The cost of oil dependence has never been so clear. What had long been largely an environmental issue has suddenly become a deadly serious strategic concern. Oil is an indulgence we can no longer afford, not just because it will run out or turn the planet into a sauna, but because it inexorably leads to global conflict. Enough. What we need is a massive, Apollo-scale effort to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power. The technology is at a tipping point. Terrorism provides political urgency. Consumers are ready for an alternative. From Detroit to Dallas, even the oil establishment is primed for change. We put a man on the moon in a decade; we can achieve energy independence just as fast. Here's how. [...] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen_pr.html
-- "It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
> For me the key sentence started: > "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times > more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
> Comments?
Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true. I think the key sentence was: "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind."
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/11/2003
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So what are you going to make it with? It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries. Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE. Question is, is the article all wrong? We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer money, is this worthwhile?
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003
Neil Adams wrote: > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
> So what are you going to make it with?
Ummm, ... energy?
> It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage process. Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
> Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
So what.
> That plus the storage and > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
But I don't see you addressing them, nor do I so you acknowledging solutions.
> If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel > to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
Ummm ... like the sun and the wind, for instance? Hydrogen and oxygen have a lot going for them, especially for transportation applications. I am particularly fond of oxygen. The emission product of hydrogen and oxygen reactions is particularly useful. Optical photons are abundant on Earth and in space.
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries. > Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE. > Question is, is the article all wrong?
If those two points are what it stands or falls on, yes, it is entirely wrong.
> We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those > insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer > money, is this worthwhile?
I didn't read all of it but it compares the establishment of a hydrogen economy to the Apollo program.
That's a bad comparison because US federal, state, and local governments are, together, probably the world's largest oil profiteer, taking annually about 60 billion dollars.
Governments in 1960 did not have that sort of pecuniary interest in not going to the Moon.
> > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns > twice > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > > leaves only water behind."
> That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So > what are you going to make it with?
Nuclear power.
> It's like saying that we're going to > use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of its own volition. If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel > to make your hydrogen with,
Nuclear power.
> or to charge your batteries with, you might > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
In article <SLUba.10342$Gk2.4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, jspence...@stny.rr.com says...
> > For me the key sentence started: > > "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times > > more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
> > Comments?
> Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel > cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true.
Perhaps. It remains to be seen if all the elaborate equipment and infrastructure to implement hydrogen fuel technology can be realized so cheaply.
> I think the key sentence was: > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries,
It's also far more corrosive and volatile.
> burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine
Lots of things are more efficient than internal combustion. Hydrogen is OK, but I don't see why it should be the priority. The simple fact is that most people don't need the ability to drive further than many battery technologies provide, except on the occasional long trip, in which case a plane or bus would do the trick.
> (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
If we're just counting emissions then a normal electric car leaves nothing behind. But I kinda doubt the usefulness of this kind of metric.
-- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <f...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote
> Neil Adams wrote:
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
> More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
Wow. You called someone else a moron. That must mean you're really smart. Wait, you used it twice in one sentence, you're doubly smart.
> > So what are you going to make it with?
> Ummm, ... energy?
You need energy in specific forms. What you want is usable energy. When you have usable energy, you have to make the case as to why you want to use it to make hydrogen (to store a percentage of the energy) rather than to use it directly. Then you have to make the case that using hydrogen will be a more efficient, convenient and economical method of storing energy than other storage technologies (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, compressed air, boron/O2, etc.)
> > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
> Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like > hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage > process.
We also use pumped hydro and compressed air for storage as well. The point is that storage isn't a primary energy source, it's a technology for load levelling or for off grid applications.
>Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
Yes, but converting usable energy from one form to another leaves you with less usable energy. That's a physical law, not a technological shortcoming of existing devices. The total amount of energy still exists, but much of it is diffuse heat.
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
> So what.
So, referring to hydrogen as a 'source' of energy is wrong*. It's like referring to buckets as 'sources' of water or refrigerators as 'sources' of food.
(*Unless the conjectured 20 km deep pockets of free hydrogen turn out to be real. It'll take us more than a decade to drill one test hole that deep though.)
In article <h%%ba.23207$yc5.4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, jspence...@stny.rr.com says...
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries. > Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE. > Question is, is the article all wrong? > We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those > insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer > money, is this worthwhile?
