In general, low lying areas of the world will see more flooding, and property WILL be destroyed.
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
fuel cells do work (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, pure hydrogen is hard/expensive to produce. but the next generation of fuel cells can use methane (or ethanol) for a source of fuel. ie, plug the fuel cell into the back end of a cow- suddenly wisconsin will be known for more than it's cheese.
for some reason, some are thinking fuel cells are going to replace gasoline engines in vechicles. well, ok. but what you really want to do is replace all the coal and oil burning power plants w/ fuel cells. so instead of acid rain and tons of greenhouse gases, you get H2O out, which you could use to water crops or drink. given that China seems to be building coal burning power plants as fast as they can, doesn't that sound like a good idea?
ok, fine, i might be biased. i am working on the next design of fuel cells (in particular solid oxide fuel cells- SOFC). but, still, the sooner we get to a place where producing energy is less harmful to the planet, i think we should. hell, we must.
other options (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the dull stuff that is easiest implemented. And reduction is the best way of adding more energy to the pie.
Fluorescent incandescents.
Wind power will not save us, and some birds will die, but from Oklahoma to Saskatchewan, quite cost effective means of supplementing. Yeah, the wind doesn't always blow, but then so Manitoba lost $436 million last year due to low water levels (hydro), the rains do returns as does the wind.
As far as solar, one of the easiest and most effective routes is for heating water. This should have happened in Arizona, southern California, etc. years ago. No, you don't have to do it all by solar, but you require a much smaller water heater that is used less often.
My friends off the grid via photovoltaics (over 10 years now) designed their houses - cabins to need as little electricity as possible. However photovolatiacs is tailor made to topping off banks of 12 volt batteries in third world countries for cell phones, computers, refrigerator (dc refrigerator). That is more where technology adding in a tiny bit more efficiency and lowering cost to manufacture could really have a big input.
You still have to store the hydrogen for fuel cells.
And you still have to figure out what you are going to run your tractors on and the energy sources for the fertilizer (lots of electricity to take N out of the air), farming chemicals, etc.
It isn't the flashy things that are going to do it. It is a lot of people doing dull things.
shalom,
mark
Hydrogen misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's stop beating around the bush: the only technology we have today that does not produce carbon and comes anywhere close to supplying Terra's present-day energy needs is good old nuclear [mit.edu]. Or, nucular in the parlance of our current administration. Wind, water and/or solar simply don't. I think we need to bite the bullet, recognize this fact, and start building. The nuclear stigma is very unfortunate given the stakes of the global warming game we're playing. The fact is it can be done cheaply and safely, and few bad eggs seem to have spoiled the bunch... unless you have complete idiots at the helm, living in the proximity of a modern, well-managed nuclear power plant is probably a lot, lot safer than strapping into a rickety box of sheet metal and hurtling yourself down the freeway to work every morning in the presence of countless other drivers about whose skills and preoccupations you know nothing.
The depressing sticking point is that with a $100 billion, Manhattan-style research project we could probably get something like fusion power [bbc.co.uk] off the ground, thus solving our energy and pollution woes for basically forever.
By the way, that's about the same amount of money as we will be spending in Iraq in the coming years to ensure our oil supply and with it our ability to pump astronomical quantities of carbon into the air for the foreseeable future. Gallingly ironic.
Re:Hydrogen misses the point (Score:3, Insightful)
ethanol and fuel cells [washingtonmonthly.com]
One major point of the article is that is inefficient to carry around hydrogen as a gas, so carry it around as ethanol, which can yield 4 or 5 hydrogen molecules per molecule of ethanol. Its also easier to transport and store than gaseous hydrogen.
Now, producing that ethanol has been a net negative fuel using corn. However, the newer technology is to use the waste products and not the corn fruit. This is c
Re:Hydrogen misses the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because a tiny oilfired engine in a car can be as efficent and clean as a massive coal/oil/gas fired power station. Not ot mention reducing concentrated polution in cities
Re:Hydrogen misses the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Fusion is very easy. It's fusion that produces more energy than it uses up that is not easy.
However, the ITER [iter.org] people seem to think commercially viable fusion is not only possible, but realisable within a few decades.
The total cost for the ITER project is valued at 5 billion dollars, only a part of which is paid for by the US.
