Oil Crisis 2008: People want to drill for more oil? Are you f'n kidding me?
Category Opinion
Bookmark :
I mentioned week or so ago that I wanted to get some things off of my chest - and we can have fun engaging in a civil conversation. Today's rant is about the current oil crisis, and the sudden renewed push for drilling in previously protected areas for more oil.
The Problem
For those of you who have been living under a rock here in the US, and for those of you who are not American and therefore aren't as informed about our "discussions" concerning how we respond to the latest oil crisis, here's what's going on. There are many conservatives (and some supposed "democrats") who are using this crisis as an opportunity to renew their push to drill in protected areas of the US, such as Alaska and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The worst part is that there are some supposed "eco-friendly" politicians, such as Senator (and Republican Presidential candidate) John McCain. In the past he has opposed drilling in protected areas, and now he is in favor of "exploring" drilling in these areas.
So, why am I upset about this?
The Addiction
Because this is hypocritical for one thing; but the main reason is this isn't providing a solution, it is simply extending the problem. Face it, folks: we, as a society, are addicted to oil. We're acting like crack or meth addicts - we're having a problem getting our "fix", and we're willing to do anything, destroy anything, pay anything necessary to get our fix and keep our habit going. My father was an addict, and I've seen this before, in the micro; our country is an addict in the macro. And it is sad.
The "Feel Good" Illusion
Oh, and those of you who think technologies like hybrids are a solution - Give me a break. Hybrids are simply a window dressing to make us, as a society, "feel good" that we're "doing something". It is an illusion, folks. Hybrids simply extend the gas mileage a bit, and there are other cars - non-hybrid - that get similar (or even better) gas mileage than a hybrid, in the "real world". The other problem with hybrids is that the battery cells eventually go bad - and they cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace. Often the cost to replace the battery cells is more than the car is worth, effectively totalling the car when they fail. Oh, and the warranties don't cover these costs, and insurance doesn't either. Hybrids are NOT a solution, they're just "window dressing".
The Solution
And here's the thing that really pisses me off: We are very, very close to a solution. The technology is proven, and all we need to do is put some more money behind the innovators in this field to bring it to reality. What is this solution?
Hydrogen fuel cell technology
If you're not familiar with Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, here's a brief description (from about.com, here):
The hydrogen fuel cell operates similar to a battery. It has two electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by a membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other.
The hydrogen reacts to a catalyst on the electrode anode that converts the hydrogen gas into negatively charged electrons (e-) and positively charged ions (H+).
The electrons flow out of the cell to be used as electrical energy. The hydrogen ions move through the electrolyte membrane to the cathode electrode where they combine with oxygen and the electrons to produce water.
Unlike batteries, fuel cells never run out.
Hydrogen fuel cells are the future of power in this country, and probably the world. Hydrogen fuel cells can be made small enough to work in a cell phone, a car (more on this later), a bus, and large enough to power buildings. In fact, many companies have been working on a home-sized hydrogen fuel cell system to provide all the power needed for your home. One project will offer units to homes in japan for under $10,000 - and it will provide ALL of the power needed for the home.
In fact, Honda is now selling hydron-powered cars in California. The car is called the Clarity, and you can read more about it here. Honda is also working with other companies to provide a "hydrogen economy" for these cars, so that they can find affordable refueling stations in their area. This is an exciting first step towards a sustainable hydrogen economy, and is a great first step towards reducing/eliminating our dependence on petroleum.
Change Our Ways, Invest in the Future
So, here's why I'm upset. We're talking about spending TONS of money to drill in more places such as protected areas and the ocean. This will cost an inordinate amount of money, and I just think that we need to quit talking about getting off of our dependence on petroleum and we need to JUST DO IT. Now is the time, we have a technology that is proven to be a valid alternative, and all we need to do is invest the money to make it economically feasible - because the petroleum alternative is simply a way of extending the eventual REAL problem of petroleum becoming an unsustainable and unusable resource.
