Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American

[Ivan Seeking]

As for a miracle fuel, decentralization and diversification are key concepts to a Hydrogen economy. Each geographic area has a number of "indigenous" energy sources. For example, the pacific NW produces many wood byproducts that can be, and to some extent are used as energy sources. One thing that struck me recently was the question of wood chips. We are shipping these to Japan by the boatload. I wonder if or when the energy value of those chips will exceed the resale value. We also burn tremendous quantities of wood and grasses that might act as energy sources. Remember, any C-H bond can yield an H. Techniques to exploit these sources are investigated - links are posted in this and the original thread.

We have regions each well adapted to one or several of wind, solar, alcohol and biodiesel production - any agricultural area can produce energy crops of many varieties. We also find tidal generators [the winning project for the national science fair this year], low-head hydroelectric power, geothermal, clean coal, and this doesn't even touch on the world of bacterial H2 production. In many cases it may make sense to produce H2 and transport the fuel, in other cases it makes more sense to burn or utilize other green-friendly fuels directly.

Magic bullet thinking is Second Wave stuff.

 

[Chronos]

Ethanol is so expensive that...
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21

That source seems to lack a key element: facts. It appears to be little more than a politicized, hand-waving, diatribe. It is not that difficult to find a credentialed 'expert', like Dr. Pimental, to throw support to just about any position. A contrasting opinion is offered by this rather credible looking report from the US Department of Agriculture
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain.
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm#net
A followup study: Economic Research Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol: An Update " was issued in 2002 stating: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain."
The input efficiencies for fossil energy sources was also addressed in this study. This was done to compare fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture crude oil into gasoline. Gasoline was found to have a net energy value of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss. In other words, it takes 70% (1.34/0.81) more fossil fuel energy to produce gasoline compared to ethanol.

As of 2004, the net energy gain from ethanol production is reported to be 1.36. Shapouri also had this to say:
“This (research), unlike the Dr. Pimentel report in 2003, is based on straightforward methodology and highly regarded quality data,” Shapouri said. Numerous economists have questioned the validity of Pimentel’s findings, arguing that he uses outdated data in his methodology.
http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2004/june/060904a.htm

 

[Cliff_J]

Actually the diesel tractors used to grow the crops could be ran on E95 which is 95% ethanol. Or the tractors could be run on 100% biodiesel during the summer and a blend in colder months. Depending on the design of the fuel system this could be as simple as putting it in the tank. But this would be a fraction of a percent of oil consumed in a year, the household heating oil, over the road trucking industry, commercial airlines, etc would be substantially larger applications. I agree it makes little sense to transfer the fuel to hydrogen if the push was to go green fuels in those applications. And in the latter two a simple ROI would be a pretty easy sell to a small number of customers with a large impact.

The biggest problem I see with E85 for gas cars or E95 for diesel is that besides the low awareness of its existence or FFV autos is Exx fuel cannot use the existing distribution system since they remove deposits that then clog filters or lead to leaks. So it sort of lends itself to the decentralized production as well, but should still have superior energy density.

Russ you do bring up a valid point about the hydrogen economy being a unicorn that can be manipulated to mask true problems. I've even seen some young people claim the old conspiracy theory about the hydrogen fuel cell cars similar to the 100MPG carbs the oil companies have suppossedely kept quiet all these years. Both political canidates plugged hydrogen as the miracle cure. I see such overly optimistic viewpoints as means to help motivate the public to consider the move to alternative fuels. Upotpic perhaps since it fits my personal viewpoint but seemingly a good direction.

Oh, and I thought our electricity needs only increased in the single digit range yearly? I thought it was closely related to economic growth and can't find a lot of reliable info online in my searches...

Cliff

 

[lengould]

I've seem this argument sorted out several places, and have concluded that the DOE's energy ratio of 1.24 is about accurate for ethanol from corn. I also think there's no new developments anticipated or being investigated here, and therefore this process justifies no further subsidies of any sort. Subsidizing ethanol from corn is simply a direct cash payment to farmers, most of which is collected by huge conglomerates like ADM.

