http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html?page=1

I found it an interesting read. Most of what was covered I have read before, but it's all in one nice location here. The third page has a nice breakdown of what it would cost and what it would take based on different methods. It does a good job of showing how much of a challenge we actually face.

Solar and Wind seem to be the two less practical methods to produce the Hydrogen required.

Solar power
40-kilowatt systems, covering 50% of more than 300 million acres — an area three times the size of Nevada.

Cost to build: $22 trillion

Cost per GGE (Gallon of Gas Equiv): $9.50

Wind Power
2-megawatt wind turbines, covering 5% of 120 million acres, or an area larger than California.

Cost to Build: $3 trillion

Price Per GGE: $3.00

Coal
Coal appears to be the cost leader, but it would require us to double domestic production.

Cost to build: $500 billion

Price per GGE: $1

Biomass
It would require 11% of all US farmlands to be dedicated to Biomass production. A far smaller number than Ethanol production needs.

Cost to Build: $565 Billion

Price per GGE: $1.90

It would require 11% of all US farmlands to be dedicated to Biomass production. A far smaller number than Ethanol production needs.
I wonder what percentage of farmland currently is idle? We actually pay farmers to NOT plant crops...

Yeah, the truth about solar power is that it has never been very efficient from a cost-to-gain perspective. The problems with Coal are that it's still a fossil fuel and we're still going to be burning it to produce energy, which causes pollution. Biomass sounds interesting, but I presume we would be burning that as well? I'm not sure what they mean by gassification and steam reformation.

As far as idle farmland, often that is done as a part of crop rotation in order to maintain its fertility. The numbers I have heard range from 50 -75 million acres, but, I'm not sure how much of that is idle because the farmers have nothing to grow / are getting subsidies to not grow / are leaving it fallow for a year. Not that they're mutually exclusive, either, since the government pays farmers to not plant as a way of encouraging them to leave some land fallow as part of a crop rotation program (which makes it more sustainable) as well as well as for economic reasons.

This caught my eye earlier in the week:
A Boost For Solar Cells With Photon Fusion (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104504.htm)

An innovative process that converts low-energy longwave photons (light particles) into higher-energy shortwave photons has been developed by a team of researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research in Mainz and at the Sony Materials Science Laboratory in Stuttgart. With the skillful combination of two light-active substances, the scientists have, for the first time, manipulated normal light, such as sunlight, to combine the energy in photons with particular wavelengths (Physical Review Letters, October 4, 2006). This has previously only been achieved with a similar process using high-energy density laser light. The successful outcome of this process could lay the foundation for a new generation of more efficient solar cells.

Coal Gassification is clean than fossil fuels, I think. http://www.clean-energy.us/index.php

Coal is a lot cleaner than it used to be. The problems I see with coal are:
1. Finite resource. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world, but, It still is something that will run out in 150 years or so if we double our current levels.

2. Coal mining is typically very destructive.

To answer Biomass questions, they estimate 113 million acres needed for Biomass production. Keep in mind, however, that large portions of current crops can contribute as well. The example given in the article were peanut shells.

Irrigation could prove a problem though. There are worries about the ogallala aquifer being over taxed already.

Solar has made definate leaps forward, but it's still a long way from being competitive for this application. At 22 trillion dollars to build and a GGE of $9, you would need to bring the cost of the equipment down by a couple thousand percent and effeciency by 300%.

Ultimately, It's going to take a balance of Coal, Biomass and Nuclear. Of course, that's in addition to all the filling stations, transportation methods, and everyone buying new vehicles.

Ultimately, It's going to take a balance of Coal, Biomass and Nuclear. Of course, that's in addition to all the filling stations, transportation methods, and everyone buying new vehicles.
That's barring some new amazing discovery. All it takes is one domino to fall and everything else might fall. That's why it is important for the government to fund basic research. Actually... I'd like to see the world's governments get together and fund that research.

Hydrogen is an economic dead end. The article talks about 4 major hurdles to hydrogen, but you can stop at hurdle number one. It's a killer. The plain truth is that it takes a pile of energy to produce hydrogen. It doesn't matter where you get the energy from. You can use coal, solar, wind, nuclear, fusion (doesn't exist yet) or anything else to make hydrogen. That energy is better used directly. Don't bother making hydrogen. It's basic thermodynamics.

