Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 4:23 am Post subject: Re: Huge TV program about peakoil, hydrogen
Aldert wrote:
The first 30 minutes orso talks about fossil depletion, peak oil and the ASPO conference in paris last year. Then it goes on talking about hydrogen and how it will be difficult to be a replacement for oil and natural gas because it's and energycarrier and not an energysource.
I'm presently 57 minutes into the show, and I'm seriously convinced that the show is 10% substance, 90% spin. Hydrogen is nowhere near as promising as this show makes it out to be. Only the merest lip service was given to its limitations.
If it was a worthwhile show, I might write to SBS and/or ABC, but it's not, so I won't. _________________ The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:01 am Post subject: [Hydrogen 5] Hydrogen Fuel Cell future is looking cloudy
There is a big article in the Toronto Globe and Mail Report on Business today about Ballard Power. [url]link Anyone who contemplates the future world of hydrogen displacing petroeum should read this.
While most of the article is focused on the design of the fuel cell itself, a couple of telling paragraphs illustrate that the the "hydrogen economy" itself is built on a shaky foundation. The availability of hydrogen itself is the weakest link in the picture. While Ballard and others tinker with the membranes and the finesse stuff of the fuel cell, the essential first questions of hydrogen production and distribution are largely overlooked and misunderstood by the public and investing community at large:
Quote:
Then there are the challenges associated with producing the hydrogen -- among them, replacing the existing network of gasoline stations with a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. Estimated cost: $500-billion (U.S.). Hydrogen also requires a great deal of energy to produce and suffers from the perception -- a legacy of the legendary Hindenburg airship disaster of 1937 -- that it is extremely unsafe. Hydrogen storage is another major issue. Because it lacks the density of natural gas, much higher volumes are needed to provide the equivalent driving range; some method of compression is therefore required.
No wonder that John Wallace, head of Ford's Th!nk Group, compared the challenge facing the fuel-cell industry to putting 10,000 men on the moon -- every day -- at an affordable price. In a February report to the Washington-based National Research Council, a committee of scientists concluded that it would take at least a decade for this to happen, if it ever happens at all. "People in the industry have known that," Mr. Pilorusso says, "but there seems to be great reluctance to speak about it openly
No wonder there is a reluctance to speak openly. It would scare away smart investors and that flow of government grant money.
It seems to me that a methanol based fuel cell technology would be of greater interest as renewable based methanol production is much more likely and its energy density and distribution simplicity are in league with petroleum.
A methanol based fuel cell economy is equally problematic. Methanol does not have the variety of production sources that exists for hydrogen and methanol comes with its own set of difficulties, not the least being its intense biological toxicity and very low efficiency in fuel cells . Remember, biomass is the only long term source of methanol and we can all agree that biomass will be woefully inadequate to power society. Methanol for example cannot be made from electricity and water, cannot be made thermochemically from water and cannot be made photochemically from water. These three techniques are likely to be the largest renewable energy techniques available on a sustainable basis. Even nuclear hydrogen uses these techniques.
Only carbon containing biomass can be used to make methanol. Coal is not renewable, neither is heavy oil/tar sands etc. nor is natural gas. Hence, the options for methanol manufacture sustainably are biomass and biomass only. It would be better to use biomass to produce cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel/synthetic diesel/ether etc.
It does appear that the hydrogen economy will not happen as envisioned but that hydrogen will be used when all better options are exhausted for storage of the intermittent renewables. There is no other role for hydrogen in the future in my opinion and such is also the case for methanol.
It seems to me that a methanol based fuel cell technology would be of greater interest as renewable based methanol production is much more likely and its energy density and distribution simplicity are in league with petroleum.
I disagree.
I don't think we can compare methanol (or any transportation fuel I know of), to oil.
The jury is out on just how cheap we can make technologies like hydrogen or bio fuel, but these untested solutions all require complex processes to exploit. It's like saying that getting stitches for a cut, is the same as brain surgery... because they are both surgery.
None of the experts I respect think that any of these alternatives will yield more than a fraction of the energy we need anytime soon. From Simmons, to Campbell, Smalley & Deffreys, all point out how limited they are compared to hydrocarbons.
If I run low on food, the crust of bread may look good to me, but I'm still starving. _________________ "We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time." - TS Eliot*
While most of the article is focused on the design of the fuel cell itself, a couple of telling paragraphs illustrate that the "hydrogen economy" itself is built on a shaky foundation.
I think history shows that when an invention stays on the shelf for more than forty years it is not going to make it in the long run. All technologies start their life as being not so practical and very expensive.
Look at the automobile. The quadricycle was a noisy, smelly contraption which couldn't outrun a three legged horse. Yet it development took off exponentially. The same holds for the steam engine, train, airplane etc.
The fuel cell has been around for over 150 years. Yet it has never found any practical use outside the space program.
So in order for these things to become feasible now (all of a sudden) you need a major technological breakthrough. And so far I haven't seen such a major step forward.
I think fuel cells are being used for mass transit in Iceland. They use geothermal energy to make hydrogen from water. For personal transportation, you can use your feet. With pedal power, they can prove to be quite effective if you are in shape.