Here's a bit more info on fuel cells that I think you'll find interesting. From Hydrogen Fuel Cells: Innovation for the 21st Century
Fuel cells have been around for over 150 years and offer a source of energy that is inexhaustible, environmentally safe and always available. So why aren't they being used everywhere already? Until recently, it has been because of the cost. The cells were too expansive to make. That has now changed.
In the United States, several pieces of legislation have promoted the current explosion in hydrogen fuel cell development: namely, the congressional Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 and several state laws promoting zero emission levels for cars. Worldwide, different types of fuel cells have been developed with extensive public funding. The United States alone has sunk more than one billion dollars into fuel-cell research in the last thirty years.
In February, 1999, Europe's first public commercial hydrogen fuel station for cars and trucks opened for business in Hamburg, Germany. In April, 1999, Daimler Chrysler unveiled the liquid hydrogen vehicle NECAR 4. With a top speed of 90 mph and a 280-mile tank capacity, the car wowed the press. The company plans to have fuel-cell vehicles in limited production by the year 2004. By that time, Daimler Chrysler will have spent $1.4 billion more on fuel-cell technology development.
In August, 1999, Singapore physicists announced a new hydrogen storage method of alkali doped carbon nanotubes that would increase hydrogen storage and safety. A Taiwanese company, San Yang, is developing the first fuel cell powered motorcycle.
Where do we go from here? There are still issues with hydrogen-fueled engines and power plants. Transport, storage and safety problems need to be addressed. Greenpeace has promoted the development of a fuel cell operated with regeneratively produced hydrogen. European car makers have so far ignored a Greenpeace project for a super-efficient car consuming only 3 liters of gasoline per 100 km.
This article was written in 2000, so things are even better now - but we're not there yet. And I hate seeing our country continue down a dead-end path when we have the alternative technology identified and available to us; we simply need to invest in this technology a bit more to reduce the economies involved and make this a viable, widespread alternative.
Yeah, it sounds like I'm an eco-flowerchild; but I want to get off the stupid "petroleum train to disaster" and begin on a new path. I am firmly convinced that hydrogen fuel cell technology is the future of energy generation in the US and beyond. We can't wait anymore - and now is the time. Drilling is not the answer - we can't throw good money down a dead-end road, we might as well invest in the future, now.
Rock
Blog Roll
Comments
I rest my case.
Posted by Ed Maloney At 02:25:51 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I agree with most of your point, but there's still one issue to face: where is the hydrogen for mass fuel-cell powered transport going to come from? The current supply, by and large, comes from the byproducts of various chemical processes, but nowhere near enough for mass transportation: cars, trucks, trains, etc.
If we pump those processes up to get hydrogen, we a: need lots of feedstock (which might just be oil, or gas), and we have to use up, or dump the other products of the reaction.
Or we get hydrogen by electrolysing water; generate hydrogen and oxygen, and then we recombine them to get water again. But to do that, you need electricity (and by the way, the laws of physics say that you get back less electricity from the fuel cell than you put in to making the hydrogen), and where do we get that amount of electricity from. Coal, maybe, but then, while burning coal in a power station is better than burning it anywhere else, it's still the worst way to burn fossil fuel. Or you get the electricity from nuclear power.
Personally I think that large scale nuclear is the only way the planet has out of the current situation of rising energy needs coupled with dwindling supply. We cannot just stop using energy without shagging our economies, and wrecking our economies to that extent will generate serious civil unrest, and wars based on resource shortages.
I think we have to restrict oil-based fuels and biofuels to the situations where there is no alternative - you cannot operate aeroplanes on anything else than kerosene or light oild like kerosene, because of the ratio of fuel weight to energy content. Then we use nuclear-generated electricity to power as much of everything else as we can. If we take a positive approach, such things as a new generation of power stations, and a new way to run transport systems, with maybe a move back towards public transport, we may even be able to do it and expand the economy at the same time, rather than be forced to contract.