People might think that there there is limited hydrogen production today. Not true! Hydrogen has been produced in massive quantities since at least the early 1900's.

Steam/methane reforming is the most common way. You take steam and natural gas and produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Gasification is the second most common way. You take coal (or oil) and oxygen to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide (commonly referred to as synthesis gas).

The hydrogen produced is usually used to produce high quality hydrocarbon products such as gasoline, diesel and lubricating oils.

Technological breakthroughs may eventually provide an energy answer, but there is nothing promising on the horizon.

Cellulose conversion is probably feasible, but it's a long way from economic viability. Fusion power is a dream that hopefully will become a reality some day... or it could be today's equivalent of alchemy.

Hydrogen will never replace gas. We'll all be driving electric cars first.

Go here, and watch my favorite free online program.. NOVAScience Now

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/archive/date-20050726.html

Just not feasible. Now thermaldepolymerization. That's definitely feasible, once they can refine the process to get it down to around $2-$3 bucks a gallon to produce, down from its current $8 a gallon.

Here's a link to a blog discussing it.

http://www.kantor.com/useful/thermo.shtml

And the most useful 48 page, 3 year discussion I have seen. A bunch of chemical engineers, amateurs and others, discussing bio-diesel.

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829&whichpage=1

The most commonly discussed problem is the smell. Oh well, nothing is perfect, and there is nothing unnatural about pig and turkey sh1t. At least it doesn't produce any heavy metals, or ground water pollutants. It just plain stinks.

I will admit, after being a US Census taker, and having to go around to all the pig and chicken farms in my area.. I'd not want to live downwind of a plant, but after 2 years or so, I'd get used to it.

I'm not sure what they mean by gassification and steam reformation.


It is a method to strip off the hydrogen from fossil fuels. Methane from animal manure or rotting food can generate methane which can have the hydrogen stripped off.

That article explain why using hydrogen from fossil fuels makes little sense. More than likely, it will consume more energy stripping the hydrogen off than just burning the fuel directly.

Methane is mostly produced by volcanic activity, mud volcanos.

ethane is 23 time more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. And even when you burn methane, CO2 is produced.

We need a Protocol to ban volcanos. The risk of not doing so is TOO great a risk.

Solar power
40-kilowatt systems, covering 50% of more than 300 million acres — an area three times the size of Nevada.

Cost to build: $22 trillion

Cost per GGE (Gallon of Gas Equiv): $9.50


I think solar is good in the southern regions of the country. To give you a feel what this involves, I will link an article describing a project that I am personally involved with:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/market/business/viewstory;jsessionid=41EA2962325DB1AD94F66CE61C045 9C0?id=45275

You can do a search for farm acw for more results. Here is a quote:

Pennington WorldWater & Power Corp. (OTC BB: WWAT.OB), a developer and marketer of proprietary high-power solar systems, today announced that the company is breaking ground this week on its largest project to date, the $7.8 million Farm ACW avocado ranch project in Fallbrook, CA.
"All financing and permitting matters have finally been resolved after a year spent on several complex permit issues specific to this project," said Quentin T. Kelly, Chairman of WorldWater & Power. "The rebate has also been approved by the San Diego Renewable Energy Office, and WorldWater has already begun receiving payment from the client for its services. We look forward to completing this very significant project as expeditiously as possible for Farm ACW, transforming their avocado operations into a model of sustainable energy and smart agricultural development." Construction for the system, approximating one megawatt in size, is anticipated to be substantially completed before the end of this year. Farm ACW is a leading avocado grower with over 50,000 trees, which will likely become the largest farming operation in the world to be powered by solar energy.

This solar array takes up an area about the size of football or baseball field. In addition, there are plans to add a second array which will double the power production.

So, a 1,100 KW unit that costs about 8 million producing electricity that costs around $.12 per kilowatt hour. It would take abut 24 years to pay back "if" electricy costs do not go up...

California has a rebate system that gives back a percent of the installed cost based on KW production. Typically, the state subsidizes some amount energy production by paying for the construction of new plants and the decommisioning of others... So this is not unusal.

Here is a link to apply for energy rebates which are supposed to be pretty good:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/

Hydrogen is an economic dead end.
I definitly agree with that!


