Stop the Fossil Foolishness

[RedEarth]

Gas prices are on the rise again and news analysts are kicking it around, wondering who is being ripped off this time. But geologists, scientists and even some economists suspect that unlike other gas shortages, this one is the real thing, or at least the beginning of the real thing: production has peaked and the era of cheap oil is about to end.

The consequences of the end of oil are monumental beyond any overstatement. Without leadership at this moment, our chances of avoiding future chaos are slim. But who will provide the leadership?

President Bush showed up in California last week for Earth Day. In Sacramento, he met with representatives of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a consortium of companies and government agencies that promotes hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. Bush happily hyped the "hydrogen economy" as the ultimate solution to our oil addiction. Meanwhile, to deal with the short term gas price rise, he instructed the EPA to start dropping environmental requirements for warm weather fuel additives. We'll save a few pennies at the pump but our lungs will pay for it.

The hydrogen economy is an interesting concept. Hydrogen, the lightest element, consisting of one proton and one electron, can be dissociated from water (H2O) by applying an electrical current. The idea is to use electricity generated by nuclear plants or potentially solar and wind generators, to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen is most efficiently burned in fuel cells, which are basically a battery that recharges with a fuel like hydrogen or natural gas.

There are major challenges to overcome before this idea could even approach implementation. One is the complexity and cost of fuel cells which are not at all a mature technology for widespread use. Another is the problem of hydrogen storage. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to compress and cool hydrogen to a liquid state for storage in a tank. Finally there's the source of electricity for generating hydrogen: a phenomenal ramp-up of nuclear and/or renewable power generation will be required because hydrogen is not the actual source of energy. It is merely an energy carrier, a way to store energy and pack it along to keep us moving down the road.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606R.shtml

[benburch]

1. Nuclear energy is not necessary for hydrogen!

Solar power is ideal for making hydrogen.

[hunter]

4. Nature didn't go with hydrogen, even though the chemistry is easy.

I don't know.

It's not as if we can build cars with muscle engines that eat sugar... yet. That would be pretty cool if you could put a panel on your roof that made sugar water, and then put that sugar water in your car as fuel.

The nearest thing to that we have today is riding a horse or a bicycle.

The trouble is if you have solar or wind generated electricity, you lose quite a bit of energy converting it to hydrogen, and then converting that hydrogen to whatever energy form you need. In almost any situation the electricity is much more valuable than the hydrogen, especially so if you are connected to some sort of electrical network. Off network the best deal for energy storage is still lead-acid batteries.

More research is required, but our backs are sorta against the wall.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. "The nearest thing ... is riding a horse or a bicycle."

Hold that thought. :)

[benburch]

6. The Sun gives us 33 Horsepower per square yard at the equator.

So we have a lot of solar power to waste before we are in any danger of running out.

And a solar electric plant does NOT need to be photovoltaic, either! A closed loop steam plant or a stirling cycle plant would do the job equally well, and perhaps cheaper!

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Um, is that right?

I make it 2.1 Hp, ignoring the atmosphere - I think it's closer to 1 HP at groud level. :)

But your right, if we can grab it cheaply enough, there's plenty...

[benburch]

8. Nothing much cheaper than steel mirrors and cast iron steam pipes...

And they require no exotic materials science.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. True...

I'd like to see a lot more solar thermal being built. (I'd also like a pony and and a bicycle for Christmas. Oh well...)

[benburch]

9. Oh, and that number was from memory.

Of something I read in the 60s,,, So I might well be wrong.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. You are forgiven...

The only reason I spotted it was from doing the sums for the giant sunscreen in another thread... :D

[jpak]

12. Electrolysis of water to produce H2 is pretty damned efficient (~80-85%)

and fuel cells are pretty dern e-fficent converting H2 to juice (50-80%).

Hydrogen electroyzer-fuel cells systems are far more "efficient" (~50% or more) than nuclear power plants (that convert only ~30% of fission/thermal energy to electricity).

Also, nature DID go hydrogen. During photosynthesis H2O is photo-dissociated to H and O, the H is used to produce CH2O - it's the "HY" in carboHYdrates...

Solar/wind electrolysis to produce H2 for energy storage and fuel cell electrical production is very efficient and, unlike Pb-acid batteries, these systems are relatively maintenance-free and have a very long operational lives.

The Schatz Energy Center PV/H2/Fuel Cell system at Humboldt University operated for ~7 years without human intervention - 100% 24/7/365 availability (the only reason it was shut down was to upgrade the computers and fuel cell/electrolyzer systems).

No nuclear power plant could ever match that type of performance.

[hunter]

13. My point was nature doesn't keep the raw hydrogen around.

That hydrogen is immediately converted into something else.

The Schatz scheme works, but it's an awfully big battery! And somehow I wouldn't feel comfortable if all my neighbors had a big ol' tank of hydrogen in their backyards.

If you could efficiently make methane from electricity, water, and carbon dioxide, then you might pump that methane back into old natural gas wells and have a system that scales very, very well.

The problem with hydrogen will always be that it is cumbersome to store and transport.

[BeFree]

2. The foolishness comes from...

...inefficient and uneconomical uses of the resource.

If we all used half as much oil, the supply would last twice as long.

It could be done within a year, this effectual doubling of the resource supply.

[benburch]

3. Might take more like three years...

but yes, quite doable.