Mick
Posted by Mick Moignard At 02:28:07 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
And GM has calculated that it would cost between $10-15 billion to build an initial infrastructure of 12,000 hydrogen stations. Now, that’s real money, but it’s a fraction of what the global oil industry spends each year on the petroleum infrastructure, and we could build it over time. This initial infrastructure would place a hydrogen-fueling pump within two miles of 70 percent of the U.S. population and every 25 miles along the interstate highways connecting the nation’s 100 largest cities.
Also see some further information at my blog as well as the GM FastLane blog: { Link }
Drilling is an answer to the problem that we have with the supply/demand concerns causing prices to rise. Pulling from the strategic reserve would also help matters.
There are some other good economic articles here: { Link } and { Link } and { Link }
@1 - Oh come on, let's not get started with blaming Bush here. And here I thought we could come and have a "civil" conversation... No more comment on that from me except that it's asinine. And with maher being the source of your news, well....
Posted by Chris Whisonant At 02:46:38 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Chris Whisonant At 02:48:36 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Nice to hear from someone who is thinking about this problem. I think a lot about energy and economic policy too.
I agree with your major overall point, that our petroleum-based infrastructure is not sustainable. We've actually known this for a long time, but we're only getting upset now because it is hitting the consumer in the wallet.
But I disagree with the idea that hydrogen fuel cells are "the" answer. I think they are one of many answers. Yes, Honda is selling a fuel-cell car in California, but fuel-cell technology is not economically competitive. Figure in the cost of creating a whole new transportation fueling infrastructure and spread it among each car and I think we are 20 years away from fuel cells being a significant portion of our daily transportation energy expenditure (see Wikipedia for background at: { Link }
Ethanol is not a good transportation energy option either, at least not the way we do it now. Congress gave us a lousy corn-centered ethanol policy to keep the corn lobby happy. Sugar cane ethanol (the way Brazil does it) or sugar-beet ethanol would be much better. But we'd still have to farm an area the size of the Dakotas just to run our cars, and our population will continue to grow, so using food for transportation will not solve the problem either.
Cellulose ethanol has potential but has yet to leave the lab.
I believe the long-run answer is nuclear. France gets 76% of their power from nuclear plants. It is reliable, relatively cheap, safe (with proper reactor design), and doesn't use a food crop. It's also completely domestic (we have the 4th-greatest uranium deposits in the world). We can use electricity to run our cars, and everything else. And we can bury the waste safely, just like France does. The barriers are political, not technological. France built the bulk of its nuclear plants in 15 years after the 1973 oil shock. They have not been greatly affected by recent energy events, and it gives them the freedom to act rationally in Middle East politics.
But all of these transitions -- to a rational and widespread ethanol infrastructure, to a cost-effective hydrogen cell and hydrogen infrastructure, to build the nuclear plants and the efficient, effective electric cars we'll need -- take time. We need to bridge that gap.
So in the interim, I say we drill in both ANWAR and off the Florida coast (where I live). Given modern exploration technologies, there is no good reason not to. The portion of ANWAR set off for exploration is less than 1%. The off-shore drilling technology has advanced to the point where Florida drilling is both safe and profitable. There is really just no good reason not to do it.
This has to be coupled with concerted efforts to break our dependence on oil, mainly with a nuclear program, but also with a bio-fuels program and a "Manhattan Project" for battery technology. It's really the battery technology that is the key. Everything else in this plan is technologically feasible now.
Posted by Keith At 02:53:52 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
1. Hydrogen anything is going to take a long, long time to become affordable and ubiquitous. We need to take steps to secure energy to fullfil our needs in the meantime. While some of the fields may take 10 years or more to become fully operational, it will take much longer to build a national hydrogen infrastructure.
2. Hydrogen is not an efficient energy storage mechanism. The chemical energy inherent in a hydrogen molecule is dwarfed by that in a dense hydrocarbon chain.