You can use coal, solar, wind, nuclear, fusion (doesn't exist yet) or anything else to make hydrogen. That energy is better used directly. Don't bother making hydrogen. It's basic thermodynamics.
I agree with that, work has to be done to separate they hydrogen and the source of energy could just get used directly.


Cellulose conversion is probably feasible, but it's a long way from economic viability. Fusion power is a dream that hopefully will become a reality some day... or it could be today's equivalent of alchemy.

I think ethanol has a chance of being a flexible ingredient in fuel to reduce oil price spikes... Perhaps having vehicles that can burn 10 to 30% ethanol... or more would limit price spikes caused from oil "shortages" and offer price stability.

As far as fusion... I fear If someone actually gets fusion to work, the earth may turn into the galaxy's next "newest" star....

Methane is mostly produced by volcanic activity, mud volcanos.

ethane is 23 time more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. And even when you burn methane, CO2 is produced.

We need a Protocol to ban volcanos. The risk of not doing so is TOO great a risk.

Not that it really matters but I thought burning methane gave you NO2, also a greenhouse gas and one of the sources of the 'acid rain' fenomenon that devastated forests in eastern europe and parts of scandinavia.

And Fyy, you are being deliberately silly about the volcanos and you know it. The problem is not the existence of greenhouse gasses. Quite the contrary without them there would not be much life on earth as the estimated temperarture is 33 degrees celsius lower than it is now, i.e. quite a bit below freezing. Volcanos, weather, plant and animal life all are part of an ecosystem that stabilises the concentration somewhat.
The problem is that the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is rising far more quickly than precedented as far as we can look back in the past, and is approaching historical heights associated with a much warmer average climate. Ecosystems can change to new conditions but they can not do so quickly; forcing them to do so tends to lead to mass extinctions rather than mass evolution.


Eri

As far as fusion... I fear If someone actually gets fusion to work, the earth may turn into the galaxy's next "newest" star....

I agree with you that I am not too thrilled about building a miniature sun anywhere on earth, especially not considering how dangerous the real thing is at a couple of hundreds of millions of km.

Of course our energy woes and reliance on fossil fuels could be solved in one stroke if only somebody figured out a safe way to create a 6000km long extension cable. Arrays of solar panels in geostationary orbit (admittedly it would have to be -big- arrays) could easily meet all our demands for electricity and fuel (well, not the aeroplanes obviously) if only we could get the electricity down to earth. Somebody once suggested a microwave emitter but I think I rather have that miniature sun on earth than having a massive microwave over my head ready to fry entire cities at a single misaligned beam. Of course that same study also suggested using low power microwaves in houses by way of heating its occupants directly instead of indirectly by heating air, so they were more than a bit whacked.


Eri

Not that it really matters but I thought burning methane gave you NO2, also a greenhouse gas and one of the sources of the 'acid rain' fenomenon that devastated forests in eastern europe and parts of scandinavia.
Burning pure methane leaves only H2O and CO2 as waste products(after energy). Of course commercial methane has chemical additives, odorizers for example.
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O

And Fyy, you are being deliberately silly about the volcanos and you know it.
aww, you found me out.
/smile

Burning pure methane leaves only H2O and CO2 as waste products(after energy). Of course commercial methane has chemical additives, odorizers for example.
CH4 + 2 O2 -> O2 + 2 H2O


Strange, I could have sworn that methane is NH4 and that CH4 can not actually exist. Guess that shows what I remember of the chemistry classes then.


Eri

That is ammonium.

Typically a waste product(toxic) in aquariums.



Anyway, I would pretty much trust Thicket on the chemistry and power stuff when he posts on the topic. I have never once read from him anything on the topic which is not even slightly untrue. That said, and going to the original post, there is no process available, even theoretically, that costs less energy to make Hydrogen than what you get out of it, chemically.

I suppose when Professor Brown invents his Mr. Fusion, that will change. But I am not looking forward to that anytime in my lifetime. Spending 10 energies to make/yield 2 energies is just stupid, and that is what Hydrogen promises for us(in my forseeable lifetime and further).

That is why we use fossil fuels, all the energies have already been locked into the chemicals, millions of years ago.

methane = CH4
ammonium = NH3

The NH4 can't exist naturaly on earth.