Smarter would be to develop Iogen's system of producing ethanol and biodiesel from cellulose (stover / straw / wood / paper waste). http://www.iogen.ca Uses an enzyme, needs some further ecomonies but very close.

Interesting also is SHEC Labs. thermochemical water splitting using a solar collector. http://www.sheclabs.com They've just announced (October 12, 2004), a strategic partnership with Hydrogenics, a (well respected) publicly traded fuel cell manufacturing company (who supplies GM's fuel cells for research). Their patent indicates a really neat "catalytic static centrifuge" concept for separation which, with eg. solar energy, should be REALLY cheap to build and operate depending on catalyst since they claim to get significant production at "less than" 800 degC.

Also note the Sulphur / Iodine process of splitting water using only heat. DOE etc. working on it, but still difficult due to materials problems with high-temp. sulfuric acid etc. They should soon beat it. Requires fairly high (>1000 degC?) thermal inputs and large factory-type processes so currently targeting Gen IV helium circuit reactors with mixed electric / hydrogen as needed outputs. Maybe 10-20 yrs out.

I like the TSSOM concept. Tension Stabilized Steerable Orbiting Mirror. Big sheet of metalized Mylar in Geosync Orbit reflects sunlight onto a photovoltaic array at eg. Arizona or Salton Sea etc. http://www.ecologen.com/page_TSSOM2-75.html Each mirror can increase the PV array's output by 75%, which increase happens at night. 4 x 2.75 km dia. mirrors in orbit all pointing to same PV array makes the cost of the system's electrical output cheaper than fossil fuels. Needs the Space Elevator working first though to be economical, but that's coming very soon now that the crew at Los Alamos have grown 4 cm long nanotubes http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/04-076.shtml, or see the guys at McGill http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?articleID=1022 or many others.

Space Elevator development, google NASA's Dr. Edwards or quick hilights at http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/ or specifics at http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/iac-2004/iac-04-iaa.3.8.2.01.edwards.pdf . A ton of other stuff on the web re. Space Elevator, estimates put it technically feasible "sometime before" 2017.

And the final word on "Hydrogen as Energy Carrier" for transport should be Graham Cowan's work on the Boron fuel cycle, which I think deserves some serious development work. See http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html#TOC . Graham has addressed all the issues with unimpeachable science. Needs development work on the turbine and the regeneration chemical process but eliminates the huge energy hit of hydrogen storage / transport / handling. I've submitted to him a (IMHO) really neat design for an excellent turbine that would work really well for vehicles but he's working on other things now. Too bad.
:!)

 

[Locrian]

Combining the "hydrogen economy" cause with the "alternate energy" cause is even worse: while we waste billions of dollars and decades squeezing another 2% efficiency out of solar cells, building wind farms that produce 50 MW (one skyscraper burns 50MW), we're riding the consumption vs production curve in the wrong direction. In 20 years, with a trillion dollars, we could probably get all that alternate energy up to maybe 20% of our energy production. That's nowhere near enough to be worth it (and certainly not enough to justify any sort of "hydrogen economy" based on it"). Not only is the pollution situation getting worse, but we're in imminent danger of a major power supply crisis. The cascade failure that took down much of the northeastern seaboard last year will be a weekly occurrence and the effect on the economy will be disastrous.

Well, I think you are being overly pessimistic on solar and wind power sources.

Still, I can't argue with your fundamental point. Even being much more optimistic than you are about those two possibilities, nuclear is still a fantastic choice.

The hydrogen economy is a fantastic idea; but without other changes it will stay that way, as fantasy. Your post did a good job of showing why cutting through that hype is important.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I think you are being overly pessimistic on solar and wind power sources.

Slight clarification: I'm not completely against solar and wind. What I am against is the idea that they are a real solution to our energy problems.