3. Transporting hydrogen is notoriously difficult. When in a gaseous form, it will leak out of pipes at every opportunity, even through apparently solid welds. In cryogenic liquid form, it requires a large effort to keep it liquid through long distances. Remember, trucks are only used to deliver gasoline the last step in the transport chain to the stores.
4. Oil is not just used for fuel, though that is its most public purpose. Petrochemicals are used for a myriad of consumer uses such as plastics that help to drive our economy.
I agree alternatives need to be developed: I disagree that any steps to correct our energy problems must ignore oil because there's a really good alternative energy source that's gonna be ready any day now...really....real soon.
Adam
Posted by Adam At 02:55:44 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Right now, the most convenient and efficient concentrated-energy package is a tank full of combustible fuel. It's not perfect, but it works remarkably well. If you think about how much force it would take to pick your car up and shove it thirty miles, and the fact that you can do it with six and a half pounds of gasoline, it's pretty impressive.
But it's drawing on energy put away in a battery by algae, plants and animals that lived, concentrated the energy, died and decayed millions of years ago, and as a result, it's dumping a lot of stored "other stuff" like carbon into our environment now, when it was stored away ages ago. That's the problem, the release of a sudden huge stored-up wave of carbon that nature stashed away.
So what we want to do is to stop digging up old carbon and instead recycle the stuff we have now, by binding it through the application and storage of energy being received by the earth right now. A couple of ways we can do it:
1. Use solar and wind power to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen suitable for storage and use by humans when and where we need it.
2. Use other processes to concentrate carbon-based energy from presently-extant sources and using presently-incoming energy.
#1 involves a buttload of new technology, a great deal of it not yet very efficient or proven.
#2 involves... algae. The same sort of algae that lived and died 10,000,000 years ago and is likely a source of some of our carbon-rich liquid fuels now.
The difference between #1 and #2 is that option #1 requires us to work hard at concentrating the energy, delivering it and using it. You have to junk all the existing cars and convert them to hydrogen fuel cells, you have to build massive new infrastructure to either store and transport the hydrogen or the electricity used in electrolysis.
With #2, all you have to do is change some of the middle processes so that instead of refining fuels from buried carbon sources, you use biologically-grown carbon sources that will grow on their own anyway.
Algal-based oils provide a massively-higher yield of usable concentrated energy, in the form of biodiesel, than anything else we've yet found, far more than corn, soybeans, sugar cane, switchgrass or anything else. Just grow it, squeeze it, process it some, and then put it in the trucks, buses, trains, powerplants and home furnaces we have right now. No new carbon in the system. No huge new inefficient infrastructure to build. No massive changes.
I'd rather have a pond full of billions of little solar batteries all storing away CO2 and sunlight than have to figure out what happens when my compressed-hydrogen tank leaks at 4am.
Read all 'bout it:
{ Link }
Posted by Turtle At 02:57:09 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I also read a funny twist on the fuel cell that I am not sure if it would be an issue or not.....but the author said " take 100's of thousands of fuel cell cars emitting water as the only byproduct and place them on the highways of North America in the winter. What type of hazard would that create?".
John
Posted by John Mackey At 02:58:43 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Here's their take: { Link }
I recommend the article (one page in length) to each of you who wants to separate hype from reality. It's pretty geeky, but that's not a problem for Rocky's readers. For those of you who don't want to read the entire article, here's a summary:
At last year’s Society of Automotive Engineer’s convention in Detroit, one forum debated the question: “The Gasoline Engine Is Dead. Or Is It?” Siemens executive Michael Crane answered matter-of-factly: “For the foreseeable future, the gasoline engine will continue to dominate.”
Gasoline’s 100-year reign is no fluke: It offers high energy density per pound (125,000 BTU/gallon) at low production cost, with a manageable supply infrastructure. And gas engine technology is ever-advancing.
