Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hyping Hydrogen: The Energy Scam
CNSNEWS ^ | May 07, 2003 | Alan Caruba

Posted on 05/07/2003 11:54:50 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-167 next last
To: Jack of all Trades
hydrogen as an endless, virtually free, source of energy

This point should not be addressed at all. Probably there is no one left who believes hydrogen is an endless, virtually free, source of energy. Instead, the emphasis should be on hydrogen as a clean-burning fuel for cars or for the fuel cells.

81 posted on 05/07/2003 3:00:48 PM PDT by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
What, you want I should buy this? A Real Power Reactor

But how will I put it in my garage? I like the swimming pool idea better.

82 posted on 05/07/2003 3:14:16 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Regulator; missileboy
Re: "Why is it that people who have no problem believing that me and my fellow Aerospace Engineers can build a Space Based Strategic Defense System to knock down incoming nuclear re-entry vehicles (which we most certainly CAN do), but believe that we are incapable of coming up with a transportation system that gets us off of oil?"

Great question. I've always wondered why people who believe the great scientific minds are correct about global warming and the risks of low level pollutants don't believe great scientific minds when they tell us that genetically engineered foods are safe.

I still have nightmares about my airbag killing me in my daily commute, but at least I don't worry about white guys in white vans sniping me at the gas pumps anymore.;-)

83 posted on 05/07/2003 4:12:56 PM PDT by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
I am not an expert in any field...

However, doesn't nature have a love affair with hydrogen? Her uses and contortions with it are quite infinite. She does not seem to mind the costs...

Also I think this argument, and this article suffers from myopic thinking. This hydrogen issue (not a problem in my mind) is where a couple of fields out there need to get together: Biologists & Chemists. I have read stories about algaes and the like which will take care of the manufacture of hydrogen using the energy input from the Sun. Seems to me a little genetic engineering and we could grow hydrogen...

Lastly I see pollution as one of those problems which is easier to work on when you concentrate its source. So if you have to generate a lot of electricty to power hydrogen creation, at least you have concentrated pollution and you can enjoy the the efficiencies and social benefits of working on that in fewer more concentrated locations... no?

My ignorant 2 cents

-- lates
-- jrawk
84 posted on 05/07/2003 4:15:39 PM PDT by jrawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
A major factor for the dramatic increase in oil prices is this lack of refining capacity.

This is a totally ignorant and false remark, and it's easy to understand if you think about it.

A lack of refining capacity leads to lower oil costs because the refineries aren't interested in buying crude they can't use. It's simply supply and demand.

What is true is that reduced refining capacity can cause higher prices for the refined product, like gasoline. In the abstract, it's entirely possible to have very high prices for gasoline with oil prices falling through the floor.

85 posted on 05/07/2003 4:31:21 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Methyl Hydrate. Anybody got a guesstimate about how the reserves of methyl hydrate on the ocean floors compare to the oil/gas reserves?
86 posted on 05/07/2003 4:34:36 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd
"You simply cannot beat the energy density and relatively cheap availability of gasoline, as well as the durability and responsiveness of an internal combustion engine. "

Exactly. Had hydrogen fueled vehicles and power plants been developed first, then oil, the environmentalists would be all for developing oil as a fuel souce. Pound for pound, can't beat it for portable energy source.

As I understand it, the best proposed source for hydrogen is...hydrocarbons...natural gas and gasoline. (I suppose if we could build a bunch of nuclear power plants, electrolysis of water would then be an alternative.)

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it, to convert a supremely efficient energy source into a supremely inefficient source and call it progress.
87 posted on 05/07/2003 4:55:10 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
"What, you want I should buy this? A Real Power Reactor(?)

But how will I put it in my garage? I like the swimming pool idea better."

You might also take a look at UHTREX. It was (maybe still is) a high-temperature gas-cooled RX that was used in a Brayton cycle, replacing the gas turbine's combustor section. Interesting.