I reject group ignorance just like I rejected the march to war in Iraq based on lies and propaganda by this pay to play government of ours.
The so-called free market system we have in this country is a LIE and it should be properly named the status-quo system instead. Need I give examples to those who would argue otherwise. Anyone with half-a-brain can plainly see that PROFIT overrides the best interests of the people and tyranny come in many different flavors.
The auto companies are a dispicable bunch of selfish greedy liars as are the oil companies when their gravy train is threatened by people looking to make the world a better place to live in both locally and globally.
Who is it that is dancing the fuel cell vehicle in front of us now and why? Well it's so they can take our attention away from other ready to roll ideas that should and could start happening right now for a vaieity of good reasons that they couldn't care less about.
Advanced rechargable vehicle batteries have NOT to this day been produced in numbers large enough needed to greatly lower their cost. While at the same time rechargable NiMH consumer battery costs have come down greatly. There is a a lot to be said for improving our energy and environmental situation with BEVs, HEVs, PIEV and many other off the shelf solutions but the auto companies are threathed by these necessary changes and just won't do it until it's too late.
Yes, I've been paying attention and I ain't buying this group think BS of we can't do anything about it now and who in gods sake says we need to drive anywhere as much as we do in the USA? It's blatent consumerism at its worst vs common sense having people spending anywher from 2-6 hours a day just getting back and forth to work.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:13 am Post subject:
Aaron wrote:
I don't think we can compare methanol (or any transportation fuel I know of), to oil.
The jury is out on just how cheap we can make technologies like hydrogen or bio fuel, but these untested solutions all require complex processes to exploit. It's like saying that getting stitches for a cut, is the same as brain surgery... because they are both surgery.
None of the experts I respect think that any of these alternatives will yield more than a fraction of the energy we need anytime soon. From Simmons, to Campbell, Smalley & Deffreys, all point out how limited they are compared to hydrocarbons.
The point remains that we will still be able to move people and goods around using motorized transport even after the last drop of oil is removed from the ground. To a more limited extent than we do now, of course. Those with the foresight to begin adjusting their transport needs and systems now will do better when the peak comes.
By the way, as I have said many times before, hydrogen can be converted to methane through a straightforward piece of 19th century technology. Methane is natural gas, which while not as good as oil is still a very satisfactory transport fuel.
We won't be able to keep doing things as we have been, but society will go on. Lets also remember that through 6000 years of human history, 5850 of them had no supplies of oil at all and only in the last fifty or so years did the use of petroleum products become ubiquitous.
I've been saying for several years that hydrogen is not a viable solution. See http://www.cypenv.org/Files/hydrogen.htm for the situation where I live: you can extrapolate the figures to larger countries without fear.
As for cars, I wrote http://www.cypenv.org/Files/cars.htm. Today's ONLY practical way of significantly reducing fuel consumption is the hybrid car replacing all those gas guzzlers. If I were a benevolent dictator, I'd decree that all conventional petrol/diesel cars be phased off the road over a 5 year period, starting with the oldest, to be replaced by hybrids with a fuel consumption of 4 l/100 km (60 mpg) or better.
Electric cars are also a no-no, because they will require just as many nuclear power stations as hydrogen, as their best efficiencies from smoke stack to km run are about the same. _________________ Devil
Yes, I think it's a good idea.
The thing about wind and solar is that due to intermittency, they will probably never be a big grid contributor.
If you can use them to create hydrogen and combine with carbon, you have a "fossil fuel" type hydrocarbon which is easy to use and transport.
I gallon of oil has about 36kwh. If you consider efficiencies and all of generating hydrogen and then combining with carbon a gallon of oil could be created for the price of 70kwh (guess) of wind electric.
I'm not sure what the costs are from wind. I would think in a windy place it would be 3-4 c/kwh.
If solar can be made as cheaply as some say reports projected (20c/peak w), then it could be used as well.
The thing about wind and solar is that due to intermittency, they will probably never be a big grid contributor.
Denmark has already proven that 20% of the grid can be run by Wind.
As for Solar, since it is most effective during the day when electric grid power use is at it's max, Solar could easily be a serious contributor. When it is cloudy, it is also not as hot, therefore less air conditioning is being used. I have not seen any theoretical study on what solar could provide, but I suspect it is at least 10% to 20%.
Solar really depends on whether it is a distributed power (every house has it's own solar panels and battery storage) or are the utilities running the show. If it is distributed and everyone has a storage bank of batteries, and is also tied to the grid for tie-in, then there is no telling how much solar could do.
People who are tied into the grid with their solar, so that they use grid power and sell power to the grid, at about breakeven on their energy use. They sell as much as they buy.
That is the ideal...the problems are: getting cheap platinum (or a substitute catalyst) for fuel cells and hydrogen storage. The concept is solid, it's the implementation part that needs help.
It would also take at least 10 years before the existing fleet of petrol/diesel vehicles drove their last mile.
And that's assuming that 100% of new cars were hybrids - a situation that's a long way off, especially with Ford subsidising the cost of the Explorer 4x4 hybrid by $3000. Are Toyota doing the same with the Prius?? _________________ Burning the midnight oil, whilst I still can.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