Green Mountan Energy, for example, would be a good idea if it wasn't a scam. Basically, you build a wind plant and then charge people extra for the power there. People buy into the Green Mountain scam, so there must be a market for more expensive, but cleaner energy.

In addition, I think things like supplimental power from solar cells on the roof should be encouraged more.

 

[Seafang]

Modern agriculture has a sizeable petroleum input. This is why, depending on one's diet, it is possible to get better gas mileage driving an average car than riding a bike.



Ethanol is so expensive that...
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21

• "...Growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol."
  
  Unfortunately, taxpayers will make up the difference in the form of subsidies and higher fuel prices of 4 to 10 cents per gallon. Further, since ethanol can't be sent through pipelines, transportation costs will make it even costlier on the East and West coasts.
  
  There are huge payoffs for finding the "miracle fuel" (i.e., one that is both clean and cheap). As yet, no one, nowhere has found it.

The automobile hasn't been built that is more energy efficient than riding a bike. Bicycles are just about the most efficient form of transportation known. So efficient that their use as a form of exercise is highly overrrated. I have bicycle nut friends who, if they ever throw their leg over that bar and sit on the seat, will not get off till they have traveled at least 50 miles. And they don't consume 2 gallons of gasoline in the form of food doing it; they do it on an empty stomach even.

I like that word subsidies when it comes to farm production; or any other for that matter whether it be subsidies for wind power or photoVoltaic.

'Government subsidies' come from tax dollars, and tax dollars (most of them) come from the profits of private enterprise. The average US corporation makes about 4% after tax profit, and pays about 1/3 of gross profits in taxes, so they make about 6% pretax profit (on average).

So to get that $1 subsidy dollar, some profit making enterprise has to sell $16.67 worth of product; which they make using the energy of fossil fuels.

So that tax subsidy which makes so many so-called alternative energy schemes seem real comes at a very large cost in fossil fuel usage.

Finally if ethanol production is actually an energy gain, then it should be possible to put a fence around the farm and let only sunlight and water come in, and run the whole place on the sunlight and some of the ethanol it produces.

I'm always willing to learn something new; it would be news to me that corn less ethanol is still as good a crop.

All the farmers I know who run massive dairy farms and grow their own feedcorn, certainly aren't going to bother with what it takes to get the alcohol out of their chewed up corn before they feed it to their cows. They go through the corn filed with a machine that leaves only bare dirt behind it and ground up corn plants and birds nests in their storage bins. They input fossil fuel energy in more forms than the diesel to run their tractors. There's herbicides, and pesticides, and water pumping and distribution. They are not about to spend more money to remove part of the carbohydrates that their cows would eat, in order to supply ethanol to someone else, and if they could lower their energy input by converting part of their food crop to alternative fuel, they would be doing that already. The fact that they don't do that already is sufficient proof for me that in fact it isn't possible.

 

[Averagesupernova]

So to get that $1 subsidy dollar, some profit making enterprise has to sell $16.67 worth of product; which they make using the energy of fossil fuels.

Yeah so what? More input means more output.

Finally if ethanol production is actually an energy gain, then it should be possible to put a fence around the farm and let only sunlight and water come in, and run the whole place on the sunlight and some of the ethanol it produces.

This has been done in the past. At least something similar. Years ago farmers were pretty much self sufficient. They farmed using the beast of burden. They used corn cobs for heating fuel. They might buy a little kerosene for lamps and such, possibly some salt and things of this nature, maybe some iron and coal for a forge for repairs but nothing compared to what is purchased today for supplies. And of course they grew ALL of their own food. Farms were smaller and more plentiful. Yes I know, it's not ethanol, but some of you imply that NOTHING would happen without fossil fuel. Some posters' viewpoints border on the idea of genetically engineering people to consume fossil fuels.

I'm always willing to learn something new; it would be news to me that corn less ethanol is still as good a crop.