Today’s gas engines are near zero-emission vehicles. “If I mow my lawn for one hour,” says Crane, “I’d produce more emissions than if I drove a new car from New York to Los Angeles.” So clean is Ford’s Durotech engine, for example, that it meets California’s zero-emissions standard along with the celebrated Toyota Prius hybrid.
Clean diesel is the real short-term answer. Diesels are why Aisin’s Whitsett says “hybrids are not the ultimate answer.” Using turbocharged direct-injection technology, modern diesels are significantly cleaner – and faster – than soot-belching diesels of yore. And because clean diesels are both cheaper than hybrids and 30-percent more efficient than their gas-powered peers, Whitsett believes that diesel’s U.S. moment has arrived.
Ultimately, GM is designing the Volt platform to take a hydrogen fuel cell, the fuel many see as the long-term fuel solution. For now, however, hydrogen’s infrastructure costs keep its potential out of reach.
Posted by Timothy Briley At 03:36:34 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I believe that technology will allow us to move toward a different energy source for many uses. However, that change cannot and will not happen over night. It will only happen over time. In the interim, it is irresponsible to simply say "Turn the tap off. The only way to go is cold turkey." Such a move would crash the worldwide economy - not just the US - the world. Currently, economies around the world depend on petrochemicals for energy, transportation, consumer goods, pharmaceuticals, etc. Any significant change will take time. Using the cruise ship analogy - yes, a cruise ship can change course, it just takes miles of ocean to do so. That is the same with the economics of energy production.
I believe that nuclear is the best option for future electricity generation. There is research ongoing that could greatly reduce the problem of nuclear waste. { Link }
Hydrogen has a number of inherent problems that have yet to be worked out. Most were outlined quite neatly by another poster. However, I believe hydrogen will be part of the solution.
Using existing technology, we could expand our drilling for new petroleum and address part of the supply and demand issues prevalent today. Until alternative energy solutions are viable and have viable distribution methods, a petroleum based economy will have to continue.
As for wasting money drilling for oil...that money belongs to the investors in those exploration companies. They obviously believe that petroleum exploration and extraction is a good use of their investments. I've heard a number of people say that "Big Oil" should be forced to spend $XXXXX amount on alternative fuels. WHAT?!?! "Big Oil" isn't in the business of alternative fuels - although most of those companies are expanding into these industries because they realize the future of their industry. If alternative fuels are viable, then investors will reward those companies and technologies by investing in "the next big thing." The market should drive what happens next in alternative energy sources - not government. Viable solutions will thrive, win investment and prosper (e.g. VHS, BluRay) and other solutions will fall by the way side (e.g. Betamax, HDDVD). Market forces are already driving consumers to make different choices for vehicles, job location, etc. Smart companies (perhaps even "Big Oil") will see this and invest in new solutions that consumers will take advantage of.
Posted by Greg At 03:38:37 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
As for distribution, I only have to look at the neighborhood gas station. If something starts to take off, the refueling stations are already in place. They will need to be fitted with something, but they are there.
Posted by Gregg Eldred At 04:09:09 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
What needs to be done is create an electric motor that directly replace an automotive engine. Pull out a V6 and drop in a Electric use same transmission. The gas tank is replaced with a combo recycling fuel cell and battery. You don't go an fill up with hydrogen. The system is plugged in and makes it's own hydrogen. If you dropped 2 billion into that project in 4 years we could start converting. You would need to start putting 220 outlets at parking spaces but problem would be solved.
Now biodeisel for tractor trailers becomes a viable solution.
I would also drop 10 billion into Producing helium3 cheaply. The science behind Helium3 fusion is very well understood. It produces heat and electricity easily and is safe. Home heating cooling and power could be easily could with a residential h3 fusion supply.
Posted by SouthPaw At 04:37:34 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 04:37:41 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I personally have cut down my driving down to 1/3 of what it was in 2004. I have cut down my business travel by 50% from the same time.
How about we all focus on reducing our energy uses on a daily basis before we complain about what others are doing?
