low_delta | hydrogen

You're viewing

low_delta's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.....

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....