88 posted on 05/07/2003 5:00:47 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LibTeeth
I've always wondered why people who believe the great scientific minds are correct about global warming and the risks of low level pollutants don't believe great scientific minds when they tell us that genetically engineered foods are safe

That IS my point. I'm generally surprised that people on the Right -- who tend to have a little more faith that, with persistence, you can push something to the point where it works -- don't feel the same way about technologies that solve problems that they don't necessarily agree ARE problems in the first place.

The leftists who see 'danger' in genetically engineered foods are only upset that it's Big Corporations that are doing it, and they will not have the wherewithal to do the same, or that some diabolical corporate scientist has left a time bomb in the gene...it's a political opinion, not a scientific one. Rational skepticism is reasonable, but like you said, after some point, an honest skeptic would accept favorable results. They don't. The Jeremy Rifkins of the planet just stubbornly refuse to give in, even when confronted with good results. Are the results imperfect, incomplete? Probably. But if you want perfection....ain't gonna happen.

Over the last 30 years I have heard time and again that this was a big problem, never happen, too hard, too expensive, blah blah. Engineering curricula mentions this in many places, but also provides rational tools to debunk the repetitive erroneous assertions. But consider some of these famous statements:

Theodor Von Karman, 1921: "The Gas Turbine will never be light enough for aero propulsion, even if you could make one work". Wrong.

Ken Olson, Head of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977: "What could you use a personal computer for except maybe balancing your checkbook?" Ken's gone. So's his company.

The world to Stan Ovshinsky in 1978:"Amorphous Semiconductors will never be economically viable". Do a web search on Stan for some history. They were wrong.

You just gotta keep trying. If there's a real goal, and you aren't trying to build perpetual motion machines, you never know. You just might get what you need.

89 posted on 05/07/2003 5:59:24 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
Looks like they did a fair amount of work on that back in the 60's. LANL appears to have had one running in '68. It does sound interesting, but a quick search didn't bring up much.

I don't know the safety hit on high temp gas cooled reactors. I thought that there were issues with them as far as gas containment etc. Do you have any comments on that, and why concepts like UHTREX and the General Atomics lines don't get very far? Or is it just ordinary anti-nuke hysteria?

90 posted on 05/07/2003 6:10:05 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
So you're telling me I should dump my Ballard Power Systems stock, which I bought at 70 and is now around 10?

I made money shorting that from $30 to $15, just like I made money shorting all the over-hyped 'hydrogen plays' - a lot of the corporate hype was to rip off investors like you!! ... Yes, sell it ... Ballard Power will go to $0 and fuel cells will not be economic for decades - IF EVER.

The author is correct, the 'wonders' of hydrogen are mostly hype. you can get the benefits of fuel-cell cars with much less cost by simply converting ICE cars to hybrid cars. (like prius: the gas engine feeds a generator which powers an electric drivetrain - twice the efficiency of current ICEs).

91 posted on 05/07/2003 6:40:16 PM PDT by WOSG (Free Iraq! Free Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Tibet, China...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
NUclear energy is a great idea ... but why use the nukes to make hydrogen? They make electricity, which can power lots of things directly --- including hybrid electric vehicles (combination electric and gasoline fueled).
92 posted on 05/07/2003 6:42:01 PM PDT by WOSG (Free Iraq! Free Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Tibet, China...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
"It's easier to extract hydrogen from oil than from gas and coal. "

Actually, from what Ive read, the cheapest way to make hydrogen is from methane, using steam reformation. The idea that hydrogen is a ticket off of hydrocarbons falls apart once you take economics into account. Sure, you can make hydrogen from other sources, like electrolysis, but the cost ofthat is about 10X per joule than gasoline, and there aint no way oil is going to $300/barrel anytime soon.

Almost uniformly they call people foolish, quote "engineers", and talk about "energy inputs" avoiding the "energy inputs" converting oil into gasoline, and transporting the heavy fuel to markets. God forbid they bring facts and practicalities into the debate. :-) Also, did it occur to you that $1.50/gallon takes into account those transportation costs (and about 40% in taxes to boot!!) dont forget that!

93 posted on 05/07/2003 6:47:51 PM PDT by WOSG (Free Iraq! Free Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Tibet, China...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xrp
GORGEOUS PICTURE!