Posted by John Head At 04:40:06 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I just finished reading The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrelp. It is a very good book that was published on February 21, 2006. The author indicated it would cost about a trillion dollars to find an alternative fuel. He indicated if we don't get that going and sooner than later, the world economy is going to collapse.
I think the cost of fuel going up is a good thing. It will force people to change and get off their addition of "oil". I know I am trying to conserve as much as possible.
Check out { Link } It is an awesome site.
Posted by Betsy Thiede At 05:45:58 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Betsy Thiede At 05:51:14 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
No, the drilling takes as much money and time as the alternatives. It doesn't solve the problem. Not now, not in 10 years. Not ever.
What would fill a gap is behavioral change in our society. More walking, more biking, more carpooling, more public transportation. Better inflated tires on our cars. More telecommuting, 4 day workweeks. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
All of the big, visionary solutions sounds great.
But they all need time to come to fruition. We, as a society need to take some small personal actions to allow them to happen. The results of such actions would almost instantly reduce our oil consumption by much more than drilling would ever produce.
Posted by Dave Armstrong At 06:18:54 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I wrote this over a year ago...
{ Link }
If high gas prices will make us more efficient consumers, they should have raised prices years ago, the party is over people, it's time to pay the piper.
FYI I drive a 10 year old Turbo Diesel Bug 50MPG, my SUV sits in the garage unless I need to move stuff from Lowes.
Posted by Carl Tyler At 06:54:17 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
On September 12th 1962, John F Kennedy committed the US to a timetable of Landing a man on the moon & returning safely.
This is the level of vision and leadership that is needed now. Each of us hollering "My Idea", "My Idea", louder and louder only delays the solution.
Its like an IT project. The best way of determining the success/failure of a project in advance is to measure the level of support from the top. If the people footing the bill are not fully in support of the idea, then, it will fall on its face at the first stumbling block. I've seen plenty of MS and IBM project fail, but, not because of the technology (which is what we are discussing here)
An argument could be made for each of the solutions provided, and I would say that given proper support any of them would do.
I also point to Eisenhower as an example of a strong leader. It was under his administration that the commitment to building the interstate highway system. That of course is a huge accomplishment.
It is notable I think that Both of these administrations are back to back and one was Democrat and the other was Republican.
I'm not suggesting at this time that anyone should vote one way or the other, but, I suggest that its important to compare our next leader to our previous leaders and imagine how they stack up.
@Chris,
Ed was suggesting that there be an investigation, I'm not sure how that is considered uncivil. The leadership of a president or lack there of, is important. The fact that comedian Bill Maher said it in a funny way does not impact the validity of the point.
Posted by Dwight Wilbanks At 07:36:54 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
{ Link }
Posted by Timothy Briley At 08:21:49 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Andy Donaldson At 08:44:00 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Wake me when we grow up and start building some fscking nuclear fission plants, then we can use some of that electrical power to crack hydrogen from water and get on with the economy using electrical power for stationary connected applications and hydrogen for transportable ones.
Until then, all we're really good at -- as a species -- is burning stuff.
Oil? Sure, there's plenty of it. We have to be willing to make a bit of mess to get at it, but for the next 50 or 60 years there is oil out there. There is no shortage. There is an expectation of shortage, but at least for now, we have time to build the nuke plants we need.
Wind Power? Fine for small, special purpose, local areas. Its not ever going to be significant real power for us as a society.
Wave Motion Generators? Great for a remote research station if they get them portable enough, but it isn't real power for a city.
Solar? There just isn't enough surface area to cover. Nature does great solar conversion, but it takes a long time to produce the chemical energy out of it. We consume it faster than it can be made. Bad Plan.
Biomass? Lets not even talk about competing for food vs. fuel with a poor population. Doesn't anyone remember the guillotine?
Of course there's always Fusion. its the energy of the future! (and it always will be).
