Global Warmists back off on prediction

[bluesdave]

Here you go Bruce, some positive news in the fight against Global Warming:

A new breakthrough in hydrogen storage technology could remove a key barrier to widespread uptake of non-polluting cars that produce no carbon dioxide emissions.

UK scientists have developed a compound of the element lithium which may make it practical to store enough hydrogen on-board fuel-cell-powered cars to enable them to drive over 300 miles before refuelling. Achieving this driving range is considered essential if a mass market for fuel cell cars is to develop in future years, but has not been possible using current hydrogen storage technologies.

I have been a supporter of hydrogen cells, but I accept that the cost is not reasonable, nor the length of mileage between "top-ups". Here is the full story (at least it is the press release). These guys are heading in the right direction.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Here you go Bruce, some positive news in the fight against Global Warming:
I have been a supporter of hydrogen cells, but I accept that the cost is not reasonable, nor the length of mileage between "top-ups". Here is the full story (at least it is the press release). These guys are heading in the right direction.

Yes, but even if it was ready to go technology, to build a fueling network and the cars, would take some time and a ton of money.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, although you would probably welcome it down there, I'm just looking at the practical application aspect. It is a breakthrough, though, and a new direction for development.

What we really need is a way to store electricity, so we could utilize the generating capacity we're wasting. Also a way to catch and store lightning would be great, but the power companies wouldn't be happy.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes, but even if it was ready to go technology, to build a fueling network and the cars, would take some time and a ton of money.

I agree Bruce. I do not think that "we" have found the answers yet. As you point out (and I did too in my post), the cost of current alternative technologies is too great to be practical. This does not mean that we should stop looking for solutions.

[The Eschaton]

I think hydrogen is a very bad idea. Hydrogen is not free, its very energy intensive. Its only a energy transport and the most inefficient one you can get. Its not an energy source.

This article by zubrin is a very good one and explains why this is so.

The Hydrogen Hoax

I think biofuels and ethanol is the way to go. If anyone knows a different point of view on hydrogen i would like to hear it.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by The Eschaton

I think hydrogen is a very bad idea. Hydrogen is not free, its very energy intensive. Its only a energy transport and the most inefficient one you can get. Its not an energy source.

Robert Zubrin is relying on the readers of his article to be untrained in chemistry. It sounds impressive to those readers. His costings do not reflect potential savings in mass production if hydrogen was widely used in our day to day lives. Do not forget that plasma televisions were several times their current price, only a few years ago. The same economic principle applies to nearly all manufacturing.

Every means of providing energy is going to involve the use of energy in the production of the base materials. Until we find some magic energy cell, that will always be the case. Some of the waste recycling prototypes that I have seen, produce hydrogen as a byproduct. This could be compressed and marketed. Obviously these methods would only produce large quantities of hydrogen if they were implemented on a large scale. I am simply saying that it does not have to be an expensive exercise.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

This could be compressed and marketed.

That is the sentence that is a death knell for hydrogen as a fuel. You have now defined a fuel that is thermodynamically inefficient.

We don't need a 'magic bullet' fuel. Somehow, what we need gets confused with 'magic bullet' solutions such as hydrogen. We need efficiency. We need solutions that maintain those efficiencies on much smaller scales.

For every 100 units of energy put in hydrogen, well less than 20 actually arrives to perform productive work.

There is no way around fundamental theories such as thermodynamics. No solution is found in political posturing - for hydrogen or for ethanol. Start instead by identifying the problem. GM remains a classic example of the problem. Technology of the late 1960s was overhead cams. Late 1980s - 70 Hp/liter engine. Late 1990s - hybrids. So what does GM have? No engines with overhead cams. Missing 70 Hp/liter engines meaning their products require more cylinders. And no hybrids.

So GM accountants promotes hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution. Top GM management are business school graduates - and not from where the product is developed. Problems and innovations get ignored. No wonder they promote 'magic bullet' solutions while ignoring something more fundamental - principles of thermodynamics.

In both energy and global warming, both share the same problem: doing more from less. It is called innovation. And innovation is routinely stifed when top management does not come from where the work gets done. Same naive management then promote 'magic bullets' such as hydrogen to replace petroleum. Total nonsense.

One need only look who was promoting hydrogen to know hydrogen was not a viable solution: Rick Wagoner of GM and Geroge Jr. That summarizes why problems are not being solved.

[bluesdave]

I forgot to mention that methane is also a byproduct of waste recycling (I am talking about household vegetable waste and sewerage). And water. Don't forget water. We are running out of supplies of fresh water. Sewerage recycling can supply at least near drinking quality water - and if you spend extra dollars you can obtain water fit for human consumption. At a minimum, sewerage recycling would supply water for our parks and gardens, thus reducing the strain on our existing town water supply.