All the farmers I know who run massive dairy farms and grow their own feedcorn, certainly aren't going to bother with what it takes to get the alcohol out of their chewed up corn before they feed it to their cows. They go through the corn filed with a machine that leaves only bare dirt behind it and ground up corn plants and birds nests in their storage bins. They input fossil fuel energy in more forms than the diesel to run their tractors. There's herbicides, and pesticides, and water pumping and distribution. They are not about to spend more money to remove part of the carbohydrates that their cows would eat, in order to supply ethanol to someone else, and if they could lower their energy input by converting part of their food crop to alternative fuel, they would be doing that already. The fact that they don't do that already is sufficient proof for me that in fact it isn't possible.

The ‘chewed up corn’ you speak of is known as forage. There is a good reason they don’t process the product to get the ethanol. It would no longer have the physical form of roughage that cattle require in their diet. It may also interest you to know that dairy farms located within a reasonable distance to an alcohol plant will also feed the distiller’s grain product I previously mentioned. It is a fairly dense source of nutrition. The typical large modern dairy farm has one goal. That goal is milk production. Specialization at work. Unfortunately, the typical alcohol plant requires a lot more corn to become cost effective than one farm can provide.

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

 

[hitssquad]

8 MPG on a bicycle - you may be able to achieve it eating lobster

Modern agriculture has a sizeable petroleum input. This is why, depending on one's diet, it is possible to get better gas mileage driving an average car than riding a bike.

The automobile hasn't been built that is more energy efficient than riding a bike.

That was not contested. The energy burned while riding a bike - only about 300 Calories per mile - is a separate issue from that of the fossil energy that goes into providing that bike rider's 300 Calories per mile.

I have bicycle nut friends who ... have traveled at least 50 miles. And they don't consume 2 gallons of gasoline in the form of food doing it

Assuming 300 Calories burned per mile, and using David Pimentel's fossil-energy-input-to-food figures (. 1996.), 25 MPG or worse on a bicyle is not atypical. Using Pimentel's fossil-energy-input figures for Atlantic lobster, I have calculated that a 300-Calorie-per-mile lobster-eating bicyclist would be achieving 8 MPG. (Lobster harvesting may not be considered typical agriculture, but even normal farm products will give a 300C-per-mile bicyclist MPG fuel-economy ratings in the teens and twenties, according to Pimentel's figures.)

 

[Chronos]

Indeed, hittsquad. If you apply the Pimentel numbers to any form of converted energy, you get very low efficiencies [those numbers have, however, been accused of being overly conservative]. Even production of gasoline or coal fired electricity takes some apparently huge efficiency hits. What seems to be overlooked is that condensed sunlight [crude oil, ethanol, etc] has enough stored energy to result in a positive yield. Any economically viable strategy for alternative energy sources must utilize the only 'free' energy source in the known universe - the sun. Solar powered inputs are the only true renewable resources available to us. Converting them into power on demand resources [like gasoline] is the challenge. It can definitely be done using less energy than was provided by the sun [think biomass and fossil fuels]. You always have efficiency losses in any process. That does not mean you have a net total loss.

 

[hitssquad]

Is solar really free and renewable; are coal and uranium not

the only 'free' energy source in the known universe [is] the sun.

In what way is solar free where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not?

Solar powered inputs are the only true renewable resources available to us.

In what way is solar renewable where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not?

 

[russ_watters]

In what way is solar free where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not?

Coal and oil take work to dig out of the ground. Solar energy is passively collected.

In what way is solar renewable where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not?

There are finite quantities of both coal and oil in the ground. The sun's energy is, for our purposes, limitless.

 

[brewnog]

I always thought that the term 'renewable' was given to those sources for which potential production exceeds demand. Coal, oil and natural gas are being produced (and here I mean produced, not extracted) at a rate less than our current consumption.

 

[russ_watters]

I always thought that the term 'renewable' was given to those sources for which potential production exceeds demand. Coal, oil and natural gas are being produced (and here I mean produced, not extracted) at a rate less than our current consumption.

