- #211
- 8,142
- 1,759
In the sense indicated above, I wonder to what extent the true price for a gallon of gas could be calculated.
Ivan Seeking said:In the sense indicated above, I wonder to what extent the true price for a gallon of gas could be calculated.
Chronos said:The problem is economics. If alternatives to oil were cheaper, we would already be using them.
Ivan Seeking said: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
Averagesupernova said:Yeah so what? More input means more output.
One last thing; just because something is not happening does not mean that something else is not possible.
Chronos said:A hydrogen economy makes the most sense on a global basis. Not all parts of the world have enough productive cropland to rely on biomass energy sources, but they all have access to water. It just makes sense to get rid of energy cartels altogether. No other commodity has created as much political turmoil and bloodshed as the global thirst for oil. There has never been a more opportune time to slay the beast. So what if hydrogen ends up twice the price of gasoline. As Ivan noted, hydrogen does not carry the hidden cost baggage of oil. Those savings alone would easily pay for the infrastructure in not very many years. Furthermore, the price would inevitably come down due to technological advances. Apparently the US government is serious about pursuing the hydrogen economy. This could become the most far reaching and important political initiative since the space program. And building the new infrastructure would give an enormous boost to the economy. It be like a war, except the enemy would be oil and no one need die fighting it.
Well, my point has always been that this hydrogen economy talk is moot until we replace the coal in the electric power grid. Otherwise, we're using coal instead of oil to power our cars.Chronos said:I really don't think electrical power generation is a much a issue in this thread as portable fuel. Electrical generation capacity will do nothing to replace oil without a viable storage system for such power. That is precisely what hydrogen constitutes - a portable propulsion system energy source.
Yes. What might be inadvisable about using coal to power cars?russ_watters said:until we replace the coal in the electric power grid... we're using coal instead of oil to power our cars.
brewnog said:Absolutely.
For all intents and purposes, Hydrogen is only going to provide us with means of storing energy, not producing it.
It requires reprocessing:Chronos said:[a GCFR can use the hot waste for fuel until it is exhausted of radioactive energy], and it is cheap to build [the technology is so safe that very little regulatory oversight is needed].http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtml
Seafang said:By the way, what about all the green house gas emissions from your hydrogen powered automobiles; what do you plan to do about that ?
Cliff_J said:The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.
Pollution! This is one of the two the main reasons to have a hydrogen economy in the first place!hitssquad said:Yes. What might be inadvisable about using coal to power cars?
I think you may have missed the point: if hydrogen is manufactured by burning coal, the emissions are higher than with an oil-burning car. With 20,000 people dying from pollution-related ilnesses in the US every year, I consider that our problem, not our childrens' childrens' problem.Cliff_J said:The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.
Russ - our coal reserves are projected to last 200 years. I'll tell my kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to get working on that problem.
This is the clean coal compendium:russ_watters said:With 20,000 people dying from pollution-related ilnesses in the US every year
Yes, the problems with coal are addressable (if not completely eliminate-able). But we're still talking about upgrading virtually every existing coal plant and building an equal number of new ones to generate electricity to make hydrogen. That's still a project bigger than the Apollo Program, Hoover Dam, and Manhattan project combined. I'm sorry, but that's still a project that needs to at least be started before any significant shift toward a "hydrogen economy" can be made.hitssquad said:If coal's air pollution is addressable, perhaps, as Know Nukes' Jim Hoerner tirelessly opines, the major problems will be in the areas of Earth scarring, mine-worker hazards, and slurry-pond dam dangers (yes, the slurry pond dams break once in a while)...
My bad - I thought that was a little strange coming from you.Cliff_J said:Russ - you didn't include the smiley in the quote - it was intended as sarcasm and I thought with the incredible ignorance included in the statement it would be obvious.
Emissions laws regarding what? Is this the article?:Cliff_J said:I'm reminded of an article in Car & Driver magazine detailing the CA auto emission laws.
Emissions of what?In short the lack of effectiveness on overall emissions
Chronos said:Not to divert the discussion, but I think the CO2 thing is overblown. Natural emissions of CO2 far exceed those attributable to human activity. This is not to suggest human induced contributions are negligible, only that they are less alarming than advertised. See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html
The most important natural sources of carbon dioxide are releases from the oceans (90 billion metric tons per year), aerobic decay of vegetation (30 billion metric tons), and plant and animal respiration (30 billion metric tons).(4) Known anthropogenic sources (including deforestation) were estimated to account for about 7 billion metric tons of carbon per year in the early 1990s. The principal anthropogenic source is the combustion of fossil fuels, which accounts for about three-quarters of total anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Natural processes--primarily, uptake by the ocean and photosynthesis--absorb substantially all the naturally produced carbon dioxide and some of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, leading to an annual net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 3.1 to 3.5 billion metric tons.(5)
The article at that link includes some vague references to out-of-context conclusions of unnamed GAO reports. It seems to be mostly about President Bush wanting to direct billions of dollars "into the bank accounts of industry amidst a climate of astonishing profitability."Aquamarine said:The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html
The article at that link does not address clean coal.Coal Combustion, Public Health and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.html
Pretty heady stuff. Two of the leading candidate designs are the Pebble Bed Modulated Reactor [PBMR] and the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor [GTMHR]. Both are from the HTGR [high temperature gas reactor] family of meltdown proof reactor designs. The PBMR is particularly attractive. It has a short lead time [24 months to construct] and is modular. The units are small by usual standards [160MW] hence generating capacity can based on immediate needs, yet easily expanded to meet short term growth projections. SeeOne of the laboratory’s first major tasks will be to lead an international research and development effort to create an advanced nuclear energy technology called the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP will be a Generation IV nuclear system that will produce both inexpensive electric power and large quantities of cost-effective hydrogen to support the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States and reduce the Nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuel. This work supports the President’s National Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and is an important element in the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States.
Why would the source need to be regenerating?dem45133 said:So let's brainstorm it:
The first thing is to define the properties needed:...
c) Abundant and regenerating source products
Kenneth Mann said:Correct; there are essentially two possible emissions from hydrogen use. The first, which is a necessary product, is water vapor, which we generally consider beneficial. The second, which we only get from the use of hydrogen in Internal Combustion Engines (not Fuel Cells), is Oxides of Nitrogen. These oxides can be reduced considerably relative to petroleum consumption because we don't have the conflicting need to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.
KM