Posted by Andrew Pollack At 09:53:00 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
I'd buy one of those Chevy Volt's if there were more 220v outlets out in the world that I could plug into without getting arrested. I can run a new circuit out to the front of the house, but I'd worry about getting stuck somewhere with a 30-hour charge sneaking someone's 120v line.
Posted by Scott Gentzen At 10:32:20 PM On 07/08/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Klaus Terman At 03:09:07 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
@13 - Richard already mentioned this partially , although the overall car warranty is still 3 years, all the hybrid related technology in Honda cars is warranted for 8 years.
Hybrid technology is not the final solution, it's one step forward, it's research. More important than "extending the gas mileage a bit" (and it's not just a bit) is has done a great job in educating the driver.
About the batteries in hybrids, Rocky, I think you're missing something here, the fuel cell car also has batteries, fuel cell technology generates electricity from hydrogen, the same batteries used in hybrids are present here.
Honda is already selling the home power station in the US, it generates electricity and heat from natural gas and will, in the future, provide 'fuel' for hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars. Meaning, you fuel up the car at home.
Posted by Vitor Pereira At 08:06:47 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
@16 - LOL And the nickel has to be mined in Canada, shipped to Europe, then China for mfg., then to Japan to Toyota/Honda, then to final destination in the form of a battery in a vehicle.
These "green" vehicles aren't really that green...
@19 - and why should the investigations be on the President?!? It's not HIS role to INTRODUCE legislation to do anything. It's his role to pass or veto legislation sent to him by Congress. A Congress, by the way, that has a worse approval rating than himself...
Oh, and I've seen some random comments about space missions. Funny that something like that is highly polluting: { Link } I've thought for a LONG time that we should stop wasting money on space exploration and better spend it on things here...
@22 - Ditto on nucular!! I'm glad to see that McCain would like to see more than 40 new nuclear plants within about 20 years.
Posted by Chris Whisonant At 08:26:59 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
It's interesting how two people can read the same thing and come away with different conclusions.
Posted by Kerr At 10:35:34 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
of gasoline consumption in the United States."
And people are OK with that. We're talking about 7 people using the same amount of gasoline as an entire nation. The "launch" only takes about 2 minutes too...
Posted by Chris Whisonant At 11:17:41 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
** I agree, the biggest roadblock to hydrogen fuel cell technologies taking on is the cost of creating the hydrogen itself. Also, I do NOT foresee fuel cells replacing ALL power generation in the future; we're still going to need massive "source" power creation for the overall "grid" - and I agree with many of you that nuclear power - namely fission - is the future of both hydrogen creation and source power supply for the grid. I used to be against nuclear power, but to be honest I have rethought this and have accepted nuclear power because the technologies used for nuclear power is much safer and reliable than pretty much all other sources. BTW, Penn & Teller did a segment on nuclear power on "Bullshit!", and it is very interesting. Find it and check it out.
** I also believe that a more stable and easily used way to store and transport hydrogen fuel will also be created as widespread fuel cell use becomes more feasible.
** I agree that we can't go "cold turkey". We're going to have to find some interim source of fuel in the "gap period", probably 10-15 years. However I still don't believe drilling for more oil is the answer. I'd like to see biodiesel (made from used grease, algae, etc.) be the main gap technology. Also, for the interim, I think the main goal for this interim period should be to reduce our oil dependence to the level where we can supply most or all of the oil requirement until the long-term solution(s) are found and implemented.
** Finally, people who are disagreeing with me concerning hybrid vehicles and their "real world" costs for maintenance (especially batteries) need to do a little more exploration, past the hype of the manufacturers themselves, to some real-world reports of people who own hybrids. Here's a response to { Link } one of these articles, that provides a real-world example from a hybrid owner named Dennis Widner:
Well I hate to rain on your parade, but I just got a quote on a battery replacement for a 2003 Honda Insight with 150,000 miles.
Try $6312.70 !!!!!!!
The battery (refurbished) replaced and 2 control modules plus labor.