Well, that wouldn't be that useful of a definition. From Google:

Energy obtained from sources that are essentially inexhaustible (unlike, for example, fossil fuels, of which there is a finite supply). Renewable sources of energy include conventional hydroelectric power, wood, waste, geothermal, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal energy.

 

[brewnog]

I wonder what the rate of actual production (as opposed to extraction) of fossil fuels looks like.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hydrogen economy for a sustainable development:
state-of-the-art and technological perspectives

M. Conte*, A. Iacobazzi, M. Ronchetti, R. Vellone
ENEA, Advanced Energy Technology Division, C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00060 Rome, Italy

Abstract
Sustainable energy is becoming of increasing concern world-wide. The rapid growth of global climate changes along with the fear of energy supply shortage is creating a large consensus about the potential benefits of a hydrogen economy coming from renewable energy sources. The interesting perspectives are over-shadowed by uncertainties about the development of key technologies, such as renewable energy sources, advanced production processes, fuel cells, metal hydrides, nanostructures, standards and codes, and so on. The availability of critical technologies can create a base for the start of the hydrogen economy, as a fuel and energy carrier alternative to the current fossil resources. This paper will explore the rationale for such a revolution in the energy sector, will describe the state-of-the-art of major related technologies (fuel cell, storage systems, fuel cell vehicles) and current niche applications, and will sketch scientific and technological challenges and recommendations for research and development (R&D) initiatives to accelerate the pace for the widespread introduction of a hydrogen economy. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. [continued]

http://prog2000.casaccia.enea.it/nuovo/documenti/2108.PDF

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I always thought that the term 'renewable' was given to those sources for which potential production exceeds demand. Coal, oil and natural gas are being produced (and here I mean produced, not extracted) at a rate less than our current consumption.

Well, that wouldn't be that useful of a definition.Well, that wouldn't be that useful of a definition.

i think that's the only definition that works. If we somehow managed to create a process that converted raw organic matter into crude oil, it would become a renewable resource because it's production could exceed demand. the only thing i would add to that definition is "over long periods of time". some of what we consider to be renewable resources won't be renewable as the population and rate of consumption increases, unless we institute better conservation methods in our consumption of resources.

Solar powered inputs are the only true renewable resources available to us. Converting them into power on demand resources [like gasoline] is the challenge.

right now our only man-made source of storage is chemical batteries, which are incredibly inneffecient and lack the capacity to store energy in the amounts we require for most activities, such as travel. it may be that we should stop looking for fossil fuel replacements and should start making more efficient batteries (and by battery i don't necessarily mean the chemical batteries we use, but rather any form of long term energy storage). it might also be a good idea to research ways of storing solar energy in other chemical forms than the electric batteries we use.

 

[russ_watters]

i think that's the only definition that works. If we somehow managed to create a process that converted raw organic matter into crude oil, it would become a renewable resource because it's production could exceed demand.

Huh? You're making an argument using an example of something that doesn't exist? :uhh:

But yeah, if oil did suddenly become renewable, it would be renewable. :rofl:

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Huh? You're making an argument using an example of something that doesn't exist? :uhh:

But yeah, if oil did suddenly become renewable, it would be renewable. :rofl:

well Duuuh :P every exhaustable resource in existence is only non-renewable because we haven't invented the technology to make it renewable. think star trek, with they're lil food synthesizer things. i believe that eventually we'll invent the technology to synthesize whatever resource we need. in that age all you'll need is a source of raw energy (the sun) and your synthesizer to make all the coal, oil, water, wood etc that you want. these resources are only non-renewable because we don't know how to renew them yet.

i should also mention that oil is renewable in the sense that natural processes do produce more oil, but at a rate far too slow for our current rate of consumption.

 

[Cliff_J]

Well if TDP (thermo-depolymerization) takes off then that would come close to a renewable energy source for the majority of the fuel products currently created from crude oil.