Eridalafar

methane = CH4
ammonium = NH3

The NH4 can't exist naturaly on earth.

Eridalafar

NH3 = ammonia
NH4 = ammoniUM

NH4 = Ammonium ions are a toxic waste product of the metabolism in animals and are excreted unchanged in the urine by water animals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NH4)

Your kidneys produce NH4 to neutralize excess acid.

Sounds pretty naturally occuring on earth.

Sorry for the names, I have do my chemistry in french.

And for NH4 not existing naturaly, I stand, it can be created, but it will never last long because it is to much reactive. If something can only exist for a few mins max when in nature, you can say that you will not find it naturaly.

But it is true that is a sementic question. Where you put the limits that something can existe naturaly or not?

Eridalafar

I would imagine that NH4 exists in compounds but doesn't exist as a separate compound of it's own. There's no need to get into a school science debate.

On the topic of ammonia/ammonium.

Ammonia is NH3 and can occur naturally as a gas.

Ammonium is NH4+ and can also occur naturally, but only in specific environments. It is an ion with a positive charge. It is unstable in the atmosphere. It is stable in water.

For example if you mix NH3 (ammonia) with H2O (water) you get NH4+ (ammonium ion) and OH- (hydroxyl ion). This is a basic/caustic solution with a pH higher than 7.

In an aquarium, ammonia is excreted by fish and also formed by bacterial breakdown of uneaten fish food. (Note: don't overfeed the fish) Happily, most of the ammonia dissociates into ammonium and hydroxyl ions. While this contaminates aquarium water, it is more desirable than toxic ammonia.

All this has very little to do with hydrogen, but there you have it. :)

Everytime I go to the gym.

I imagine all of the machines connected to generators, which are then connected together.

Then I imagine all the gyms in the US connected to the grid.

That would be a great source of energy and free.

http://www.seabrain.com/1/WaterFuel.wmv

Everytime I go to the gym.

I imagine all of the machines connected to generators, which are then connected together.

Then I imagine all the gyms in the US connected to the grid.

That would be a great source of energy and free.

Better yet, we can use hamsters. Connect all those spinning wheels in pet cages across the globe. We'll throw out the arcane Horsepower term and replace it with Hamster Power. :)

eheh a sportsman pedallin a bycicle with full power produces around 300Watt
.. a normal guy about 150Watt

A typical power plant produces 10^9 Watt i.e. u need
3,000,000 athlets or 6,000,000 normal guys pedalling to
generate as much as a powerplant =)

http://www.seabrain.com/1/WaterFuel.wmv

Now that's exciting! I'm looking for more info:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/08/brownkleinhho.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-05/052606action.html
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about156295-0-asc-45.html

Ugh, seems to be a lot of skepticism and the suggestion that it might be a scam.

http://www.seabrain.com/1/WaterFuel.wmv

Lol... stuff like this is entertaining.

I initially thought it was a scam, but the video clip doesn't actually make any impossible claims. The *not so knowledgable* reporter makes a few gaffes, but hey... he's a reporter. :)

The concept of a hydrogen/electrolysis based welding torch isn't much of a breakthrough. Hydrogen welding is commonly used underwater. Compressed air and hydrogen are mixed at the burner tip. The only difference in this report is that electrolysis is used to produce the hydrogen just before the welder. This is little different than compressed hydrogen being produced by electrolysis at a welding gas production facility. Hohum.

There was also a bit of bull in the video. The claim that all welding nozzle tips are hot during operation is only true for conventional oxy/acetylene, propane, butane and gasoline welders. There is lots of welding technology where nozzle tips stay cool... laser welders for example.

When the video clip gets into hydrogen-powered vehicles, it's no different than the mass of work done by many others. There's nothing unique.

eheh a sportsman pedallin a bycicle with full power produces around 300Watt
.. a normal guy about 150Watt

A typical power plant produces 10^9 Watt i.e. u need
3,000,000 athlets or 6,000,000 normal guys pedalling to
generate as much as a powerplant =)

*smiles*
It is not quite that bad of course. Those people bicycling for the powerplant do not need any electricity themselves so you end up needing a lot less powerplants when people do the powering for them :)


Eri

So there's this car that runs on water man....