Government milking us like cows; Oil

[GENIERE]

Here's a reference for you Patty.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1396039,00.html

Art and Pattylou -

Please tell us what energy source they are using to generate the hydrogen.

 

[Art]

Art and Pattylou -
Please tell us what energy source they are using to generate the hydrogen.

steam methane reforming

 

[GENIERE]

That is a process. Please Answer the question?

 

[The Smoking Man]

That is a process. Please Answer the question?

Could be fired by Metane doncha think? I just KNOW you are trying to get them to say electrolysis and then jump on them, right?

 

[pattylou]

Here's a reference for you Patty.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1396039,00.html

Thank you Art.

This raises the question of how soon we could switch, or at least introduce hydrogen cells here.

Is it, then, correct to say that hydrogen "isn't ready yet," as Russ posited earlier on the thread?

In other words, could we switch over at least partially, in the US, in the short term? And if not, why not? Energy independence seems like something every American, regardless of political position, could get behind.

Don't you agree? And wouldn't it be nice if we could all unite behind something again?

 

[pattylou]

Art and Pattylou -
Please tell us what energy source they are using to generate the hydrogen.

I don't know. Do you? I'd love to know how they are making it work, and whether it is more efficient and cleaner than petrol.

Thanks Geniere, I appreiciate your time on this.

 

[Art]

That is a process. Please Answer the question?

Ah, your request for information was purely rhetorical. You should have said so and I wouldn't have bothered replying.

Patty asked for a reference and I found one for her. I am not endorsing LH2 as an alternative to gasoline. In fact if you had read my earlier post you would have seen this.

 

[Art]

Thank you Art.
This raises the question of how soon we could switch, or at least introduce hydrogen cells here.
Is it, then, correct to say that hydrogen "isn't ready yet," as Russ posited earlier on the thread?
In other words, could we switch over at least partially, in the US, in the short term? And if not, why not? Energy independence seems like something every American, regardless of political position, could get behind.
Don't you agree?

The main problems with hydrogen Patty are;
due to it's low density even in liquid form it takes ~4 times the volume of gasoline to produce the same energy (thus a huge fuel tank).
It requires insulation (extra bulk and weight).
It leaks and so is difficult to transport.
Although it can be produced quite cheaply using the process I listed as the base material is currently cheap if demand rose substantially so would it's cost.

There are other alternatives to hydrogen which some people claim are superior. I've heard Boron touted but I don't know any details about how it works. I guess it's all at the VHS vs Betamex stage at the moment so although BMW are producing production models that run on hydrogen (and so in answer to your question hydrogen is ready) it is not yet certain that this will become the future standard.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't know. Do you? I'd love to know how they are making it work, and whether it is more efficient and cleaner than petrol.
Thanks Geniere, I appreiciate your time on this.

Using hydrogen itself as a fuel source results in the production of H2O from the combustion process.

Now it can be argued that if you use electrolysis to create the hydrogen you may be burning oil or coal to produce the hydrogen and thus defeating the purpose.

Thre are other sources of power however such as wind and solar not to mention nuclear (nucular for you Bush supporters) which are relatively clean.

If they could do electrolysis to produce hydrogen using wind power, this would be absolute poetry.

The only 'pollution' would thus be thermal.

 

[Art]

Could be fired by Metane doncha think? I just KNOW you are trying to get them to say electrolysis and then jump on them, right?

lol I think they call it entrapment. However if that was what he was looking for he'll be disappointed as apart from the process I mentioned there is also a thermochemical process for splitting water that is claimed to be twice as efficient as electrolysis called the sulfur-iodine cycle and I believe there is some way of producing hydrogen direct from a nuclear reactor.

 

[Pengwuino]

This raises the question of how soon we could switch, or at least introduce hydrogen cells here.
Is it, then, correct to say that hydrogen "isn't ready yet," as Russ posited earlier on the thread?
In other words, could we switch over at least partially, in the US, in the short term? And if not, why not?

It's going to take a while because it's not ready. The difference between the US and European nations is that whatever gets introduced into the US must be able to handle the driving habbits of an American driver. Because of our size, we drive very large distances even in cities! Some cities in the US seem to just go on and on and on and on and on.

Thus, we need a large "gas tank". The problem here, as mentioned, is that in the gaseous form, its a bit dangerous and means we can only go short distances without needing to be refilled because of how low a density gas has compared to solids and liquids. Research is currently going into solid H2 cells that will make the idea more feasible.

Plus fo course, we need to figure out how we are going to produce the hydrogen. An odd problem is that wind and solar are great for wide open spaces (solar more so actually)... but hydrogen power's main problem in the US is the fact that we have wide open spaces. Plus there are only certain areas in the US suited for solar and wind and there are many places in the US where both are absolutely infeasible. So really... in a lot of the US, you can't put up renewable energy sources for hydrogen and anything other then renewable sources is stupid if you're polluting to make the hydrogen in the first place. Nuclear power is probably one of the only things that can tie up these loose ends but the anti-nuclear left wing lobby has nearly put the nail in the nuclear industry coffin.

