USA today article found on
Right, so, fuel cells, particularly hydrogen fuel cells are “pollution free” only if you think hydrogen comes from the hydrogen fairy. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) are a very different technology, massively (like two times) more efficient at producing electricity from hydrocarbons. And that still creates carbon dioxide. Just half as much per megawatt hour.
As for burning coal without producing CO2, whoever came up with that idea did very poorly in chemistry 101.
Nuclear waste still represents a huge disposal problem. As I understand it, not so much because enormous quantities of it are produced, but because it sticks around forever, leaks out of nearly any containment you put it in, and cannot be transported safely over long distances.
And carbon sequestration gets only 5% (or less) of the funding for such a hare-brained scheme.
Biomass, people. Biodiesel for your cars. The things needed to make it work are a cheap source of vegetable oil (see also research on high oil algaes) and work on the emissions from diesel engines. Not prevention of CO2, but catching the particulates which cause worse localized air conditions.
Biomass sucks the CO2 out of the air because it’s based on harvesting solar energy with plants.
Cheap, effective solar cells.
Energy conservation. And the best way to do that is to _raise energy prices_. Slap a giant tax on non-renewable energy. You want to stimulate innovation? You want to see change in this country? Make sure that it affects major corporate bottom lines, and watch them do a 180 on a dime.
So, work on that first. Then focus on the further-from-usability fusion. Because we’ll need it, too.
The hydrogen fairy has given us solar power, water power, wind power, and geothermal power. All of these can be used to make hydrogen. It isn’t the most efficient use of the power, but if we had to create a zero pollution system for portable power generation then this would be a way to do it. Use those methods to make hydrogen. Use hydrogen to power fuel cells. Run cars off fuel cells.
That’s very true. But I’ve heard that there’s not much more we can productively do with water power. Solar I already advocated. Wind is poor return on investment as I understand it. Geothermal I don’t know much about, but if I’m not mistaken, there has to be some pretty specific geological conditions which aren’t too common around major cities. Tidal power is another one. A patchwork of all of those is probably good. But my primary point was that hydrogen fuel cells are not a ‘power generation’ strategy. It’s a rechargeable battery, not a generator.
Additionally the storange/transportation problem for hydrogen is enormous. So, it’s a low capacity, unsafe, huge, or extremely heavy (pick at least one) mobile power source. Microtubules are all well and good, but how much progress have we made on that plan? Have we done anything like that before?
Gaseous power storage in general suffers from this problem. That’s the major source of coolness for petro.
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here, and I’m not opposed to microtubule research, but as a primary strategy, hydrogen fuel cells strike me as comparatively impractical.
It is intensely frustrating how our decisions, as a civilization on the grandest scale, tend to follow politics over science. :/
a few thoughts…
Energy efficiency is the way to go..it’s actually the only way to go since it has pretty much become clear to most oil experts that we are passing Hubbert’s peak right now and that afterwards, oil prices will begin to surge in a geometric fashion….
As for the solution.. well..it’s going to be complex..
1. First and Foremost.. Energy efficiency can and must be increased dramatically–Japan, for example uses 1/3 the energy that the US does per each unit of output… Europe uses 2/3’s of the energy per output…
2. In terms of CO2 and such.. power plants are prolly gonna be on coal for awhile–since our society is becoming even more of an electricity glutton.. However, there are ways to burn coal that reduce CO2 output significantly… some of which involve turning it into a kind of synthesis gas first…
3. Transportation–This is a key area… and here two things need to happen…
a) fuel efficiency–with tech that is out there today.. we could easily produce cars that get 70 mpg of hydrocarbon fuels… This can be accomplished by utilizing hybrid technology and by changing the kind of fuel mixture–see here especially Clean Fuels technology.. (and also do google search on “gunnerman fuel” to find out more about how this guy managed to figure out how to combine a mixture of ~44% naptha (early refining product of crude and easier to get out of tar sands and oil shale) and ~54% water (with an additional biodegradable emulsifier and 2%alcohol) and get nearly the same power output as gasoline and around 40% better fuel efficiency out of the hydrocarbon component of the fuel.. It seems that the main trick–which was not understood until recently.. is not that the water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen and then burned (this is thermodynamically impossible in terms of getting more energy out then put in..) but rather that when normal engines burn fuel–that the fuel comes into the combustion chambers in various sized droplets–however, the fuel only burns on the surface of these droplets–and the partially burnt fuel remains either as carbon deposits in the engine or as particulate matter in the exhaust…
In the new fuel–the water flashes into steam–which breaks down the droplet size considerably–which means that the surface area increases dramatically and the fuel burns more efficiently… This fuel also reduces Nitrous oxides by like 50% or more.. (and note that CO2 emissions would be cut in half by the mere fact that the fuel has over 50% less carbon in it…) which is nice.. (oh..one last thing.. engine conversion costs would be around $500 or less for a car… )
Anyway.. I’ve gotten caught up talking about this new fuel.. but this is the way to go.. We have the tech available right now to literally make us independent of foreign oil..
of course, oil men running the country–don’t think that they are about to push something that would reduce our need for refined petroleum by half any time soon…
So… when do I get to vote you into a public office? I’m all for raising taxes on non-renewable energy. I’m also in favor of taxing pollution, so that corporations see an immediate cost to pollution, instead of the long-term one they don’t realize they’re paying…
When I run? Or you could start up a rebel movement or something. =)
As for burning coal without producing CO2, whoever came up with that idea did very poorly in chemistry 101.
Extract hydrogen from coal, burn hydrogen, use energy to turn the excess carbon from coal into nanotubes.
Probably a net energy loss, but its the best devil’s-advocate scenario I can come up with 😉
Energy conservation. And the best way to do that is to _raise energy prices_. Slap a giant tax on non-renewable energy. You want to stimulate innovation? You want to see change in this country? Make sure that it affects major corporate bottom lines, and watch them do a 180 on a dime.
Oh, that rise in prices will happen anyway. The only political debate is how long to let oil companies play their “sitting on a scarcer and scarcer resource and charging whatever price the market will support” waiting game. (Actually turns into a really interesting game of “financial chicken”)
Having said that, I can’t think of any compelling reason to let them play this game, other then “Hey, we’ll be oil-free in the long run anyway, and they give me campaign contributions/jobs in my district”
As an aside, Laura’s friends continually remind me that a real oil shortage won’t just change our fuel consumption, but the entire chemical industry. Especially plastics. Well, maybe thats a good thing. Apparently plastics break down into real nasty stuff. Organic chemists will do things like telling you with a straight face that your plastic water bottle breaks down into highly toxic / carcinogenic benzene compounds, and then proceed to take a swig from their water bottle, followed by a drag of a cigarrette.
And with the increase in gas prices, we’re actually using more gasoline per person now. Economics has faield us.
I’m reminded of the opening of Alien.