I think 100 billion dollars would make a big difference. ITER needs to be railroad
safe hydrogen option? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://hydrogenfuel.tripod.com/ . This man has managed to run a regular diesel engine on hydrogen in a completely safe manner, and there is enough evidence. Just that the big oil cartels wont let anything come up. I have pesonally seen this work, and give out only water vapour from the exhaust.
The man is very open and does not hold back details, and he holds patents for the valves that he holds. He is also pretty much an environmentalist, so maybe other/.s will take to asking him direct que
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Now, the article's a little pie-in-the-sky, but it gives and overview of some interesting new breakthroughs. First, is the economic production of ethanol from the wasted part of the corn crops, namely stalks. Second, the possiblity of farming other, more ethanol-friendly crops like switchgrass, which can be grown on land not useful for food crops. Third, is a new and cheap device capable of extracting the hydrogen molecules from ethanol, even ethanol with a bit of water, so it doesn't have to be as pure as is found in today's gasoline mixtures.
I'd say the final breakthrough isn't about science, its about being realistic. There are drawbacks to these other technologies, namely they still produce carbon-dioxide and carbon-monoxide. They're not pollution-free, but possibly their less polluting than what we currently have available. The last breakthrough is about accepting the
very good even if its not the best. That's an important point.
Taken together, these breakthroughs are a bit aways from the market, but proper investments would help them come about sooner. I'm not sure I see why the ethanol lobbies should object as they could still get the money and sell the corn, too.
1800's hydrogen economy: Water gas from coal (Score:5, Informative)
C(s) + H20 = H2 + CO
The process for making gas from coal dates back to the late 1700's and early 1800's, but was gradually abandoned by the 1940's and 1950's as more and more natural gas wells were being drilled and pipelines were constructed across the country.
If a method of removing the carbon monoxide from water gas could be devised, hydrogen could then be made in vast amounts the way it used to be in the 1800's, except this time for use in fuel cells rather than in street lamps.
economics at work (Score:4, Insightful)
The oil price is so high because so many growing economies want access to energy.
Fuel scarcity is suddenly making cleaner alternatives economical, and once economies of scale kick in for them we won't be going back.
Demonstrating nicely once again that all the malthusians were (and are) full of crap.
We're not going to run out of things if we have flexible markets.
Look at the big picture (CO2 and government $)... (Score:3, Insightful)
-You have my vote that this IS journalism about a NEW technology, not necessarily one that is world-saving at all. If anything, it is a step toward something that is all electric, but we are far from it without a major crisis.
-The agricultural and biochemical processes to produce Ethanol or Ethyl Alcohol (CH3-CH2-OH or C2H5OH) from Maize (you call it Corn) is not too clean nor environmentally perfect. Sure it does not require oil refineries, but there is significant production of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)in ways not immediately apparent.
-For example, growing corn produces lots of waste (cornstalks, etc..) that rots and releases CO2 and/or methane. The fermentation of the carbohydrates (sugars) in corm by yeasts produces carbon dioxide as well. Additionally, Corn is a C4 metabolism plant and it requires significant irrigation for maximum yields, and irrigation requires the burning of fuels either at the electric plant or rurally to pump out an aquifer to water the crops. Fuels are also needed for the large tractors, combines, and other equipment used to grow the crop. Another important consideration is the significant government subsidies given to grow corn in the US. The market is artificial and controlled, fluctuating with the weather (crop yields), whether a Democrat or Republican votes to adjust the already high corn subsidies (at taxpayer expense), and there is added manpower, use of significant agricultural land for fuel production, etc..
-With modern Oil/Gas production the COSTS are not as high to yield fuels of sufficient energy density (as in how many BTU a gallon of liquid fuel contains..) After all, we are all burning (oxidation) ~something~ to release energy whether it induces electron flow in a fuel cell or releases high pressure gases pushing a turbine or piston to do work. Think about the point. Alcohol fuel cells are really cool, yes. Bet let's not thing this in any case solves the CO2 or wasted resources issues. If it were Hydrogen (H2) produced from electrolysis (electric current through water yielding Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2) [2(H2O) + electricity = 2(H2) + 1(02)]), and that electricity was from a solar, nuclear, or hydroelectric generation station, then I would say that the use of that Hydrogen in a fuel cell solves much of the CO2 emissions and reduces dependence on oil.