 

[Townsend]

Using hydrogen itself as a fuel source results in the production of H2O from the combustion process.

If this was a video game forum I could understand the need to post that but around here it's trivial at best.

Now it can be argued that if you use electrolysis to create the hydrogen you may be burning oil or coal to produce the hydrogen and thus defeating the purpose.

Now if you take out the 'be' and replace the word 'can' with 'is', then you would be more correct.

Thre are other sources of power however such as wind and solar not to mention nuclear (nucular for you Bush supporters) which are relatively clean.

If they could do electrolysis to produce hydrogen using wind power, this would be absolute poetry.

The only 'pollution' would thus be thermal.

There are problems with wind, nuclear, and solar energy sources. I would encourage you to research the problems and draw your own conclusions.

I think the worlds best hope is being built in France. In the mean time, I think that fuel should be taxed up to a cost of about 4.00 a gallon. People are too wasteful and need the incentive to cut their fuel consumption.

 

[GENIERE]

Could be fired by Metane doncha think? I just KNOW you are trying to get them to say electrolysis and then jump on them, right?

Not at all, I am simply stating that a source of energy must be used to generate the hydrogen. As you stated they are burning the fossil fuel `methane'. They are investigating many processes to reduce the CO2 emissions from methane as well as coal and oil. They are also studying the use of nuclear power, a power source that could be used for `electrolysis’ with minimal environmental impact.

See Ivan's posts in the sub-forums. I'm sure you will that it was a painful for him to alter his view of the use of nuclear power.

As I stated in other posts, there is no shortage of fossil fuels when the price is right. No one wants to pollute the atmosphere. Nuclear power is the least evil of the evils.


...

 

[loseyourname]

isn't hydrogen available in Germany? Refueling stations and the whole bit?

Hydrogen cars and refueling stations exist in Los Angeles. No need to look to Germany.

 

[Pengwuino]

In the mean time, I think that fuel should be taxed up to a cost of about 4.00 a gallon. People are too wasteful and need the incentive to cut their fuel consumption.

You do realize that would criple the economy right? Trucking doesn't happen with rockets.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hydrogen cars and refueling stations exist in Los Angeles. No need to look to Germany.

What are the details of hte hydrogen generation?

 

[Townsend]

You do realize that would criple the economy right? Trucking doesn't happen with rockets.

I guess I should specify that I wouldn't tax diesel fuel as much since it is much more efficient than gasoline.

At first, it would be hard for to people to get used to driving smaller more efficient vehicles but they would get use to it and the economy would bounce back.

 

[Art]

Not at all, I am simply stating that a source of energy must be used to generate the hydrogen. As you stated they are burning the fossil fuel `methane'.
...

A small correction, they don't burn the methane (or at least they don't have to) the process uses a heater but it really doesn't matter to the process what energy source is used to fuel that.

 

[loseyourname]

What are the details of hte hydrogen generation?

I think it depends on who is running the station. The first one was opened in July of 2001 by Honda and uses solar power to generate the hydrogen.

 

[Pengwuino]

The first one was opened in July of 2001 by Honda and uses solar power to generate the hydrogen.

Oh god that must suck

 

[The Smoking Man]

A small correction, they don't burn the methane (or at least they don't have to) the process uses a heater but it really doesn't matter to the process what energy source is used to fuel that.

That was what I was getting at. If Methane is available for the process, then it is also available as the fuel source.

 

[loseyourname]

Oh god that must suck

Here's a little bit from a report on it that I found online:

In July 2001, Honda R&D Company, Ltd. and U.S.-based Honda R&D Americas, Inc. opened its first solar powered hydrogen production and fueling station. The station uses an array of photovoltaic (PV) cells to extract hydrogen from water via electrolysis. When power from the PV array is unavailable or insufficient (e.g., due to cloud cover, etc.), electricity from the grid is used for the electrolysis process. The station is shown in Figure 1. The only other similar facility in the United States that uses solar energy to produce hydrogen for FCVs is the facility at SunLine Transit Agency in Thousand Palms, CA, where hydrogen is generated for fuel cell-powered city buses and small urban vehicles such as golf carts.

http://www.ieahia.org/pdfs/honda.pdf

So apparently they take power from the grid when their photovoltaic cells don't do the trick. I'm not sure what the source of electricity is on the grid in Torrance, but I would imagine it's either nuclear power from the generators at San Onofre or hydroelectric.

For patty, since you live in the area, the address is:

1900 Harpers Way
Torrance, CA 90501

There have been others built since then, and there are a limited amount of hydrogen-powered vehicles in use on the streets. I did see them every now and then driving through the city back when I was still going to LACC, and you'll see signs for the refueling stations on the highways.