Thanks for posting it!
94 posted on 05/07/2003 6:53:41 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
What about extracting hydrogen from water?

I am sure we can figure out a way to cost-effectively extract and store hydrogen from water. Thoughts?
95 posted on 05/07/2003 6:59:29 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
It's easier to extract hydrogen from oil than from gas and coal.

I meant to write the opposite!!! Maybe that's why some others are nasty to me in here... :)

96 posted on 05/07/2003 7:02:18 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I hope you are right, but I fear that many people think the big bad oil companies are suppressing a hydrogen powered utopia. Most general interest articles on Hydrogen are misleading IMHO.
97 posted on 05/07/2003 7:04:24 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
As far as access to oil goes, let's see now...$55 billion and 300 American lives for Gulf War I....eventually $200 billion for GWII....did I forget 3000 people dead on 9/11? How much DOES it cost for us to be involved politically and economically in the Muslim world? And what would it be worth to get off oil as the primary fuel?

I am agast that someone on FR of all places would blurt such an inane nonsequitor- are you a moron or a disruptor??? (A) We didnt fight the gulf wars for oil! - I guess the idea of liberating countries from invasions an tyranny didnt penetrate your noggin - and (B) your costs are way out of line, almost all of GW1 was reiminbursed by allies, and Operation Iraqi Freedom has cost more like $20 billion total so far. Whatever happens to oil, the 1 billion Muslims in the world will NOT GO AWAY and we will stay have to deal with those countries. Food for thought!

The reality is that it's a systems engineering problem: what engine/fuel/infrastructure combination is the optimal solution, considering physical and political (=economical) constraints. The cost of just about any physical device is almost entirely driven by production volume barring the necessity for some wildly difficult material cost (which IS a consideration for some fuel cell devices, but not necessarily the critical one).

It's not really a systems engineering as much an economics problem. But your thinking is a great argument for fossil fuels, they are the cheapest energy source per joule. The best infrastructure on the ehicle is an ELECTRIC DRIVETRAIN, there is practically NO ADVANTAGE to fuel cells over ICES and MANY DISADVANTAGES, namely cost and robustness (what happens when your feull cell stack freezes)? The only way to beat oil in the car is to have an energy source that COSTS LESS. Only nuclear power has even a hope of acheiving that, and only if it supplying electrons - to ELECTRIC CARS - hydrogen is far too indirect.

And you go through ALL THAT TROUBLE and STILL find that hydrogen is awfully hard to store, with low energy density/volume. WHY FIGHT NATURE? The natrual solution is to have a liquid energy form... In other words, if oil didnt exist and we were looking for a great energy carrier, mankind would invent gasoline as the perfect one for vehicles

And one last. Why is it that people who have no problem believing that me and my fellow Aerospace Engineers can build a Space Based Strategic Defense System to knock down incoming nuclear re-entry vehicles (which we most certainly CAN do), but believe that we are incapable of coming up with a transportation system that gets us off of oil?

Aeorspace Engineers are quite capable of designing large passenger jets that fly over MACH 1. That alone doesnt make the Concorde pay its own way.

It's not engineering it's economics that drives the viable solution


98 posted on 05/07/2003 7:04:54 PM PDT by WOSG (Free Iraq! Free Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Tibet, China...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Publicus
It's all about costs. Extracting hydrogen from a water molecule is more expensive than from a fossil fuel.

Interestingly, much energy like hydroelectric is wasted via transmission over lines and over-production at night time. Might as well put it to use. Also, think about those nuclear plants that decrease output at night..what if night time production is ramped up for producing hydrogen???

99 posted on 05/07/2003 7:05:29 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Of course, if we use nuclear plants to crack the hydrogen, that will simply send the ecofreaks into a bigger tizzy. Let's get moving on this...

Any idea that involves building 500 nukes in this country is a GOOD idea! :-) "Annoy your local greens, Support nuclear power!" Electrons, gimme more electrons!

100 posted on 05/07/2003 7:06:59 PM PDT by WOSG (Free Iraq! Free Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Tibet, China...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-167 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson