Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American

[Ivan Seeking]

In the sense indicated above, I wonder to what extent the true price for a gallon of gas could be calculated.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

In the sense indicated above, I wonder to what extent the true price for a gallon of gas could be calculated.

Not only the true price, but to whom? Who pays the costs? There are winners and losers in every alternative, and more important in the political arena, is the question of "who these will be". Chronos stated:

The problem is economics. If alternatives to oil were cheaper, we would already be using them.

What he means, of course, is "cheaper to those who are the present producers and middlemen (OPEC, other exporting countries, refiners and distributers)". Important in this is the in-place infrastructure, much of which has been built and amortized. Any new energy source will require a new infrastructure, and to the producers and middlemen, this is the deal killer. The cost of importing, cracking and distributing petroleum, as I see it is comparable or possibly even higher than for hydrogen, until we take the cost of infrastructure into consideration, and realize its importance to the producer. (Especially with the new methodologies that are appearing)

To the consumer, and to government, it's a different picture. As Ivan Seeking wrote:

Also, consider the true cost for oil: health issues, environmental issues, 911, war, and the military industrial complex needed to defend our interests in the ME. If these costs were included in the price of gasoline, as in principle they should be, alternative energy options would have been cost competitive long ago

We must remember that it has taken approximately a hundred years to put in place the present petroleum infrastructure. Those who control this infrastructure, very naturally don't want to see their comfortable investment positions threatened (much like the Sabot makers in a previous time). They will predictably resist. That is why it is necessary for those who stand to lose if we don't change must also be active; the consumers (who are always the ones that finance the infrastructures in the end), government, automakers, etc. There will always be winners and losers.

The biggest cost to any new technology, however will be the cost of its infrastructure. We should remember that the petroleum economy faced the same problems. Until the "cracking process" was developed in the early twentieth century, gasoline was considered just as 'out of reach' as are other technologies Today. (Its one advantage was the fact that the energy alternatives then were already running out, and thus the development cost was easily justified because it was necessary. This allowed the new oil producers to easily pass on the costs. (And the old energy producers largely disappeared.)

What we need is for the new energy source companies to come forward (and for Government to recognize its stake and help them to do so). Meanwhile, some of the old-line producers (OPEC, drillers, etc.) will resist. That is to be expected.

KM

 

[Chronos]

A hydrogen economy makes the most sense on a global basis. Not all parts of the world have enough productive cropland to rely on biomass energy sources, but they all have access to water. It just makes sense to get rid of energy cartels altogether. No other commodity has created as much political turmoil and bloodshed as the global thirst for oil. There has never been a more opportune time to slay the beast. So what if hydrogen ends up twice the price of gasoline. As Ivan noted, hydrogen does not carry the hidden cost baggage of oil. Those savings alone would easily pay for the infrastructure in not very many years. Furthermore, the price would inevitably come down due to technological advances. Apparently the US government is serious about pursuing the hydrogen economy. This could become the most far reaching and important political initiative since the space program. And building the new infrastructure would give an enormous boost to the economy. It be like a war, except the enemy would be oil and no one need die fighting it.

 

[antiflag403]

Once i discover the most effiecient way to create a nuclear fusion reactor, this agrument will be over. We will have huge amounts of energy, relatively harmless by-products and a whole lot of goodness!
Ill make sure to post when i make this discovery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Would you please hurry? We're waiting!

 

[Chronos]

I really don't think electrical power generation is a much a issue in this thread as portable fuel. Electrical generation capacity will do nothing to replace oil without a viable storage system for such power. That is precisely what hydrogen constitutes - a portable propulsion system energy source. Utilizing excess generation capacity to generate hydrogen is, however, relevant. Nuclear generation capacity is vastly underutilized. The technology has been nearly idiot proof since the 70's and the next generation designs [which unfortunately have not been built commercially] are even better. In particular, the gas cooled fast reactor [GCFR] design has all the advantageous and hardly any of the drawbacks of previous generations. It cannot go 'china syndrome' [nuclear fission automatically ceases in a loss of coolant event], there are virtually no long lived radioactive wastes to dispose of [a GCFR can use the hot waste for fuel until it is exhausted of radioactive energy], and it is cheap to build [the technology is so safe that very little regulatory oversight is needed]. For a teaser see:
http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtml

 

[Seafang]

Yeah so what? More input means more output.

One last thing; just because something is not happening does not mean that something else is not possible.

#1 The whole idea of 'so-called' renewable fuels, such as Ethanol, is to replace fossil fuels (when there no longer are any fossil fuels). The fact that vast quantities of fossil fuels are required to make Ethanol (via subsidies) implies there will be no ethanol, either when the fossil fuels run out. Subsidies merely hide the energy losing nature of 'alternative fuels'.

#2 What kind of statement is that ? just what connection is there between your "something" and your "something else" ? Is that an oxymoron or a tautology ?

 

[Seafang]

A hydrogen economy makes the most sense on a global basis. Not all parts of the world have enough productive cropland to rely on biomass energy sources, but they all have access to water. It just makes sense to get rid of energy cartels altogether. No other commodity has created as much political turmoil and bloodshed as the global thirst for oil. There has never been a more opportune time to slay the beast. So what if hydrogen ends up twice the price of gasoline. As Ivan noted, hydrogen does not carry the hidden cost baggage of oil. Those savings alone would easily pay for the infrastructure in not very many years. Furthermore, the price would inevitably come down due to technological advances. Apparently the US government is serious about pursuing the hydrogen economy. This could become the most far reaching and important political initiative since the space program. And building the new infrastructure would give an enormous boost to the economy. It be like a war, except the enemy would be oil and no one need die fighting it.

Well Kronos, I have a fool proof way to make your Hydrogen Economy cost competitive with fossil fuels or other sources and do it in a big hurry so you can have it tomorrow.

Simply place a tax of $1million per barrel of oil or oil equivalent natural gas. That will make the use of those fossil fuels prohibitively expensive. Then we can all bask in the clean energy from your hydrogen.

By the way, what about all the green house gas emissions from your hydrogen powered automobiles; what do you plan to do about that ?

 

[russ_watters]

I really don't think electrical power generation is a much a issue in this thread as portable fuel. Electrical generation capacity will do nothing to replace oil without a viable storage system for such power. That is precisely what hydrogen constitutes - a portable propulsion system energy source.

Well, my point has always been that this hydrogen economy talk is moot until we replace the coal in the electric power grid. Otherwise, we're using coal instead of oil to power our cars.

 

[brewnog]

Absolutely.

For all intents and purposes, Hydrogen is only going to provide us with means of storing energy, not producing it.

 

[hitssquad]

until we replace the coal in the electric power grid... we're using coal instead of oil to power our cars.

Yes. What might be inadvisable about using coal to power cars?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Absolutely.

For all intents and purposes, Hydrogen is only going to provide us with means of storing energy, not producing it.

It would be worth reviewing the thread.

 

[hitssquad]

[a GCFR can use the hot waste for fuel until it is exhausted of radioactive energy], and it is cheap to build [the technology is so safe that very little regulatory oversight is needed].http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtml

It requires reprocessing:

• The GFR reference has an integrated, on-site spent fuel treatment and refabrication plant.

Has reprocessing been shown to be very safe? Has it been shown to be cheap? Richard Garwin claims that mined uranium would have to cost $700 per kilogram for reprocessing to break even. There are 4.5 billion tons of uranium floating in the oceans. Would it ever cost more than $700 dollars per kilogram to mine it up to the halfway point?

Concrete containment domes are not cheap. Would this reactor filled with transuranics be operated without a containment dome?

 

[Cliff_J]

By the way, what about all the green house gas emissions from your hydrogen powered automobiles; what do you plan to do about that ?

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.

Russ - our coal reserves are projected to last 200 years. I'll tell my kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to get working on that problem.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.

Correct; there are essentially two possible emissions from hydrogen use. The first, which is a necessary product, is water vapor, which we generally consider beneficial. The second, which we only get from the use of hydrogen in Internal Combustion Engines (not Fuel Cells), is Oxides of Nitrogen. These oxides can be reduced considerably relative to petroleum consumption because we don't have the conflicting need to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.

KM

 

[russ_watters]

Yes. What might be inadvisable about using coal to power cars?

Pollution! This is one of the two the main reasons to have a hydrogen economy in the first place!

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.

Russ - our coal reserves are projected to last 200 years. I'll tell my kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to get working on that problem.

I think you may have missed the point: if hydrogen is manufactured by burning coal, the emissions are higher than with an oil-burning car. With 20,000 people dying from pollution-related ilnesses in the US every year, I consider that our problem, not our childrens' childrens' problem.