But, the use of ANY alcohol means that there is Carbon present in the fuel and you will either produce CO (carbon monoxide) or CO2. The US Space Shuttle uses a pure Hydrogen - Oxygen Fuel Cell yielding only electricity, heat, and water as by products. ANY fuel cell that uses any Carbon in its FUEL other than Oxygen and pure Hydrogen, will release CO or CO2.
-In another example, what original starting material do you think was used to make all of those little plastic keys on your keyboard (and nearly any plastics we use today)... that's right, they are made from hydrocarbons (mainly natural gas)?
Imagine the world without fossil fuels realizing that everything plastic is from fossil fuel as well as diesel and gas... They are here to say.
Besides, we are getting close to time for another Ice Age onset, some added CO2 may push that back a few centuries. -Zymergy
Re:Look at the big picture (CO2 and government $). (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil Non-independence (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. oil production is only declining because we have stopped looking and stopped drilling domestically over environmental concerns. Of course it may be our best interest not to drill now and save it for later, the oil deposits are not going anywhere. However, we need to explore how much oil we have now so that we know when best to start extracting. All of the recoverable oil on the planet will eventually be extracted. And if we don't buy Mid-east oil now, someone else will, and terrorism will still be fully funded. And it's probably best that we buy Mid-east oil. We have a real army and are the only country strong enough to get out of bed with the devil when the appropriate time comes.
Scientific advancement will most likely eventually end our oil dependence. There is no shortage of scientists working on the problem, the economic benefit to finding better energy than fossil fuel is enormous. But I don't think that any scientist who wants be a big hero and benefit from solving the world's oil problem is going to want to hear "You're not paying your fair share", "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" if they succeed.
Re:Oil Non-independence (Score:3, Informative)
Are [truthout.org] you [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net] sure [peakoil.net] ?
Re:Oil Non-independence (Score:3, Informative)
Build your own (Score:3, Interesting)
I've just been glancing through it. Looks good. It's certainly big - over 300 pages. And for $12, you can't really go wrong. Some damned serious work has gone into it.
For those interested in the technology, this is a great way to become more acquainted with it, and if your first project works out well, you can always build a whole stack of them and link them together.
The PDF I bought talks a little about using solar cells for electrolysis of water to charge the cells, and the site I bought it from also has another PDF book that specialises in this ( using solar panels ).
And for those thinking about buying it and uploading to to P2P - please don't. The asking price is very fair, and we really should support people doing cool stuff like this and making such a good product available to us for such a small price. Be nice
No, it's all about energy consumption per capita. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, CO2 emissions *are* high, but then again oceanic absorbtion of CO2 is double what people have been predicting / expecting, and you'll find fuck all comment or investigation into that fact in the meedja, interesting when you are talking about by far the single largest CO2 absorbtion system on the planet.
The other thing everyone forgets is "recent human history" eg "the last hundred years" = "fuck all" on a global timescale.... or do you propose that the MASSIVE global warming at the end of the last ice age was caused by mammoths driving around in CFC leaving 25 litre V16 cars?
There are hippo bones buried in and around the Thames in the London area, something again caused that climate change, and it wasn't the hippos creating an extended nuclear winter.
You driving a biodiesel harley or a itchyfanny fuel cell smart car isn't going to alter sunspot activity.
No, the real issues here is per capita energy consumption, and per capita energy efficiency and per capita energy by products.
There is quite simply only one way forwards for the human race, and it is this.
In the short term, for the next 50 years, MASSIVE investment in traditional nuke plants to vastly increase electricity production.
Just as a huge proportion of Abu Dhabi's (United Arab Emirates) energy budget has gone for 30+ years into desalination of water to turn AD from a dusty desert town into a green and verdant city (human consumption of desalinated water is minute compared to the amounts used to water everything daily) then huge proportions of this future nuclear capacity will need to be used to recharge traditional traction type lead acid cells, crack water into hydrogen for new fuel cells, and power tram style over head power cables for urban heavies stuff.
In the meantime everyone needs to make a JFK style "do in within ten years, that's an order" style push to commercially viable fusion plants.