[bluesdave]

tw, the price for environmental improvement is not cheap. No one said it is. You are correct, in that in order to reduce pollution, and clean up our environment we have to spend money. Lots, and lots of money. You are also correct about ethanol. I started to say this before, then cancelled it. Ethanol still takes resources in order to refine it, and ship it. People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.

Sometimes, doing something "cleaner" does not mean "cheaper" nor easier - at least in the short term. We have to accept this. We cannot give up. Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same.

[The Eschaton]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Robert Zubrin is relying on the readers of his article to be untrained in chemistry. It sounds impressive to those readers. His costings do not reflect potential savings in mass production if hydrogen was widely used in our day to day lives. Do not forget that plasma televisions were several times their current price, only a few years ago. The same economic principle applies to nearly all manufacturing.

Every means of providing energy is going to involve the use of energy in the production of the base materials. Until we find some magic energy cell, that will always be the case. Some of the waste recycling prototypes that I have seen, produce hydrogen as a byproduct. This could be compressed and marketed. Obviously these methods would only produce large quantities of hydrogen if they were implemented on a large scale. I am simply saying that it does not have to be an expensive exercise.

wait, for an answer you simply character attack zubrin? No, i dont think zubrins trying to fool people and i dont rely on him for my information. Its a simple reasoning and all the information is elsewhere. I just pointed out the article because he puts it all together in an easy to understand essay. Since you did not read the article i will restate the point.

Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.
Hydrogen is made from steam reforming natural gas or from electrolysis. The current cheapest and most efficient method is through reforming natural gas but that does not solve anything. You are still have more energy wasted and produce more carbon than just simply burning the natural gas. Using electrolysis is much more expensive and you can only get about 50% of the energy converted.

The reason people think hydrogen is the fuel of the future is that they see a fuel cell, you put hydrogen in it and you get out water and energy. No wast and no carbon. But considering the whole problem including production of hydrogen and its the worst and most inefficient method. The only way to get a hydrogen economy is to massively increase electricity production and the only reasonable way to do that is to start building 100's of nuclear fuel plants now. If you do build the excess electricity production hydrogen still does not make sense. Its more efficient just to have a pure electric car and just charge it.

Here is the information from a nuclear industry paper May 2007. The whole paper is worth reading its very clear and not to technical.

Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.

The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:

* electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity,
* use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas,
* high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors, then
* high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.

Efficiency of the whole process (primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production.*

* From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.

Low-temperature electrolysis using nuclear electricity is undertaken on a fairly small scale today, but the cost of hydrogen from it is higher (one source says: $4-6 per kg, compared with $1.00-1.50 from natural gas, but another source says cost will be same as electricity @ 4c/kWh when natural gas is US$ 9.50/GJ - cf $7 in July 2005).

High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is at Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.

So for alternative fuels there are really 2 choices, hydrogen which will take decades to implement, hundreds of nuclear power plants, and a whole new infrastructure plus some break through in storage. Or you can use biofuels which can be done now, use all the same infrastructure and combustion engines and be close to carbon neutral. The only reason hydrogen is pushed is because big energy companies would control the production of power plants and and the infrastructure. With biofuels entry costs are much lower and small players could compete with big energy so there is little interest. Ethanol from corn is probably not a very good idea but the farm industry supports it so its popular in the US.

I dont know how you could have missed to problems with a hydrogen economy. Just look anywhere on the internet for information. Even wiki has picked it up.

This is a good place to read about it here and here. It explains better than i can and in a very short format. Please read it before answering.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by The Eschaton

snip~ Its more efficient just to have a pure electric car and just charge it.~snip

Nope, you won't make mileage, refueling time, or performance targets to make them acceptable to the public. That said, they should keep trying.

snip~ With biofuels entry costs are much lower and small players could compete with big energy so there is little interest. Ethanol from corn is probably not a very good idea but the farm industry supports it so its popular in the US. ~snip

The problem there is they have yet to discover how to do the biofuels, anywhere near efficiently or economically without using corn, cane or some other high sugar plant. High sugar plants are energy intensive to produce and end up being energy storage/transfer systems rather than an energy source.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I agree Bruce. I do not think that "we" have found the answers yet. As you point out (and I did too in my post), the cost of current alternative technologies is too great to be practical. This does not mean that we should stop looking for solutions.

Oh, hell no. Even after they have come up with a cheap, clean, doable solution, they shouldn't stop looking. There's always room for improvement in any invention/discovery/thing.... 'cept you and me.