 

[hitssquad]

With 20,000 people dying from pollution-related ilnesses in the US every year

This is the clean coal compendium:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/cctc

It lists the technologies being developed and demonstrated that clean up coal emissions - as far as coal is currently used - and that offer new ways, such as direct conversion to liquid fuels, to use coal. Coal burned to produce electricity does not have to produce the levels of noxious emissions that they do today, and coal used to charge fuels may not have to be burned at all.

As far as the use of coal as a burnable fuel to make electricity, here is the most advanced coal plant ever built, which was recently unveiled in Florida:
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=7

If coal's air pollution is addressable, perhaps, as Know Nukes' Jim Hoerner tirelessly opines, the major problems will be in the areas of Earth scarring, mine-worker hazards, and slurry-pond dam dangers (yes, the slurry pond dams break once in a while):
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/mdaf.html

That is a comprehensive list of slurry dam failures, and most of those failures did not involve coal. However, here is a detailed report of an Oct 11, 2000 coal slurry dam failure in Kentucky:
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/mdafin.html

• On Oct 11, 2000, a coal tailings dam of Martin County Coal Corporation's preparation plant near Inez, Kentucky, USA, failed, releasing a slurry consisting of an estimated 250 million gallons (950,000 m3) of water and 155,000 cubic yards (118,500 m3) of coal waste into local streams.
  
  About 75 miles (120 km) of rivers and streams turned an irridescent black, causing a fish kill along the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River and some of its tributaries. Towns along the Tug were forced to turn off their drinking water intakes.
  
  The spill contained measurable amounts of metals, including arsenic, mercury, lead, copper and chromium, but not enough to pose health problems in treated water, according to a federal official.
  
  The full extent of the environmental damage isn't yet known, and estimates of the cleanup costs go as high as $60 million.

 

[Cliff_J]

Russ - you didn't include the smiley in the quote - it was intended as sarcasm and I thought with the incredible ignorance included in the statement it would be obvious.

As a collective "we" the current situation has gained too much momentum in the wrong directions. The more I think green, the more I cannot believe the directions not just the US is headed in but also in the developing countries as they repeat the same errors.

The History Channel just re-ran their power plant episode of the series "Modern Marvels" and the numbers shocked me. The big coal plant here in GA burns 30,000 tons of coal a day! If the 20% of the nations power needs (seems higher than other estimates but I'll run with it) supplied by nuclear switched to coal that would add 187 million metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

I'm reminded of an article in Car & Driver magazine detailing the CA auto emission laws. In short the lack of effectiveness on overall emissions was elementary school math when the output of power generation and industry was more than an order of magnitude higher. But yet while celeberties will constantly admonish SUVs the power issue is never touched because of the economics.

One point brought up in the MM show that hasn't been touched here is about the spent fuel from a nuclear plant. Their point was that elected officials didn't want to have to deal with the tons of spent fuel created each year. So while we may be debating the per unit of weight cost of uranium of recycled versus gathered, the overall cost of not recycling and having to store hazardous waste bears part of the cost of preventing progress!

With good leadership and the issues properly addressed (recycle spent fuel, admit faults in 3MI, admit fusion is decades away) there would seemingly be a chance educate the public on progress in nuclear tech in the last 2 1/2 decades and get the country cleaned up. Imagine a system with the peak power plants converted from natural gas to run the turbines on H2. That is H2 generated by the nuclear plants that could use the H2 generation as a load stabilization tool. A utopia compared to our current direction...

Cliff

 

[russ_watters]

If coal's air pollution is addressable, perhaps, as Know Nukes' Jim Hoerner tirelessly opines, the major problems will be in the areas of Earth scarring, mine-worker hazards, and slurry-pond dam dangers (yes, the slurry pond dams break once in a while)...

Yes, the problems with coal are addressable (if not completely eliminate-able). But we're still talking about upgrading virtually every existing coal plant and building an equal number of new ones to generate electricity to make hydrogen. That's still a project bigger than the Apollo Program, Hoover Dam, and Manhattan project combined. I'm sorry, but that's still a project that needs to at least be started before any significant shift toward a "hydrogen economy" can be made.

And btw, some of the numbers thrown out in that link (90%, 98% reductions) sound nice, but they aren't long-term solutions.