Certainly if we can afford to give 1.5 trillion dollars in tax rebates, largely to people who don't even need the money, then we could have afforded to spend that money on something else, like hydrogen fuel research. I have no objection to improving fuel cells, but it seems like fuel cells are only a secondary part of our energy needs. It's probably more important to get more wind, hydro and solar power production facilities online. These are direct energy producers that can reduce our dependence on imported fuels right away. IMO, if we had to focus on a single technology, it should be wind turbines. These can be sited and installed faster than most fossil fuel plants and the electricity they produce would free up resources like domestic natural gas, which can be used to power vehicles.
-- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
In article <3E709ADF.C48C9...@reverse-o-matic.com>, funk@reverse-o- matic.com says...
> March 13, 2003
> Neil Adams wrote:
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
> More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
I presume you are referring to George W. Bush when you say, "from morons".
> > So what are you going to make it with?
> Ummm, ... energy?
Yes and eggs come from the grocery store :) That doesn't tell us enough about what we need to do in order to make more of them. In order to implement this wonderful new hydrogen economy to replace fossil fuels -- because that was the whole point -- we need to have alternative energy production capacity online in substantial numbers. But we don't have the energy production online. So it seems that we're putting the fuel cell cart before the alternative energy horse.
Now, if we end up trying to get hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels, as some people would have it, then it becomes highly questionable whether we should have converted to hydrogen in the first place. We can get higher efficiency and lower emissions without going to hydrogen technology at all. IOWs, we need to consider the opportunity costs involved in a hydrogen economy as opposed to some other possible variety.
> > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
> Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like > hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage > process. Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
Somebody sure is grumpy ... ;) Anyhoo, of course batteries fill the same basic role as hydrogen and fuel cells, at least abstractly. But you don't see anyone talking about a lithium or NiCad or capacitor "economy". Part of the reason for that may just be that in the real world, the details matter, even if thermodynamically it's all just about energy storage.
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
> So what.
> > That plus the storage and > > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
> But I don't see you addressing them, nor do I so you acknowledging solutions.
There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure that the power is uniform and more or less continuous. Perhaps some flywheels for storage or some backup biodiesel turbines need to be tacked on for reliability.
> > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel > > to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> Ummm ... like the sun and the wind, for instance?
Sure, but we don't have these collection systems built up in sufficient quantity to support our vaunted hydrogen economy. When we do build them up then of course many people may prefer to use these power systems more directly, as opposed to the hydrogen form. We probably will need portable power sources for our cars, although I suppose it is possible that we could put induction coils in our roadway, at least for urban trolley systems. It seems like the present state of battery technology is advancing to the state where hydrogen may not be necessary or worth the expense as a fuel source.
> Hydrogen and oxygen have a > lot going for them, especially for transportation applications. I am > particularly fond of oxygen.
I'm kinda partial to gaseous O2 myself, mainly in its usefulness for human power transportation :)
<snip> -- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
> The cost of oil dependence has never been so clear. What had long been > largely an environmental issue has suddenly become a deadly serious > strategic concern. Oil is an indulgence we can no longer afford, not > just because it will run out or turn the planet into a sauna, but because > it inexorably leads to global conflict. Enough. What we need is a massive, > Apollo-scale effort to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually > unlimited source of power. The technology is at a tipping point. > Terrorism provides political urgency. Consumers are ready for an > alternative. From Detroit to Dallas, even the oil establishment is > primed for change. We put a man on the moon in a decade; we can achieve > energy independence just as fast. Here's how. > [...] > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen_pr.html
> -- > "It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday > is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
You need to go to school and learn a little about chemistry, physics and economics. When you parrot a statement like "unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power." you are demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. The first thing to consider is where hydrogen comes from and realize that it is not a source of anything. Start there. The article makes all kinds of wild eyed statements and proposals but even it talks about making hydrogen from methane. If you have methane why the hell would you make hydrogen? It talks about wind energy but wind can't even exist without government subsidies. It goes on to talk about using nuclear power so this is really a pro-nuclear article isn't it? That's going to be popular. Lets get all of the facts straight before we make wild proclamations. Like it or not fossil fuels are going to be with us for a long time and are not likely to be replaced by hydrogen. Dr. Bob
> > > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns > > twice > > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > > > leaves only water behind."
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So > > what are you going to make it with?
> Nuclear power.
Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast. Breeder types need too much security. In both cases, the amount of waste produced is considerable and must be factored into the operational cost. On top of that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene. To produce comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more people, is much safer and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel. Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
> > It's like saying that we're going to > > use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and > > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
> If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of > its own volition.
I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;) You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
> If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually. Hydrogen is just one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy. While storage is important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally friendly manner.
> > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel > > to make your hydrogen with,
> Nuclear power.
Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and process. It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
> > or to charge your batteries with, you might > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> Agreed.
Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
-- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
"Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind."
yep, with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole article. hogwash.
-- Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org sspe...@green-trust.org
"Jesse Spencer" <jspence...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > For me the key sentence started: > > "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times > > more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
> > Comments?
> Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel > cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true. > I think the key sentence was: > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
> --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/11/2003
Karl Johanson wrote: > "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <f...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote
> > Neil Adams wrote:
> > > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
> > More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
> Wow. You called someone else a moron. That must mean you're really smart. > Wait, you used it twice in one sentence, you're doubly smart.
No, it means that Neil is incapable of rendering basic thermodynamics in mathematical form.
> > > So what are you going to make it with?
> > Ummm, ... energy?
> You need energy in specific forms. What you want is usable energy. When you > have usable energy, you have to make the case as to why you want to use it > to make hydrogen (to store a percentage of the energy) rather than to use it > directly. Then you have to make the case that using hydrogen will be a more > efficient, convenient and economical method of storing energy than other > storage technologies (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, compressed air, > boron/O2, etc.)
For transportation applications I consider it done.
> > > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
> > Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like > > hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and > storage > > process.
> We also use pumped hydro and compressed air for storage as well. The point > is that storage isn't a primary energy source, it's a technology for load > levelling or for off grid applications.
No, hydrogen is stored energy for transportation applications and storage applications where long term maintainability and durability is required.
> >Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
> Yes, but converting usable energy from one form to another leaves you with > less usable energy. That's a physical law, not a technological shortcoming > of existing devices. The total amount of energy still exists, but much of it > is diffuse heat.
So, you propose that we just let the photons heat the Earth and radiate the back into space nightly, without and intervening energy conversion processes. Very efficient method of performing work that is.
> > > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
> > So what.
> So, referring to hydrogen as a 'source' of energy is wrong*. It's like > referring to buckets as 'sources' of water or refrigerators as 'sources' of > food.
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
> yep, with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole > article. hogwash.
> -- > Steve Spence
And not the type that is a useful adjunct to porcine whole body cleanliness, either.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
> In article <7eab6777.0303130757.1cb7d...@posting.google.com>, > thurb...@cscsw.com says... > > "Neil Adams" <neilad...@NOSPAMmydestiny.net> wrote in message
> > > > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns > > > twice > > > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > > > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > > > > leaves only water behind."
> > > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So > > > what are you going to make it with?
> > Nuclear power.
> Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast.
There's enough Uranium for millions of years, even without breeders.
>Breeder types need too much security.
Go with IFRs.
> In both cases, the amount of waste produced is > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost.
In Canada and the US, the cost of dealing with spent fuel is factored into the cost of the power. A decommissioning cost is tacked on as well.
>On top of > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
Nuclear energy is competitive. Candu's are cranking it out for around 3.5 cents US per kilowatt hour.
>To produce > comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more > people, is much safer
A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000 people (estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease and starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and Diama dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed that many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
>and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel.
The fuel costs of nuclear isn't that high.
>Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though. > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and > process.
Uranium isn't that rare (it makes up around 4 parts per million of the Earths crust & Thorium is 4 times as common). Again, the fuel cost of nuclear isn't that high.
Is there anthing NEW in this area? For example, are there any breakthrus in the area of H2 storage? A new metal-hydride formulation? A new miraculous storage tank for gasous H2? Anything new in PEM fuel cells...(I am also interested in info about current PEMfuelcell cost and platinum use.)
IMHO, all the stuff that gets published is just a re-hash of old news and old technology. An IC engine running on H2 from liquid, or compressed gas, or from hydride-storage, is old news. PEM fuel cells have been around for years... an affordable and compact PEM-FC would be news.
The companies that make PEMfuelcells are tight lipped about how much their fuels cells cost and how much platinum is used. Please, I am looking for numbers on platinum use.. Many people seem to make the mistake of assuming that something that is new TO THEM is a new developement to the world of science.
Again, imho, I am not expectiong any developements here, because fuelcells and H2 storage has been extensively and expensively studied by universities, corparations, and gov't labs for years and years. Reducing platinum use in FCs has been studied for yesrs and years. When a new area of scientific investigation opens up, I expect progress, in an old area of study...don't look for anything new anytime soon. T.
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
> yep, with inaccuracies like that, it sure does set the tone for the whole > article. hogwash.
Well said.
One of the new things for fuel cells is to add the electrical and heat energy they produce together and claim that that is the net efficiency of the consumption of the hydrogen. (The funny thing is that they should add up to 100%, but they're claiming a number in the 90s.) I think that's where the latest round of inaccurate claims about fuel cell efficiency is coming from.
Similarly, internal combustion engines convert 100% of the energy of combustion into motion, light, heat and sound. If someone claimed that the ICE was 100% efficient that would be misleading though. The motion energy is the relevant number, although the 'waste' heat can help warm the passenger compartment of the car on cold days. Claiming that a hydrogen fuel cell is close to 100% efficient, is similarly misleading, as the electricity produced is the relevant point (even though the 'waste'; heat can help keep your house warm).
> > > > > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, > burns > > > > twice > > > > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal > combustion > > > > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), > and > > > > > leaves only water behind."
> > > > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it > first > > > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. > So > > > > what are you going to make it with?
> > > Nuclear power.
> > Non-breeder reactor types go through uranium too fast.
> There's enough Uranium for millions of years, even without breeders.
That's not what I've seen in most books or on websites such as these: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm http://www.altenergy.org/2/nonrenewables/nuclear/depletion/depletion.... If you have other information then please let me know. I don't wish to turn this into a pissing contest as folks like Elifritz seem inclined to do. You are probably talking about future sources of fission material from which it is not presently practical to extract fuels, or using techniques similar, but not identical, to those of breeder reactors.
> >Breeder types need too much security.
> Go with IFRs.
Granted, there are many good designs for reactors with a variety of tradeoffs in terms of power capacity, cost, ease of weaponizing fuels, etc.
> > In both cases, the amount of waste produced is > > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost.
> In Canada and the US, the cost of dealing with spent fuel is factored into > the cost of the power. A decommissioning cost is tacked on as well.
But it would be fair to question, I think, whether this tacked on cost is a reasonably good effort for containing waste that may have to managed and stored even with decent vitrification processes.
> >On top of > > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
> Nuclear energy is competitive. Candu's are cranking it out for around 3.5 > cents US per kilowatt hour.
I was talking about the capital outlays to build them. Even the best canadian reactors were around $1600 per installed kW, compared to about half the cost for wind turbines. Actually, the costs of nuclear plants in the US in the recent past have been even higher. It also takes substantially longer to build nuclear power plants.
> >To produce > > comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more > > people, is much safer
> A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000 people > (estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease and > starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and Diama > dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed that > many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
There are definite problems with just about any energy collection technology. Turbines kill birds and make noise. Dams radically alter the landscape, trap huge sediment deposits and can't operate at full capacity during droughts among other things. I'm not claiming that they're perfect, although I think chernobyl shows that poorly designed nuclear plants can be just as bad, if not worse.
But wind and hydro power plant design has progressed right along with nuclear plant design, so I doubt that you will see things like a high, rockfill dam collapsing any time soon.
Now as far as wind producing trivial amounts of power, the fact that it hasn't been widely utilized doesn't imply that it can't be. There are plenty of great sites in the US that could provide a substantial fraction of our present power consumption needs.
> >and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel.
> The fuel costs of nuclear isn't that high.
But it is higher than zero :). As a matter of fact, as a commodity the price is bound to fluctuate. OTOH, the total cost of wind power, for example, is much better understood.
> >Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
> > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both > > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and > > process.
> Uranium isn't that rare (it makes up around 4 parts per million of the > Earths crust & Thorium is 4 times as common). Again, the fuel cost of > nuclear isn't that high.
Yes, but ultra-pure isotopes are needed which are more rare and expensive to refine.
I'm not against nuclear power in general, but I think it's already been developed to a level where we can use existing capacity. OTOH, we could vastly expand something like wind power and reap a lot of new benefits not afforded by nuclear, including decentralization and wise use of existing resources.
-- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
> Again, imho, I am not expectiong any developements here, because fuelcells and > H2 storage has been extensively and expensively studied by universities, > corparations, and gov't labs for years and years.
Not to mention about $15B burned by Ballard, and then the venture cap money dried out, and still no products available. I do believe that they mostly drooling over the wrong market, now with govenment money possible. A fuel cell that can use natural gas to provide electric and hot water and or some heat to a home seems simpler. Maybe we use less fuel oil that way too. Hydrogen cars may have to wait for the nanotech era.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003
"Measured resources of uranium, the amount known to be economically recoverable from orebodies, are thus also relative to costs and prices. They are also dependent on the intensity of exploration effort. Changes in costs or prices, or further exploration, may alter measured resource figures markedly. At ten times the current price, seawater becomes a potential source of vast amounts of uranium. Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data and current geological knowledge are likely to be extremely conservative. "
10 times the current cost of Uranium wouldn't alter the cost of nuclear energy much.
Also, there's 4 times as much Thorium. India is already using Thorium in Candu clones.
You seem more apt to discuss than to have pissing contests. I think Elifrritz's propensity for insults and such is a result of his grumpiness about the guys who build Biosphere II getting more attention than he does.
>You are probably talking about future sources of fission material > from which it is not presently practical to extract fuels, or using > techniques similar, but not identical, to those of breeder reactors.
> > >Breeder types need too much security.
> > Go with IFRs.
> Granted, there are many good designs for reactors with a variety of > tradeoffs in terms of power capacity, cost, ease of weaponizing fuels, > etc.
> > > In both cases, the amount of waste produced is > > > considerable and must be factored into the operational cost.
> > In Canada and the US, the cost of dealing with spent fuel is factored into > > the cost of the power. A decommissioning cost is tacked on as well.
> But it would be fair to question, I think, whether this tacked on cost is > a reasonably good effort for containing waste that may have to managed > and stored even with decent vitrification processes.
Quite so. In the Yucca example, I expect the US government could manage to fritter away all the money raised for the waste disposal fund thus far (between 10 & 20 billion thus far). The Canadian government hasn't seemed to have figured out that they can spend money studying the same location over & over for decades. Not that they haven't found some pretty spectacular ways to waste money mind you.
> > >On top of > > > that, the price tag for building reactors is obscene.
> > Nuclear energy is competitive. Candu's are cranking it out for around 3.5 > > cents US per kilowatt hour.
> I was talking about the capital outlays to build them. Even the best > canadian reactors were around $1600 per installed kW, compared to about > half the cost for wind turbines.
And 1970's design nuclear plants can last twice as long as 21st century design wind turbines. You pay the construction cost twice (or more) for power over the same length of time.
>Actually, the costs of nuclear plants > in the US in the recent past have been even higher.
Some of that was political delays and repeated changes of regulations during construction. Some was bad planning on the builder's part.
>It also takes > substantially longer to build nuclear power plants.
A one megawatt wind turbine certainly takes less time to build than a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant. However, it takes you 3,600 1 megawatt wind turbines (25% capacity factor) to give you the power of a 1,000 megawatt (90% capacity factor) nuclear plant. (The number can be adjusted up or down for different capacity factors, of course. Off shore wind might be a bit higher.) You need to compare the construction time of around 3,600 wind turbines to a nuclear plant, not 1 to 1. Also, you need to build the wind turbines twice, over the expected lifespan of the nuclear plant.
> > > comparable amounts of energy with wind or hydro costs less, employs more > > > people, is much safer
> > A cascade collapse of dams in China in 1938 killed at least 86,000 people > > (estimates are as high as 230,000) and affected millions with disease and > > starvation. Hemorrhagic fever out breaks attributed to the Aswan and Diama > > dam reservoirs. killed 600 and 300 people. Wind energy hasn't killed that > > many people, but then it produces trivial amounts of out power.
> There are definite problems with just about any energy collection > technology.
Well said.
Also, my point isn't that we shouldn't use hydro. Rather that we should recognize its dangers and note that it isn't established that hydro is safer than nuclear (and I suggest that the opposite is true).
>Turbines kill birds and make noise. Dams radically alter > the landscape, trap huge sediment deposits and can't operate at full > capacity during droughts among other things. I'm not claiming that > they're perfect, although I think chernobyl shows that poorly designed > nuclear plants can be just as bad, if not worse.
You think Chernobyl killed more than 86,000?
> But wind and hydro power plant design has progressed right along with > nuclear plant design, so I doubt that you will see things like a high, > rockfill dam collapsing any time soon.
> Now as far as wind producing trivial amounts of power, the fact that it > hasn't been widely utilized doesn't imply that it can't be.
I didn't mention that wind energy is trivial to claim that it always will be. Rather to point out that the small number of wind related fatal accidents is coupled to a small amount of power. I think wind energy will expand, but that it will remain a minor player, because it's diffuse and intermittent. Also, anti-wind protests are increasing. I was on the radio last year supporting a proposed off shore wind energy project near here (pending environmental review). Protestors (including the local mayor) got the idea cancelled in the planning stage.
>There are > plenty of great sites in the US that could provide a substantial fraction > of our present power consumption needs.
> > >and requires no constant outlay to buy fuel.
> > The fuel costs of nuclear isn't that high.