There was a website claiming to have aluminum batteries with more than an order of magnitude greater storage capacity than lead-acid or lithum batteries at a lower cost. No idea how real and practical (or if just theoretical) but such a technology would fundamentally shift focus off hydrogen and back to electric transportation.

Now we're back to Russ's concerns about building up our electric infrastructure. Its almost like we need another Roosevelt/Eisenhower to be in office to build an infrastructure instead of just talk about it.

Oh, and how ironic that aluminum would be (potentially) the jump forward in the storage of electricity considering the vast amounts used to extract Al from bauxite.

Cliff

 

[shrumeo]

If we somehow managed to create a process that converted raw organic matter into crude oil, it would become a renewable resource because it's production could exceed demand.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1291187/posts
http://www.forrelease.com/D20040519/nyw186.P1.05192004183352.28636.html
http://groundstate.ca/node/68

 

[shrumeo]

You cannot replace liquid fossil-fuels with ethanol. You can replace them with boron;

This was dismissed in the sixties.
And the website says they will get boron from its oxides.
This requires an energy input, we might as well be talking about a hydrogen fuel cell.
It says you can only use pure oxygen, something else to buy.
It all sounds like a severe pain in the neck.

and you can replace them with http://www.archive-one.com/new-5453663-4277.html .

Pie in the sky, anyone?

 

[Seafang]

well Duuuh :P every exhaustable resource in existence is only non-renewable because we haven't invented the technology to make it renewable. think star trek, with they're lil food synthesizer things. i believe that eventually we'll invent the technology to synthesize whatever resource we need. in that age all you'll need is a source of raw energy (the sun) and your synthesizer to make all the coal, oil, water, wood etc that you want. these resources are only non-renewable because we don't know how to renew them yet.

i should also mention that oil is renewable in the sense that natural processes do produce more oil, but at a rate far too slow for our current rate of consumption.

Well to take your thesis-that oil is renewable but too slowly- and continue in that vein we might alos observe that solar energy is renewable, but is simply too diffuse to be useful.

If one takes the solar constant to be 1366.1 Watts per square meter (extraterrestrially) which reduces at ground level to about 1000 W/m^2, then we note that the Earth absorbs sunlight over an area pi.R^2, but re-radiates infra red over an area 4.pi.R^2, then we would guess that the average ground level solar flux is more like 250 W/m^2.

More accurate computations suggest the mean value is actually 186 W/m^2.

If we get extremely generous and assume that we can actually mass produce a multi band gap solar cell with 25% efficiency over the solar spectrum, then we could generate about 46.5 W/m^2 on average over the planet

So it would take 21,500 squ meters to generate one megaWatt of electricity (continuously on average). That is about the area of three football fields.

If we collect the solar flux as thermal energy, we could do a different calculation with different efficiencies, and we would find the same result.

Renewable solar energy is simply too scattered to be useful except for niche applications.

If petroleum is simply another mineral dposit, and not squished dinosaurs, then it could be far more plentiful in the Earth's crust than we know.

So far as I know, nobody has ever proved that petroleum results from originally living matter whether dinosaurs or old primordial plants; that is simply conjecture and there is essentially zero physical evidence to indicate that origin.

That doesn't resolve the question of whether the planet can withstand continuous 'fossil fuel' burning, but it does change the possible lifetime of the oil age.

Saudi Arabia just announced that its oil reserves are now 70% higher than they previously were. That isn't a ten fold increase or even a 100 fold increase, but it does indicate that the search for more oil is far from over.

 

[brewnog]

Saudi Arabia just announced that its oil reserves are now 70% higher than they previously were. That isn't a ten fold increase or even a 100 fold increase, but it does indicate that the search for more oil is far from over.

Claims like these are more often based on politics than actual discoveries of new oil. Also, beware of the difference between obtainable and non-obtainable oil reserves, - there's loads of oil beneath us which is simply inaccessible, and OPEC countries often ruthlessly modify their claims in order to affect the global market. (Source: 'The End Of Oil' - Paul Roberts, 2004)

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

So it would take 21,500 squ meters to generate one megaWatt of electricity (continuously on average). That is about the area of three football fields.