Tell me this: If we did that for cars, would that end the problem with oil-based pollution? Hardly - especially considering we've already done it: http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm

Since the first standard in 1975, allowable NOx pollution in cars has been reduced by 99.77%.

Its also important to note that these (your link and mine) don't include, and thus utterly fail to address, the primary greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide.

And here's some fuel for the Kyoto thread: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html The US is currently building 100 new plants (again, none of which address the carbon dioxide issue). There are 1,600 coal electric plants and 1,100 coal manufacturing plants in the US. Pick some conservative numbers for upgrading those (maybe $10 million each?) and building an equal number of new electric generation plants (maybe $1 billion each?) and see what kind of trillions of dollars you get.

Russ - you didn't include the smiley in the quote - it was intended as sarcasm and I thought with the incredible ignorance included in the statement it would be obvious.

My bad - I thought that was a little strange coming from you. Nevertheless, its an opinion that has been expressed and didn't hurt to address it again (did I save any face there?).

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

all this bickering about green house gases from coal and oil... isn't the thread about OTHER power sources? besides... what about the green house gas (CO2) i emit when i breath.. whooo scaaary... yes our environment needs work and yes we're poluting it, but the point of this thread isn't to decide how bad it is, it's to discuss new ways of fixing it.

personally, my vote goes to nuclear electricity and electric cars. if there were recharge stations as common as gas stations are, battery life would not be a major problem. only large vehicles with massive horse-power requirements (semi's, tow trucks, utility vehicles) would have problems converting.

as far as our economy goes, we don't just need a new energy base. oil isn't our only import, and our exports are deliriously few. in fact, off the top of my head, the only major exports the US has are military arms and equipment that we sell to our allies, and we SPEND money on those. where was the airplane invented? the computer? the microwave oven? where was the automobile assembly line first invented? everything we invent in this country gets made in taiwan, and we end up paying more for it.

to really boost our economy we need a product. we need to start selling instead of buying. alternative energy sources would be a big plus IF we could keep the manufacturing within our borders. other countries should be coming to US for their energy, their cars, their electronics... otherwise we're economically doomed, it's only a matter of time.

 

[Cliff_J]

Russ - no harm, no foul. You really do put a damper on my nice future thoughts though, its not like I or anyone else really want to pay more for electricity but the growth of the polluting plants is really snowballing. How could we ever expect China to play nice when we don't even bother to do so here?

Odd thought too, one of the Science Channel's 2004 review show mentioned that there's been in increase in atmospheric water vapor and that its one of the best greenhouse gasses around. I was dozing off as they were talking about it but it had to do with the introduction of something that reduced the ability of water droplets to form. An H2 economy with lots of water vapor exhaust might compound the problem, what an odd side effect.

Puf - you're taking this way too broad with problems that have no easy solution. Especially not in an elected government system that favors local optimization and short-term methodologies.

Cliff

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

cliff, i was being generic for those who are physicists, not econimists :)
and i realize there's no simple solution, there's about a million simple fixes that could all add up to a solution... IF everyone worked towards them.

 

[Cliff_J]

I think the "everyone" is the problem. All that seems to be remembered is the first phrase from Kennedy's speech and its all about what the country can do for its people.

Southpark did a humorous satire on the success of a Walmart store. One of the townspeople explained to the others that if they would simply stop buying from the store it would go away. Instead they were either taken in by the super bargins (on imported junk of course) or instead of exercising self-control they just burned the place down as some out-of-control mob.

And yes, a million simple fixes would turn things around and could do so in less than a decade if the people worked together. No panacea to just turn on the H2 spigot without other changes.

Cliff

 

[hitssquad]

I'm reminded of an article in Car & Driver magazine detailing the CA auto emission laws.

Emissions laws regarding what? Is this the article?:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2502&page_number=1

In short the lack of effectiveness on overall emissions

Emissions of what?

 

[Cliff_J]

Sorry, it was an editorial written by the editor Csaba Csere. I can't seem to find it online either, good luck in me finding it in a decade of back issues sitting in boxes...

Here's a few articles online where he makes some of the same points about the ignorant and misguided efforts of lawmakers to really fix the problems.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3296&page_number=1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=4343&page_number=1

Yes he's opinionated and passionate about cars but hey, what more would a person want in the editor of the mag? His figures and logic seem simple and far less stretched than the opposition.

