hydrogen

[low_delta]

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are supposed to be cleaner than fossil fuel powered cars. The only byproduct of burning hydrogen is water [oops, the hydrogen is not burned]. President Bush says that such cars will "make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

But he's also developed a plan for producing the hydrogen. Using fossil fuels. It's obvious that oil profits come before the environment (and always have), but where is the energy independence?

And whether it makes sense to create the hydrogen using oil or not, Bush is lying to us. Our air will not be cleaner, and this will do nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Article at Mother Jones.

Comments

[fishcart.livejournal.com]

yeah, the only way to really farm the hydrogen to help the environment is through solar power. if we could just increase the efficiency a percentage or two it will be cost productive. maybe if we start the production using fossil fuels, when solar power becomes more efficient, we can convert fossil to alternative energy easily and we will be depending on hydrogen at the right time.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

The hydrogen industry would be just the kick that the solar technology industry needs to push development over that hump.

[fishcart.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm thinking. It's a better move now if the cards play right for the future. What would be really nice though is if the efficiency was increased for any power plant. But it seems as though the power plants expire before the extra efficiency can be paid off.

It takes sacrafice for the Earth to heal now, but the long term benefits of the actions required will not be seen by those who do them. But as well it seems as though we are becoming closer by the power to a dry dune, but I don't have the numbers on me.

I am actually happy that gas prices are high. I wish that Earth harming fuels were pricey, where is that tax that rids the environment of the damage? Wouldn't it be cool if the economy changed in that direction? I love change! :D

[dwivian]

Central production of hydrogen from fossil fuel, while not optimally efficient, IS much cleaner on the air than independent engines, if for no other reason than the production plants can employ significant scrubbers before the air is released. Mother Jones always seems to skip over that, because it is an inconvenient fact. :)

But, all fossil fuel is, is bottled solar power. Everything outside of geothermal and nuclear is solar, eventually. So, it seems that we should be able to work through the middleman process until we can make direct hydrogen from solar seperation processes.... It's just got to be reasonably efficient.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

The alternative to using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen is renewable sources such as solar. So I think the problem with that article is that they're making it sound like the oil companies are preventing the development of cleaner energy. They're not, exactly, they're just filling a void. But by doing so, they're removing some incentive for the development of renewable sources. Not that they should be blamed for acting in their self-interest, but the DOE doesn't call for a single ounce of hydrogen to come from sun or wind sources. They should be mandating development.

[dwivian]

Current science is floating the idea that fossil fuels are renewable...

Yah, weird, but just something for you to think about.

I'm all for solar, but currently the creation of solar energy equipment requires more energy than will EVER be created. And wind farms, while seemingly cheap and easy, often cause problems for migratory birds, etc. And, to protect the birds by putting cages around the blades creates enough vortices that the energy loss is significant....

Still, the first internal combustion engines sucked, too, and every year we get better and better, so I'm all for science that works to create better solar cells, better wind displacement systems, tidal energy systems, etc.

Something to point out, though... there are no OIL companies. There are ENERGY companies that specialize in oil. I have friends in R&D for Shell that are working to make sure that Shell continues into the future when oil isn't a viable product. They aren't going to die just because we bottom out the wells, you know. They have a vested interest, a self-interest if you will, to work for development of renewable resources that keep them around forever, pumping energy and making money. We don't need the DoE to cause that kind of research. If Shell never had to buy another barrel of oil from overseas to meet their consumer demand, they'd be just ducky, you know?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

the creation of solar energy equipment requires more energy than will EVER be created.

Could you give more explanation of this?

I'm having enough trouble considering minerals as renewable (reclaimable from landfills), how the heck would you get more oil/fuels?

I certainly have no trouble the "oil" industry execs are smart enough to plan for the future, but I wonder how comitted they are, given the peer pressure created by their competitors to turn a profit.

[dwivian]

The process to create a photo-electric generation system requires intense amounts of engineering, processing, etc. Systems engineering studies have shown that the creation of the cells have an absolute minimum energy expenditure during machining, and their lifetime and decay rate calculation for perfect sunshine at maximum exposure generates less than that value over the lifetime of the product. This is a problem that is being researched heavily, as electrical energy companies would LOVE to ditch coal and just buy massive arrays of generation cells, but so far the cost outweighs the potential value.

As to oil -- there is a theory that shows that methane, which is not only generated during decay of plant material but also is created from compresion of carbon and hydrogen naturally, can be condensed into higher-complexity hydrocarbons. This theory was developed to explain why 'empty' wells are spontaneously filling back up, from the BOTTOM.

Here's a report that will put you to sleep but describes the general effects: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: [...]The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum. This study says that, if we can figure out why there his hydrogen, carbon, and methane at depths of 100km, that's where oil could be created by pressure and temperature. 100km down, of course, is into the mantle, just under the plate boundary. A second set of theories says that this oil is what keeps the plates sliding along, as it lubricates the faults... Kinda cool, if it is true. Dr. Kennedy (of the study) is quoted as saying "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."

He's got an opinion, and a theory, but it's pretty interesting!