 

[pattylou]

The main problems with hydrogen Patty are;
due to it's low density even in liquid form it takes ~4 times the volume of gasoline to produce the same energy (thus a huge fuel tank).
It requires insulation (extra bulk and weight).
It leaks and so is difficult to transport.
Although it can be produced quite cheaply using the process I listed as the base material is currently cheap if demand rose substantially so would it's cost.
There are other alternatives to hydrogen which some people claim are superior. I've heard Boron touted but I don't know any details about how it works. I guess it's all at the VHS vs Betamex stage at the moment so although BMW are producing production models that run on hydrogen (and so in answer to your question hydrogen is ready) it is not yet certain that this will become the future standard.

Hmmm. Thank you. I appreciate your time on this, and you have given me good food for thought.

 

[pattylou]

Hydrogen cars and refueling stations exist in Los Angeles. No need to look to Germany.

Wow! Thank you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oh god that must suck

Always nice to hear encouragement for progress.

I suppose you were against Henry Ford and his automobile too until the world revealed The Mustang.

You must be a treat in Brainstorming sessions.

(Hey ... got to keep Evo on her toes, right? And yeah, I read what you wrote about me in the poll site you big Teddybear:!) )

 

[GENIERE]

That was what I was getting at. If Methane is available for the process, then it is also available as the fuel source.

THIS is the steam reformation process:

(CH4 + 2 H2O >>> 4 H2 + CO2).

Note that the process releases hydrogen and CO2.

CO2 is a gas that contributes to global warming.

Do you want to continue using a process, any process that generates greenhouse gasses?

Methane is a greenhouse gas.

 

[The Smoking Man]

THIS is the steam reformation process:
(CH4 + 2 H2O >>> 4 H2 + CO2).
Note that the process releases hydrogen and CO2.
CO2 is a gas that contributes to global warming.
Do you want to continue using a process, any process that generates greenhouse gasses?
Methane is a greenhouse gas.

Hey I agree ... I'm an advocate of alternate fuel source electrolysis myself.

We may be unable to run on water directly however generating electricity from falling water to split water into it's elements merely produces O2 don't you agree?

Now it can be argued to the minute detail that oil must still be used to lubricate the process too but let's work it through one step at a time.

We have a goal and we must make steps in achieving that goal ... there will be transitionary steps. After all, we didn't immediately go from the wheel to a set of Goodyear all season radial in one step.

But thanks for keeping us on our toes.

Many people forget about the production of the fuel source itself. It always helps to keep people informed and working on the problem.

 

[Skyhunter]

The solution is reduction in energy use in conjunction with renewable clean sources of energy.

I agree with Townsend tax fuel and promote conservation. I would phase in the tax, and and raise registration fees for inefficient vehicles. It should be done in phases so that people and industry would have time to adapt. Hybrids are an excellent bridge between technologies. Few people keep their everyday cars for more than 10 years, so when FC or whatever vehicles become available, the poor will be able to buy more efficient used vehicles.

Redesign our cities and the surrounding areas to reduce the need for driving and the transporting of goods over long distances. Build more green sources of energy. Solar combined with conservation and more efficient technology will go a long way. If we reduce consumption we won't need nuclear power.

The American way of life is going to change radically in the next 50-100 years. We might as well start now so as not to leave future generations with a crisis of astronomical proportions.

 

[GENIERE]

...The American way of life is going to change radically in the next 50-100 years. We might as well start now so as not to leave future generations with a crisis of astronomical proportions.

If you assume the American way of life will change, you must also consider the effect of a lack of energy resources to the global population. The lack of energy will sentence billions of people to death, slowly and horribly.

 

[Townsend]

If you assume the American way of life will change, you must also consider the effect of a lack of energy resources to the global population. The lack of energy will sentence billions of people to death, slowly and horribly.

...this is just another reason I will never have kids.

 

[Skyhunter]

If you assume the American way of life will change, you must also consider the effect of a lack of energy resources to the global population. The lack of energy will sentence billions of people to death, slowly and horribly.

I have. That is why I advocate that we begin now to address the problem before it becomes a disaster of epic scale. I am greatly concerned for the survival of modern society, if we do not alter our current consumption practices.

 

[Skyhunter]

...this is just another reason I will never have kids.

But, your kid may contribute to the solution. Especially if given the nurturing and support of a good mother and father.

 

[Townsend]

But, your kid may contribute to the solution. Especially if given the nurturing and support of a good mother and father.

There are other reasons why I don't want to have kids. Those reasons may change in the future and I always have the option open to me if I ever think the time is right.

 

[Pengwuino]

But, your kid may contribute to the solution. Especially if given the nurturing and support of a good mother and father.

Don't listen to that BS

parenthood. Its a trick.

 

[edward]

Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.

Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.