> But it is higher than zero :). As a matter of fact, as a commodity the > price is bound to fluctuate.
The price of Uranium tend to decrease, not increase. Regardless, the cost of Uranium doesn't affect the cost of nuclear energy that much. The recent increase in the cost of natural gas has had a significant affect on the cost of that energy source.
>OTOH, the total cost of wind power, for > example, is much better understood.
Not necessarily. Much of grid tied wind energy can be lost in load following. That cost hasn't been worked out precisely.
> > >Other than that though, nuclear kicks ass though.
> > > Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content. Otherwise, both > > > rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and > > > process.
> > Uranium isn't that rare (it makes up around 4 parts per million of the > > Earths crust & Thorium is 4 times as common). Again, the fuel cost of > > nuclear isn't that high.
> Yes, but ultra-pure isotopes are needed which are more rare and expensive > to refine.
You've mixed up terminology here. Uranium ore must be purified in order to be made into nuclear fuel, to be sure. Extremely pure isotopes aren't necessary. Natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238 and .7%U-235 (and small amounts of Uranium 234). This Uranium isn't very expensive and is the Grade used in Candus. Light water reactors use Uranium enriched to about 3.5% U235.
> I'm not against nuclear power in general, but I think it's already been > developed to a level where we can use existing capacity. OTOH, we could > vastly expand something like wind power and reap a lot of new benefits > not afforded by nuclear, including decentralization and wise use of > existing resources.
Wind is supplemental power. You need other power to back it up if you get a significant amount of your power from it. Nuclear is good for base load power.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:43 -0700, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Somebody sure is grumpy ... ;) Anyhoo, of course batteries fill the same > basic role as hydrogen and fuel cells, at least abstractly. But you > don't see anyone talking about a lithium or NiCad or capacitor "economy". > Part of the reason for that may just be that in the real world, the > details matter, even if thermodynamically it's all just about energy > storage.
IMHO, its about total capacity.
> There's not much to address when hooking wind, solar and hydroelectic > into the grid. It certainly doesn't require building multi-billion > dollar pipelines. At most some infrastructure might be needed to insure > that the power is uniform and more or less continuous. > Perhaps some flywheels for storage or some backup biodiesel turbines > need to be tacked on for reliability.
Next time be more feasible. Try to come up with a storage system that can store, say, 300,000,000 kw*h. Thats not too much energy, 10^15 joules, or 30GW*10H. It also happens to be California's nightly electrical energy use. [1] We'd need 10 such plants for the rest of the US. We also need the ability to release this energy at a rate of about 20-40GW.
Lets look at a few ideas:
* Store in the form of pumped storage.
Well, 10^15 J is enough to lift 10^12 kg by 100 meters. Roughly, raise a 100 km^2 lake---100m above a second resivror---by 10 meters every night.
* Flywheel storage:
At 1000m/sec, kinetic energy is 1e6 joules/2kg. So, we'd need to accelerate two million tons of mass to three times the speed of sound. Thats at least one-ton flywheel for every fifteen residents in the state. Any ballpark figures for how much that will cost?
If we go by [3], 100kJ/kg, which is ten million tons of steel flywheels. If the average car weights 2 tons, this is enough steel to produce one automobile for every sixth person in the state.
* Battery storage?
The advanced battery goal [3] is about 6 times better than a steel flywheel, or 1.6 million tons. If we stick with lead-acid, thats only 5 million tons of lead acid. About 300 pounds of lead-acid battery for every person in california.
* Hydrogen?
There are three considerations, production, storage, and consumption.
I don't know how what the production rates for hydrogen are with differing technology.
At 120 MJ/kg for combustion[2], we'd need about ten million kg of hydrogen nightly. Liquified, about 140,000 cubic meters.[3]
If we look at the claims on [3] for fuel cell power production of 1kW/kg. THen to supply 30GW, we'd need about 30 million kg, or about 30 thousand tons of fuel cells. I hope they don't use interesting catalysts or rare-earth metals in their construction.
* Biodiesal turbines?
Well, with 45 MJ/kg,[4] and, say, 30% conversion efficiency, we'd need 100 million kg of diesel nightly, or 36 billion kg/year. From the data at [6], US yearly production is 8 billion kg/year on 300,000 km^2 of land. Just to satisfy california's nightly energy use would require quadrupling that. To satisfy the other 90% of the country would require another factor of 10.
**
Hydrogen storage and production, I don't know.. But the choices would seem to be either that or pumped storage. (Though for pumped storage, one must have suitable topography.