What they fail to tell you is that the IMA battery weakens with age. Performance is slipping on my Insight. My 2003 is in self recharge most of the time. Unless there is an error light on in your dash, Honda won't do anything.
I do not see where hybrids are cost effective and I own 3 of them. For That kinda of money I can buy 1500 gallons of gasoline at $4 a gallon. I am really miffed because I was told around $1500 to replace the battery when I bought it. Who wants to invest that kind of money when the car is 5 to 10 years old. The battery replacement is worth more than the car. I was once a hybrid man but they are a scam....I am trading in the 3 I have.
BTW, I do agree that the battery life will get longer as the technology matures, and that replacement costs will go down. However the concept of getting exceptional gas mileage compared to a conventional economical car is a fallacy. Additionally the batteries do have an eventual end-of-life, and at that point the dead battery must be "refurbished", meaning that toxic crap has to be eventually disposed of. Still not a good deal, IMHO.
Here's a { Link } nice comparison between owning a Toyota Prius (hybrid) VS a Toyota Corolla. It supports my hypothesis that hybrids are simply not a viable alternative, in any way - whether the batter replacement is cheap or not.
I'll write more in a bit, but I wanted to get my thoughts on this posted.
Rock
Posted by Rock At 11:26:54 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
Now, as to what the carbon footprint and other pollution effects of actually producing the solid fuel and LH/LOX is would be interesting to find out, but it's not part of that article.
As for whether it's worth it? On the whole yes. The science we are learning from space probes and telescopes is furthering our understanding of science a staggering rate. Satellites for telecommunications and observation of the earth are making our lives better and safer.
Posted by Kerr At 11:53:41 AM On 07/09/2008 | - Website - |
If you have concerns about Hybrid batteries you should refrain your hype about hydrogen fuel cell technologies because they use the SAME batteries. The fuel cell stack generates electricity from hydrogen which feeds the electrical engine, the same batteries are used.
And yes, compared to what's being used now the Insights batteries were highly inefficient.
Posted by Vitor Pereira At 05:43:15 AM On 07/10/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Charles Robinson At 11:19:59 AM On 07/10/2008 | - Website - |
You're right - the current generration of fuel cell vehicles (namely the Clarity) use Lithium Ion batteries to store extra power generated from the regenerative braking system found on hybrid vehicles. The difference is that in hybrids the battery pack is the primary source of power for the hybrid. In the Clarity the fuel cell is the primary source of power used to drive the motor, and the battery pack is simply used to suppliment the fuel cells as needed. Here's a quote from the JD Power review of the Clarity { Link } that provides a description of how the system works:
The 2009 Honda FCX Clarity is powered by a fuel cell stack that uses hydrogen to produce electricity, which in turn powers an electric traction motor that drives the front wheels. A regenerative braking system, similar to the system found in hybrids and battery-electric vehicles, allows the motor to generate electricity as the car slows down. This power is stored in a battery and is used to supplement the fuel cell as needed. Because the FCX Clarity uses an electric motor to power the wheels, there is no need for a conventional transmission. Total power output is 100 kilowatts, equivalent to about 134 hp.
Therefore the "wear and tear" on the Clarity battery pack is much less, and it will last longer. It is also smaller than a hybrid battery pack.
Posted by Rock At 01:50:00 PM On 07/10/2008 | - Website - |
The JD Power article is entertaining. If you're really interested I can see what can I send you about the Clarity.
Posted by Vitor Pereira At 05:50:15 PM On 07/10/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Kerr At 06:33:56 PM On 07/10/2008 | - Website - |
That's one of the uses of the battery. In the hybrid it is used to power the electrical engine and assist (read provide more power) the gas engine. In the Clarity it is used to provide more juice to the engine when needed.
Posted by Vitor Pereira At 06:53:16 PM On 07/10/2008 | - Website - |
{ Link }
Posted by John Vaughan At 11:28:55 AM On 08/01/2008 | - Website - |