A plan to end oil addiction

[Curt 1]

Bush has one apparently

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/bush.sotu/index.html

 

& these are soothing words from the BBC

 

Bush vows to face dangers head on

 

President George W Bush has warned of "danger and decline" if the US fails to face up to outside threats, in his annual State of the Union address.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

If oil is an addictive drug, then does that make Bush`s family and friends pushers?

[ncorrenti 0]

Why are they throwing money into so-called research when there are already hydrogen-powered and fuel cell vehicles available commercially? Sounds like he's just spurting more of his usual BS to appease the masses.

[Kraut_in_HongKong 0]

hydrogen-powered and fuel cell are still rather experimental.

 

Hybrid is booming (thanks Toyota!), even in the US. One state has a law that Diesel must contain a certain %age of biodiesel (usually made from canola AKA rape seed).

 

But progress is pretty slow.

 

I think within 5 years WMD will be suspected in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. Once those contries are 'liberated' the oil supply will be secure for a few decades.

[Ocean11 0]

> Why are they throwing money into so-called research when there are already hydrogen-powered and fuel cell vehicles available commercially?

 

Because there aren't really any workable ones available commercially, and there are already trillions of vehicles on the road that need to be fueled. With a bit of work, loads of waste can be turned into ethanol for petrol vehicles and biodiesel for diesels, to run existing vehicles.

 

Bush's plan will probably be utterly spastic in execution though.

[soubriquet 0]

There's an interesting press release on ethanol here:

 

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Ethanol_Can_Replace_Gasoline_With_Big_Energy_Savings.html

 

It's quite long, but here's food for thought.

 

"Knowledgeable venture capitalists already are putting money behind ethanol and cellulosic technology, as witnessed by recent investments by Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates and strong interest by Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla.

 

"The investment by Gates is an example of the excitement and seriousness the venture capital community sees in cellulosic technology, which they see as now ready to go prime time," he said. "Our assessment in the paper is that it is a very strong winner and that the effort needed to go the last 10 percent of the way to get cellulosic on board is actually very small.""

[Ocean11 0]

My missus was trying to tell me that either Suntory or Asahi had developed a technology for converting the woody waste from sugar grown in Okinawa into ethanol for 30 yen a litre, making sugar doubly profitable and providing cheap fuel.

 

It seems like we've had our waste systems all plumbed into the wrong places. I'm sure something useful could be done with Dick Cheney's shit if people would only put their minds to it.

[ncorrenti 0]

011: I believe Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, Hyundai and Honda (and probably more) have all developed working hydrogen prototypes which are scheduled for release commercially - some this year in fact.

 

Most of these manufacturers (and Mercedes Benz too) have F-Cell vehicles on the roads at the moment. I also heard that there are F-Cell taxi fleets being trialled in NYC.

[damian 0]

Perhaps America could look to Brazil for a role model. The Brazilians have an unfortunate habit of chopping things down, but they are also very good at weaning themselves off oil. Sugar based ethanol is their answer.

 

This article is full of revealing figures.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817

 

By the way, world sugar prices have continued to escalate in a manner largely not seen since the Nasdaq bubble. In the last year world sugar has increased in price by about 120%. The last few weeks have seen the most frantic price rises. In reverse order (ie, last weeks gain is the top % listed) these are the weekly increases in sugar prices over the last 11 weeks:

 

+9%

+12%

+3%

0%

+3%

+5%

+5%

+6%

+1%

+4%

 

For weekly gains, they are simply amazing figures and pretty much reflective of the worlds opinion regarding the need for alternative energy sources and sugar as a feed crop. Some researchers anticipate that the price will double again in the next year. Ethanol is not the answer in isolation, but it is certainly being taken seriously.

 

Just in case anyone is looking for a lifestyle change into agriculture, the sunshine coast is a stunning part of Australia with great surf, long warm days and also perfect for growing sugar cane.

[ncorrenti 0]

Ah hah! But you gotta remember, sugar cane is quite harsh on the environment as well. The crops suck all the nutrients out of the soil, so the farmers have to keep loading the land with fertilisers. The fertilisers then get into the local water tables and creeks and cause algal blooms.

[damian 0]

....and fertilisers require scarce natural gas for its creation. Some scientists believe that ethanol is also energy negative: it takes more energy to create than it outputs. There is also a similar quite serious efficiency issue with fuel cells. Creating hydrogen requires a lot of electricity (or so I read).

 

Regarding the damage that sugar cane does to soil: there are very few ways to fuel the current 1st world population in the manner to which we have become accustomed without significant impacts on both local and global ecology. We are over populated and/or too inefficient and greedy, I recognise myself as part of the problem. I think massive algae ponds appear to be the least invasive feed crops for bioenergy, I certainly favour them over tapping the huge uranium deposits sitting so valuably under Australian soil.

[Ocean11 0]

Hydrogen isn't an energy source - it's an energy carrier. So even if makers put out fancy hydrogen cars, they won't be very practical, especially not for people who already have a car.

 

Sugar cane is indeed very bad for the environment when grown carelessly as a monocrop. But if it is going to be grown to make Twinkies and other good things, its woody parts might as well be used for something too. And it can presumably be grown organically, with composted sewage if necessary. This will probably be found to be more practical than hydrogen.

 

I predict that biofuel and/or battery powered vehicles will replace the hydrogen fantasy ultimately.

[NoFakie 45]

 Quote:

Originally posted by nicole:
011: I believe Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, Hyundai and Honda (and probably more) have all developed working hydrogen prototypes which are scheduled for release commercially - some this year in fact.

This year?! At an affordable price and in meaningful numbers? I don't think so.

In the short term, we need to use the energy we have more efficiently, rather than discover new forms that we can waste with the same old habits. The fastest and easiest way for the US President to do that is to reintroduce the 55mph limit. Cost of implementation=zero. Effect=immediate.

Bush is an oil man and the Republicans are an oil party. They're not going to do anything.

[ncorrenti 0]

No, it's not an energy source - but if the source of the electricity used to make the hydrogen came from a renewable source, it would make hydrogen cars a completely emission-free form of transport.

 

Ethanol fuel blends, on the other hand, will still cause some emissions, yes?

[Ocean11 0]

Electricity is more safely and efficiently stored in batteries than converted hydrogen. Therefore converting electricity from a renewable source to hydrogen is meaningless.

 

As for biofuel blends causing emissions, some transition time to lower emission energy use is inevitable. Practically anything that uses waste biomass is a net benefit.

 

On the weekend I'm going to an Eco Products Fair where new energy cars are being exhibited. It'll be interesting to see whats they gots.

[Thunderpants 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Electricity is more safely and efficiently stored in batteries than converted hydrogen.

Could you be more specific? i would think that you could store more energy pr kg of hydrogen than pr kg's of batteries.

Converting energy in whichever form into hydrogen is very wastefull, that much i know.

This energy talk has to include nuclear power:
I'm all for it! It's much more clean than oil or coal, dosen't create co2, has caused fewer deaths than fossil fuel.
Ity is a techonology that is available now for large scale power production. somehow i can't see how windmills would ever be able to power big cities.

[nzlegend 1]

I watched a very informative docu on BBC last week all about Brazil and their ethanol production.

Most new cars sold in Brazil now are dual fuel ie than can run on petrol and ethanol.

A temporary solution but not an answer, I wouldnt get too excited about it.

 

 Quote:

There is also a similar quite serious efficiency issue with fuel cells. Creating hydrogen requires a lot of electricity (or so I read).

bang on there spud, the production of Hydrogen requires a lot more energy than is transfered from the final product. The problem is finding a cost-efficient method of large-scale production,

one theory bandied around is to create a massive network of wind turbines that would be used mainly for the generation of electricity for the production of hydrogen.

hang on, the pundits say 'won't that cost a shackleload of money?', well yes but its all relative isnt it? when you consider the cost of Iraq occupation is $237,943,000,000 and counting

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

have a look to see the current cost, its continually updating.

$237 billion and counting for a war (insert impressive whistling sound here).

How many wind turbines would that buy??

Wind power is getting cheaper. Wind power now costs as little as 3¢ per kWh down from 50¢ per kWh in 1981

 

Lets have quick google.....

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm

 Quote:

The average price for large, modern wind farms is around 1 000 USD per kilowatt electrical power installed.

now there is a ball park figure.

$ 1000 dollars a Kilowatt = 237000MW thats 237Gigawatts! thats a tremendous amount of hydrogen generating potential, that was planted into a war.

 

A cost of a fuel cell is about $4500 per kw, so its not an efficient transaction, a lot of energy goes in, but not much comes out. That is the problem we face, we demand portable potent energy, petroleum, fuel cells etc.

[ncorrenti 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Electricity is more safely and efficiently stored in batteries than converted hydrogen. Therefore converting electricity from a renewable source to hydrogen is meaningless.

A company called Hydrexia has developed a solid-state hydrogen storage method based on a magnesium alloy manufactured using low cost casting techniques.

Snowglider: You raise some really good points. Wind power is getting cheaper and while I don't believe it has the capacity to solve the world's energy usage problems, I think it can be used effectively to create other sources of renewable energy, like hydrogen.

[Ocean11 0]

When Toyota made their Prius, they used a battery to store the electricity, not a HFC which is a technology that has been around for much longer than most people believe. That's because it's safer and more efficient. Hydrogen under pressure (which is required to store enough of it) is self igniting unlike petrol or batteries.

 

It's premature to talk about the 'need' for nuclear power, or 'massive' wind farms, before smaller, independent, distributed systems are considered. If houses were required by law to provide a certain percentage of the power they use, you would see solar on every roof, and small wind and water systems where those resources are available (ie, abundantly in some locations). You would also see battery powered vehicles recharging on the excess power produced.