From the inidivdual's point of view we can reduce energy consumption (and therefore all the by-products of energy use) by running lighter and lower performance vehicles, ceiling fans instead of air-con in hot climates, reverse air-con instead of simple radiant electrical resistors in colder climates, and generally look at the overall efficiency of everything we use...
Simply switching all urban one person in a vehicle journeys to little 150 mpg (must be 4 stroke motors though) scooter would have a huge positive overall benefit, of which the total fuel saved would be only a small part, but you aren't going to get this or anything else when the total media output is pumping out the message that your big performance vehicle is a symbol of the size of your genitals.
And that brings us to the real problem, and it is by definition a greater problem in countries with a higher per capita energy use, so the US is the top of the pile.
The real problem is the profit motive inextricably bound to every joule of energy you use... there is no problem with there being a profit motive in there, but when the profit motive becomes the single over-riding force you have severe problems.
_EVERYTHING_ is geared to making you a larger net consumer of energy next year than this, because more energy = more product shifted = more profit.
In europe we have issues similar to these, but nowhere near as bad as america, which is literally a society built around the concept of universally available personal transport, the car is god, many americans simply do not have the option to live even as I do, motorcycle only, because the motorcycle will not carry the shopping etc etc etc, plus of course I can simply leave the bike parked, and walk the mile and half in the the centre of town, get my shopping and if I'm lazy get the (overpriced and expensive) every 15 minutes bus back for 3 bucks.
Americans (and I mean the United states, not south americans etc) like to
Going beyond polution. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, there is the economic reasons. Unless you are in a country that is a petro exporter, you have a financial reason. Why make some country overseas rich when you can grow your own fuel and keep the money in country? Any country that buys more than it sells from other countries is giving it's wealth away. Spending the money closer to home makes your economy better.
Second, there is the issue of security. If a counrty depends on imported energy, they are at the mercy of the countries that they import it from. A cartel of these exporting nations carries heavy political clout. They can in a sense control a much larger country by manipulating their production.
Third, By using agricultural products as feedstock, we are making the agricultural industry healthier and more profitable. In most first world nations, the agricultural industry has been hit hard. Many farms have failed and a "way of life" is in jepordy. What this means is that there is less diversity in that area of business which actually weakens it and makes it even more susecptible to grand scale failure.
We are at a place in our history where it appears practical to start moving away from a petro based economy (which when you think about it us what we really have today). We have successfully proven that E85 cars and trucks can and do work. Our governments can now safely mandate that internal combustion engines that run on E85 be built into all new cars and that all diesel engines be capable of burning "bio-diesel." If this is mandated, you can bet fuel producers will provide the traveling public with the fuel. Frankly, this would be less invasive than the switch to unleaded was in the 70's.
To do this in the United States, we will need a progressive leader who is not tied to the traditional oil-interests.
Think for a minute how much stronger our economy would be if we made our own fuel. Then think about how much more secure we would be if we did not have to import the lions share of our petro from oil exporting nations.
It is pretty obvious to me that this is something that needs to be started now. It will take perhaps twenty years to complete but the results will be worth it!
Re:This will be stopped.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This will be stopped.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This will be stopped.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reactive politics and reactive media (Score:2)
Re:Some advice (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but distribution IS PEAKED! (Score:3, Insightful)
2. you cant double the oil tankers to transport the stuff, it takes time/money and steel to build another 1000 oil tankers
3. china is increasing its energy use 15% up each year, its going to need another 5000% more if everyone just buys 1 more light bulb, thats 1.2billion lightbulbs dude. 15% increase in demand each year with 0% inrease in supply is equal to 15% decrease each year.
4. human price/labor
Echo Chamber Logic (was Re:abiotic oil) (Score:3, Interesting)
Two of your websites refer to the kooky "studies", from the oil experts of the world: modern russia!
Wanna invest in empty, poor, russian steppes!? SURE YOU DO!
Read the nice article, American. Ignore the lack of Russian development of said oil for the last 50-80 years (which would easily have fixed many of their huge energy woes). Digging deeper was what they were good at! Someone's apparently selling us sheep oil.
Abiotic oil is not possible from imagi
Re:Solar + Ocean Water = fuel (Score:3, Informative)