I lived in saudi arabia for a year when i was 8, and i remember a school field trip to a solar power plant they had. the plant was fully functional and operational. i do NOT know what kind of output it had, but yes, it did span a few football fields. but it WORKED. and to ignore solar energy would be folly, imho.

If petroleum is simply another mineral dposit, and not squished dinosaurs, then it could be far more plentiful in the Earth's crust than we know.

So far as I know, nobody has ever proved that petroleum results from originally living matter whether dinosaurs or old primordial plants; that is simply conjecture and there is essentially zero physical evidence to indicate that origin.

i suggest you take a few biology/chemistry courses. oh, and reread the definition of mineral. here, i'll make it easy on you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mineral
oh, and just for kicks: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=petroleum

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be called a fool than open it and remove all doubt." - my dad ;)

 

[hitssquad]

Perhaps boron might work better than hydrogen

the website says they will get boron from its oxides. This requires an energy input

That was not contested. We have:

• essentially limitless energy
  
• limited capacity to carry that energy around with us

Perhaps boron might work better than hydrogen. And perhaps nuclear gasoline might work better than boron.

It says you can only use pure oxygen, something else to buy.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

• The working fluid is expected to be ... atmospherically extracted oxygen.

This means there is an oxygen-extractor on board.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

set the way back machine for my good ol' middle school days :)
way back when, i had thought of an idea for a miniaturized nuclear fission reactor. i am by no means an expert, but with modern technology it seems simple to me to make a nuclear reactor small enough for consumer use.

i understand the MANY risks that would involve regarding radiation and possibilities of melt-downs and economic feasibility and what have you, but those aside, i'd like to know if it's possible to make a reactor small enough to power say a regular automobile. maybe i should start a different thread on this, but i think nuclear power is a viable alternative to other power sources, it's just a matter of safe-guarding it.

so was my 7th grade mind too full of fancy? or is it really possible?

 

[Kenneth Mann]

There may be hope, after all!

For any that may be interested, this article appears on the front page of Today's (Jan 9, 2005) Washington Post:

"Automakers Put Hydrogen Power On the Fast Track" by Peter Baker

It makes the usual discussion about hydrogen powered autos (mostly the fuel cell, which most seem to think flows automatically from hydrogen). The interesting part, however is the expressed belief that the industry is quite serious about it this time. The following comment is made - - -

The Washington Post
After a century of dependence on oil-based fuel, the auto industry is finally giving consumers a serious look at a future with little or no gasoline power.

The article even states the reason - in the following sentences:

The Washington Post
. . . . The market's telling us something -- they're ready for this kind of stuff. The public is aware that we can't continue to consume oil like we do."

The Washington Post
People have sent that message in the way car companies understand best: by buying products such as the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid and the Ford Escape Hybrid. Rising fuel prices, instability in the Middle East and concerns about global warming have helped sustain the hybrid phenomenon, and U.S. car buyers have even turned away from the biggest SUVs in favor of smaller models.

Maybe, finally we are actually going to move. It's beginning to look promising. Note the following:

The Washington Post
- - while they disagree on specifics, virtually all automakers are pushing to get more attention for hydrogen so that society, the government and other industries will get ready for the eventual change,

Now, the main question is - - Will the oil industry and Opec accept the (apparently) inevitable, or will they fight it. If you are interested, the full article can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

KM

 

[selfAdjoint]

Now, the main question is - - Will the oil industry and Opec accept the (apparently) inevitable, or will they fight it.

One might think at first that OPEC would fight the transition to a Hydrogen economy. What, after all, is in it for them? But note that Saudi crude, which used to be the standard for "light" (sulfur free), is now all "heavy". The bottom of their barrel may be huge, but it is apparently the bottom. Perhaps they could come to see a hydrogen conversion of their remaining reserves as a productive way to go?