 

People are already producing these kind of solutions for themselves. If governments became involved, by setting requirements and conducting surveys, you'd have less war and less pollution.

[ncorrenti 0]

Look, I am a huge advocate for sustainable energy. The problem is that sources such as wind power, wave energy, hot rocks, etc, are all located away from the grid, which means that a lot of energy is lost in distribution.

 

So yeah, I agree with 011 that we need to look to solar technologies for individual homes. There have been huge improvements in solar technology in recent years, especially with photovoltaic cells like the Sliver cell. The Sliver cell is available commercially and is being used in high rise buildings and other large scale projects. Unfortunately - at this stage - the cost is still too high for the average homeowner. However, I'm sure that a little more R&D will result in a cheaper product.

 

I really hope we don't end up going down the nuclear energy path. A lot of experts are saying we will, simply because on a worldwide scale, our energy usage is increasing rapidly. We're plugging in more electronic devices than ever before and as the earth succumbs to global warming, we're all getting hotter and more and more people are turning on their airconditioners.

 

The thing that really makes me sad is knowing that most power companies are only investing in sustainable energy as a token effort. If they build a wind farm, they'll have enough green credit points to build another coal fired power plant. And we really can't put all the blame on the power companies - they're simply finding ways to supply our demand. Unless we switch off all our appliances, we'll simply run out of power.

[js 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Thunderpants:
Converting energy in whichever form into hydrogen is very wastefull, that much i know.

This energy talk has to include nuclear power:
I'm all for it! It's much more clean than oil or coal, dosen't create co2, has caused fewer deaths than fossil fuel.
Ity is a techonology that is available now for large scale power production. somehow i can't see how windmills would ever be able to power big cities.

1. if hydrogen production is fuelled by renewable resources, then waste is debatable.
2. You're misinformed about Nuclear power generation - its dirty, deadly and dangerous. E.g. waste products reside for thousands of years and must be stored securely indefinitely, industrial accidents have far reaching implications for entire regions, and as for deaths incurred when compared to say the coal industry - well, radiation exposure has longer term affects, but I'm sure if you could account for all the deaths of workers in the Nuclear Energy and related industries (including those who work/reside near such facilities), you'd find a VERY scary set of statistics.

Because radiation doesn't have a smell, feel or other peceptible presence, people think its harmless - go to a skin cancer clinic and see how much damage the sun AKA radiation exposure has on peoples lives!

3. Things like wind/hydro/solar/hot rock power can't power cities alone, but that's not the intention - they're meant as a supplement/complement to other forms of generation.

I think much more R&D needs to be done on Solar and its related fields (solar chemicals, heat exchangers, etc)

Government leadership is missing too - e.g. all government buildings should have photovoltaic cells for power supply.

Here's some hope:
http://www.pv.unsw.edu.au/

[Ocean11 0]

> Things like wind/hydro/solar/hot rock power can't power cities alone

 

I bet they can. Nobody has ever tried it fully hence the doubt, but with conservation of power and full use of renewables, you'd have a different but workable economy. The last energy review in the UK suggested that it was possible. Then Tony Bliar decided to have another energy review to meet the needs of the nuclear lobby.

[js 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
> Things like wind/hydro/solar/hot rock power can't power cities alone

I bet they can. Nobody has ever tried it fully hence the doubt, but with conservation of power and full use of renewables, you'd have a different but workable economy. The last energy review in the UK suggested that it was possible. Then Tony Bliar decided to have another energy review to meet the needs of the nuclear lobby.

Yes, I was considering the worse case scenario of increasing energy use without abatement, that is, without a decline due to change in attitudes (which is unfortunately most likely).

[ncorrenti 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by SubZero:
... industrial accidents have far reaching implications for entire regions, and as for deaths incurred when compared to say the coal industry - well, radiation exposure has longer term affects, but I'm sure if you could account for all the deaths of workers in the Nuclear Energy and related industries (including those who work/reside near such facilities), you'd find a VERY scary set of statistics.

Can you substantiate this claim? There have only been two major nuclear power generation accidents in history, those being Three Mile Island (no fatalities) and Chernobyl, which killed 31 people directly and an estimated 2500 people indirectly.

Now, I would imagine that there have been a lot more fatalities and accidents from exploding transformers and coal mine and oil rig accidents than from nuclear power disasters. I hear about them all the time.

Not to mention that in the US alone, more than 23,000 deaths each year can be attributed to air pollution from power plants.

[ncorrenti 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
> Things like wind/hydro/solar/hot rock power can't power cities alone

I bet they can. Nobody has ever tried it fully hence the doubt, but with conservation of power and full use of renewables, you'd have a different but workable economy. The last energy review in the UK suggested that it was possible. Then Tony Bliar decided to have another energy review to meet the needs of the nuclear lobby.

Ok, so the world's largest wind power plant (Texas, USA) only powers 7000 homes. We are going to need a crapload of wind power plants to have enough power for everyone - where are you going to stick them all?