I doubt its worth the effort to research what a coal plant produces for CO2 or NOx or particulate emissions and properly factor those numbers to arrive at a realistic comparison to auto traffic like Csaba did in his write-up. But regardless, fighting only one side of the battle (cars and not power plants) has to register as quite odd. Besides, my eletricity comes from a local dam.

Cliff

 

[Aquamarine]

The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html

Coal Combustion, Public Health
and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.html

 

[Chronos]

Not to divert the discussion, but I think the CO2 thing is overblown. Natural emissions of CO2 far exceed those attributable to human activity. This is not to suggest human induced contributions are negligible, only that they are less alarming than advertised. See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html

 

[Aquamarine]

Not to divert the discussion, but I think the CO2 thing is overblown. Natural emissions of CO2 far exceed those attributable to human activity. This is not to suggest human induced contributions are negligible, only that they are less alarming than advertised. See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html

From the document

The most important natural sources of carbon dioxide are releases from the oceans (90 billion metric tons per year), aerobic decay of vegetation (30 billion metric tons), and plant and animal respiration (30 billion metric tons).(4) Known anthropogenic sources (including deforestation) were estimated to account for about 7 billion metric tons of carbon per year in the early 1990s. The principal anthropogenic source is the combustion of fossil fuels, which accounts for about three-quarters of total anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Natural processes--primarily, uptake by the ocean and photosynthesis--absorb substantially all the naturally produced carbon dioxide and some of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, leading to an annual net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 3.1 to 3.5 billion metric tons.(5)

So even if anthropogenic sources are small compared to natural sources (and absorbtion), these sources may well account for all of the increase in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

 

[hitssquad]

The EMS vs clean coal research

The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html

The article at that link includes some vague references to out-of-context conclusions of unnamed GAO reports. It seems to be mostly about President Bush wanting to direct billions of dollars "into the bank accounts of industry amidst a climate of astonishing profitability."

Coal Combustion, Public Health and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.html

The article at that link does not address clean coal.

 

[dem45133]

An Idea?

Hello all. I'm a newcomer to this forum and came across this thread through the Newsletter. Didn't go to all the links, but did read/scan the entire set of posts. Interesting concepts, and I thought I'd add my couple of cents to the picture, especially a couple of points I thought were missed or not considered. Its only my humble opinion though.

1) Obviously no easy fix... and no one technology will satisfy everything. Some of the posts seem to forget one primary ingredient. It doesn't matter what the governmental politics are, or even what laws that may be invoked... the world (yes the world... with 3rd world countries are not far behind) is controlled by MONEY. So are wars for that matter. Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2 may be more aptly defined as "Energy = Money * Control Squared"

You can be sure that all energy generation and use, regardless of the form and type, is controlled first and foremost by those controlling the MONEY and in turn, the investors. That will not be given up easily and IMHO never will. Not to offend any utopian types out there, but this is fact, and it has been throughout history since the first barter. Star Trek's one world government for the planet without money will not happen in time.

2) Given 1, the problem needs to broken into two categories, the first being Stationary energy (i.e. grid electrons), the second Mobile energy (i.e stored E for rolling stock).

IMHO there is only one possible solution for grid electron demand globally... that being nuclear. Of the technical feasibility side of the issues facing massive wind and solar or even space based solar, it is the only technology that could be ramped up in time (IMHO mind you). One of you stated it would take 20 years to come only line with a resurgence... I believe less. We have safe recycling systems already designed now. With a accelerated 24/7 construction regime they could be on-line within three years (or less) from go ahead, but five or ten year Environmental Impact Studies would have to go away... that can be done.

Now if we could only figure out a fission/fusion reaction system with each generating the fuel for the other! There are many physicists that droll profusely over such ideas. We aren't there yet, but we've made great strides in designs that utilize/minimize their waste.

Yes, there will be localized areas that can supplement or even fulfill their needs using technologies suitable to the particulars of their region (i.e geothermal, solar, hydro, etc.) but overall they will not be enough to satisfy world demand.

3) Mobile E... this is even worse than the grid as far as human factors are concerned. The basic FACT IS we are all spoiled rotten with personal transportation... myself included... big time. But even worse is that our entire economy is 100% dependent on it (well... and the grid too). The fact is that since about the mid 30s most people do not live very near (ie. walking or bicycling distance) where they work. The best thing that every happened to build our country's commerce was the interstate highway system.