 

[brewnog]

Now, the main question is - - Will the oil industry and Opec accept the (apparently) inevitable, or will they fight it.

Indeed the oil industry will embrace it. They know it's inevitable, which is why companies like Shell invest heavily in looking into such technologies, and also why BP is trying to show us that it is "Beyond Petroleum" (along with its gay new logo).

If they can't sell us petrol forever, they want to be the ones who can sell us its replacement.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some years ago, the CEO of one of the major oil suppliers stated that the oil industry is planning its own funeral - from the wisdom that, in terms of economics, it is just as important how a business ends, as how it begins. Within the context of the discussion, I took this as meaning that a shift in focus to alternative energy schemes is underway, even at the oil companies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, by chance, from Physics Today, today.

The Hydrogen Economy
If the fuel cell is to become the modern steam engine, basic research must provide breakthroughs in understanding, materials, and design to make a hydrogen−based energy system a vibrant and competitive force.

George W. Crabtree, Mildred S. Dresselhaus, and Michelle V. Buchanan
Since the industrial revolution began in the 18th century, fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas have powered the technology and transportation networks that drive society. But continuing to power the world from fossil fuels threatens our energy supply and puts enormous strains on the environment. The world's demand for energy is projected to double by 2050 in response to population growth and the industrialization of developing countries.1 The supply of fossil fuels is limited, with restrictive shortages of oil and gas projected to occur within our lifetimes (see the article by Paul Weisz in Physics Today, July 2004, page 47). Global oil and gas reserves are concentrated in a few regions of the world, while demand is growing everywhere; as a result, a secure supply is increasingly difficult to assure. Moreover, the use of fossil fuels puts our own health at risk through the chemical and particulate pollution it creates. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with global warming threaten the stability of Earth's climate.

A replacement for fossil fuels will not appear overnight. Extensive R&D is required before alternative sources can supply energy in quantities and at costs competitive with fossil fuels, and making those alternative sources available commercially will itself require developing the proper economic infrastructure. Each of those steps takes time, but greater global investment in R&D will most likely hasten the pace of economic change. Although it is impossible to predict when the fossil fuel supply will fall short of demand or when global warming will become acute, the present trend of yearly increases in fossil fuel use shortens our window of opportunity for a managed transition to alternative energy sources. [continued]

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, since I was looking...

The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/

Hydrogen Economy Offers Major Opportunities
But Faces Considerable Hurdles

WASHINGTON -- A transition to hydrogen as a major fuel in the next 50 years could significantly change the U.S. energy economy, reducing air emissions and expanding domestic energy resources, but technical, economic, and infrastructure barriers need to be overcome, says a new report from the National Academies' National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. In the best case scenario, the transition to a hydrogen economy would take many decades, and any reductions in oil imports and carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years, said the committee that wrote the report.

"Our study suggests that while hydrogen is a potential long-term energy approach for the nation, the government should keep a balanced portfolio of research and development efforts to enhance U.S. energy efficiency and develop alternative energy sources," said committee chair Michael Ramage, retired executive vice president at ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, Moorestown, N.J.

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091632?OpenDocument

 

[Chronos]

The reality of alternative energy sources is not an issue. They exist and they work. The problem is economics. If alternatives to oil were cheaper, we would already be using them. There may not be cheaper alternatives, I mean golly gee, how much does it cost to pump oil out of the ground and refine it? How much does it cost to raise corn and convert it to ethanol compared to what it would cost if the corn was free [e.g., imagine vast, naturally occurring underground silos filled with corn]? The oil renaissance is going to end in the foreseeable future. The choice is simple. We either develop and commercialize the alternatives before the wells run dry, absorbing the cost slowly, or wait until the bitter end and make the balloon payment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

IMO, one key to understanding the Hydrogen Economy is to understand that these real dollars, and lots of them, must be factored back in as we dig out from the sludge of an oil economy.