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

But wouldn't some of the development costs and all of the production costs be reflected in the price? And they're not priced so prohibitively that people don't buy them.

And the energy companies won't be setting up massive arrays of solar panels because there's no place to put them. Such power generation needs to be decentralized. I think the power companies would rather be in the the generation business as well as the distribution business.

[dwivian]

Existing tax incentives allow production of photo-electric cells at a loss. And, that writeoff, plus the 'green' attempt, allows for indulgences for other less green activity elsewhere. It would be a major blow to solar power for the DoE to attempt to remove those incentives, unless the public stepped up to pay the real cost of production.

And, there are LOTS of places for massive arrays -- tops of buildings, for one. Just as Cell buildings lease space, so could power companies provide 'spot' power to the grid for buildings, and send excess back into their system, for minor leases and reduced power consumption cost to the end user. And, the array could encompass several city blocks with a central substation and filters.

This will, of course, piss off the birds.....

[dwivian]

Oh, and for that last paragraph....

ABSOLUTELY committed -- the first one to figure it out gets not only the profit, but the patent rights on the process which could generate lots of additional profit....

Imagine being the first to create REALLY cheap energy systems, putting oil usage down, costing your competitors heavily as demand for their product dies off, forcing them to come to YOU to license the application....

[rivendweller.livejournal.com]

I read once (can't remember where) that efficient non-fossil-fuel-burning methods had been developed, but the patents were bought up by big oil companies and put in a drawer.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

That sounds like conspiracy theory. I believe they're exerting a chilling influence on the research, but nothing so drastic as burying patents. Have you ever heard what the patents were supposed to be for?

[rivendweller.livejournal.com]

Not really conspiracy theory, just cynical distrust for the big oil companies. Like I said, I can't remember where I heard (or read) that, so I suppose I should have kept it to myself.

This is a good discussion you started! Very interesting.

[marswalker.livejournal.com]

What Dwivian Said. No question about that.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if more solar/wind generators were produced and purchased, for producing household / industrial power as well as running elctrolisys units to "make" hydrogen, the process would become cost-productive in a short time.

The next steps would be fuel cells able to convert hydrogen into electricity; then a house could store up hydrogen during the day, and use it at night for electricity. I'm a big-time proponant of solar and hydrogen technology, and wold love to see the oil mongers put out to pasture. In fact, once i have my desert house, one of the first considerations will be where to put the solar pannels in. :-)

Good subject for discussion!

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I agree.

Someone needs to keep working on solar. Would creating/storing hydrogen for power generation be more efficient than storing it in batteries?

I'm surprised there's not more solar power generation going on in the southwest. Why is that?

[marswalker.livejournal.com]

Battery storage is not a good solution for energy; especially over long-term. Batteries lose energy over time, the longer the period the more loss there is. For instance, NiMH batteries drop as much as a third of their initial charge over 24 hours (newer ones may work better). Lead-acid batteries also loose charge over time; not too mention most rechargable batteries contain toxins.

I agree that burning or processing oil to make hydrogen is just stupid.

During the rotating blackouts in 2000, I did some spreadsheet work, and figgured it would take less than $200,000,000 dollars to re-roof a large number of shcools, and thow in enough solar pannels to generate enough energy at peak time to make up for what they were claiming the grid was short by, plus 50%. The california school system would have benefitted by not needing to pay for power, the state would have benefitted in several aspects (less polution, re-roofed schools, power on the grid when it's needed most, no new power plants or infrustructure required, construction jobs created, etc). But it aparently made more sense to throw money into enron, santa fe, pg&e, etc, than do something good for the general public.

It's not that we don't have the technology, the know-how, the raw materials, etc. The system is controlled by people who would rather "take their cut" than do the right thing. (this is a pet peave. when i get my desert house, one of the things will be a "lifetime" roof and solar pannels.)

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

People only look at the cost to themselves. Solar power is still more expensive to the average consumer than simply buying your electricity off the grid, and that cost is all at installation time, but people don't factor in the cost to the environment or the fact that the more people get into it, the cheaper it becomes.

[dwivian]

There is current research to use high-capacity capacitors to hold the energy -- they have very little decay over time, and can be designed for slow release, once tapped. I have no idea how far this has gone, but it was being analyzed to help replace batteries in hybrid vehicles of large size (like busses) that over-stress batteries.

I'd love to see that spreadsheet -- having done similar calculations, I've found it to be incredibly cost-prohibitive, from ongoing maintenance and operations (not to mention structural stability engineering and earthquake tolerances) to establish large-scale energy creation systems on government buildings in Orange County (can you guess that this was an engineering paper for college? ::grin::).

The technology, so far, is not cost-effective. Were it so, the electric companies would have massive solar farms (they don't want to pay out for coal and oil any more than we want to pay them for their power). It's not about taking a cut -- it's about generating profit, and so far the cost of using oil and coal is much cheaper. That's changing, and as soon as we crest the technology curve that makes it possible you'll see ConEd, Southern Company, etc convert fast. They're already making changes to use natural gas in small generation plants, which is cheaper and less polluting.