We are prime examples of the human factors. We chose to live in the country (both born and raised in ag... city life without animals was just not within us). So what does that mean? It means a 100 mile per day commute for my wife and a 140 mile commute per day for me to pay our mortgage and pay the grid cartel. We also can't stand small vehicles, and a car is basically useless to us. A car can not hull grain or hay, and can not pull 14000 lbs. We also know too much about Newton's Laws and are very uneasy in anything weighing less than 5500 lbs. We also have to perform the commute in any weather condition. We also (me especially) have seen entirely too many people operating that have no business operating anything! Some should not be allowed near any machine. But our economy is based on everyone being able to drive to work...so they give licenses to everyone... basically. So yes I need Newton to work in our favor.

With fuel now at $2, our 15 mpg 3/4 ton will have to be relegated to only farm and trailer duty, and I'll have to somehow find a way to commute for less $. Those little midget 4x4s may get mpg, but a 2 ft snow drift 10 ft long will stop them! My 3/4 ton would hardly know it was there. We also live in a very hilly area... which means hp. Fighting gravity requires work... which means E. For these kind of areas I just can't see hybrids or electrics replacing the ICE. Even the best technology currently or expected to be forthcoming soon can not handle 100% loads for very long. Sometimes there is a need for reserve capacity... try climbing up the hill out of Orange CA (I15), or the one on I5 coming S out of the San ? valley towards LA, or E out of Salt Lake (I80), or Donner’s Pass (I80), or I17 north out of Phoenix towards Flagstaff, or anyone of a few hundred other long pulls.

So as can be seen rural areas present differing conditions, but all require range and reserve E.

Now the high density areas in cities are a different situation. I count my blessings that I am not forced to live in one. Years ago I drove semi OTR and was in almost all the major cities in the US and across almost all its Interstates at one point or another. I was amazed to meet people that had never been out of a 10 block area in their entire life, and they were 70 years old! That is hard for me to fathom, but like I said, I count my blessings. Don't get me wrong... we were NOT silver spoons... our folks had basically nothing and l grew up in a tenant house on a landowner's farm. Anything we have we worked for and paid for (present Mortgage excepted... bank still has the lion's share of that).

For short commutes in the city or its suburbs, hybrids or electrics may work for some, but since most people also use their vehicles to travel across country to other cities, their limited ranges and charge times would be restrictive. Who do you know that will be willing to wait for hours or even a half an hour for a recharge while on a trip? Where are you going to stack up all these cars being recharged? Think about that. Fuel islands are designed to fill up and leave in no greater than 10 minutes... max. I fill my 30 gallon tank and pay for it in less than 5 minutes, and complain if the pump is slow.

See... no easy solution. From what I have seen, a hydrogen economy is a farce... yes, it initially had appeal, but the transport, storage, and dispersement problems are it's biggest setback. But politically it is a step in the right direction and getting the populous to embrace the need instead of just blissfully ignoring it. This is good.

A liquid state clean burning (or cleanable emissions) pumpable fuel seems the only real option if we are going to keep our current life styles [that’s another issue that will eventually have to change]. So how do we economically build that without using the carbon based fuels from petroleum? Many have attempted this, but the volumes required can not be generated (i.e bio-alcohol, wood alcohol (whoa, and you think the tree huggers are moaning now!), etc.). One wanted to use O2 on an enormous scale... keep in mind we need 20.9% O2, at 18.5% we are in trouble.

So, that’s where we need to focus, (IMHO), a liquid state pumpable fuel or energy medium. So that’s my challenge to everyone that reads this. I've had basic physics and organic chemistry, and am no expert. But, this is the right place to gather the input from thousands of collective minds... sort of like the Borg.



So let's brainstorm it:

The first thing is to define the properties needed:
a) LIQUID (or liquid like) AND PUMPABLE (flowable) at normal temperatures
b) Stable and non degrading during storage and transport
c) Abundant and regenerating source products
d) Volume to btu ratio better than we have now
e) Clean burning (or reacting)
f) Environmentally friendly

One thing that just came to my mind is LIGHT i.e photon energy (not necessarily visible wave lengths). There are now those of you saying... What? But think about it... does it meet the properties? Yes if we could develope the systems or technologies. Perhaps re need to review the physics and chemistry in photosynthisis again.

Seems to me the electronics and communications industries already do this at tiny scales... OK, so let's storm.

a) is satified, b) is satified in transport, STORAGE? needs a tech to store it, but not as heat. c) is satified, i.e the sun, but how to GATHER. Other sources maybe from nuke? d) satified... basically unlimited depending on concentration. e) likely convert to electons? But what about other forms?
f) on the front side yes, but technologies that use it still need to keep this in mind.



Storm on...
DEM
Hillsboro, OH

 

[Chronos]

The nuclear option is definitely in play. There is a project already underway called the Next Generation Nuclear Plan [NGNP]. Here is an excerpt from
http://nuclear.gov/home/11-09-04.html

One of the laboratory’s first major tasks will be to lead an international research and development effort to create an advanced nuclear energy technology called the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP will be a Generation IV nuclear system that will produce both inexpensive electric power and large quantities of cost-effective hydrogen to support the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States and reduce the Nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuel. This work supports the President’s National Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and is an important element in the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States.

Pretty heady stuff. Two of the leading candidate designs are the Pebble Bed Modulated Reactor [PBMR] and the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor [GTMHR]. Both are from the HTGR [high temperature gas reactor] family of meltdown proof reactor designs. The PBMR is particularly attractive. It has a short lead time [24 months to construct] and is modular. The units are small by usual standards [160MW] hence generating capacity can based on immediate needs, yet easily expanded to meet short term growth projections. See
https://www.pbmr.com/
http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

 

[hitssquad]

So let's brainstorm it:

The first thing is to define the properties needed:...
c) Abundant and regenerating source products

Why would the source need to be regenerating?

 

[Seafang]

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.
[CLIFF]

Correct; there are essentially two possible emissions from hydrogen use. The first, which is a necessary product, is water vapor, which we generally consider beneficial. The second, which we only get from the use of hydrogen in Internal Combustion Engines (not Fuel Cells), is Oxides of Nitrogen. These oxides can be reduced considerably relative to petroleum consumption because we don't have the conflicting need to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.

KM

Well in the case of hydrogen powered cars, 100% of the emissions consist of greenhouse gas; namely water vapor; so it is not much less as CLIFF asserts.

Same comment. the water vapor emission from internal combustion engines is greater than the CO2 emissions.

As for the nitrogen oxides; that comes from burning the clean air, and has nothing to do with hydrogen. A pure carbon burning IC engine would still make nitrogen oxides.

In fact you could simply use laser heating of the working fluid (air), so that absolutely no hydrogen or carbon was involved except as trace elements in the air and you would still get oxides of nitrogen formed, in an internal combustion engine.

And climate scientists do not regard water vapor as beneficial; it too warms the atmosphere by absorbing radiation. They simply choose to ignore it because it is easier to lay all the blame on carbon dioxide.

None of which explains how we get all the hydrogen in the first place to use as a storage mechanism for energy. The question remains; where do we get the new energy from; regardless of how we decide to store it.

 

[Chronos]

I have to wonder how difficult it would be to reduce water vapor emissions to an acceptable level, whatever that might be. I suspect the technology already exists. It is true that nitrogen oxides are produced simply by heating air - no fuel required. But, it is also true they are easily reduced to negligible levels when you do not have the corequisite need to remove other hydrocarbon combustion byproducts. A variety of alternative energy sources for hydrogen production have already been noted in this thread. They all have various advantages and disadvantages, as do conventional fossil fuels. That does not mean they are unworkable, or even impractical. It is virtually certain costs would decline over time merely as a consequence of economies of scale. It is also probably safe to assume that technological advances would play a role. While I may have questions that have not been satisfactorily answered in my mind, that does not mean they cannot or will not be solved. It certainly does not mean there is no point in trying. I'm willing to concede I may have limitations that are not universally shared. The horseless carriage had its naysayers. It still turned out to be fairly practical and quite popular.

 

[Cliff_J]

Seafang - aside from what I posted about certian pollutants decreasing the ability of water droplets to form and thus increasing the level of water vapor in the air, excess water vapor will condense and fall back to Earth as precipitation. I don't see how our combustion by-product of water vapor compares to the amounts created by nature itself.

I'd much rather breathe in lots of water vapor than unburned hydrocarbons and particulate matter.

Cliff