virginiadiver69
New member
Hence the caveat.
Global warming?
- Thread starter MCary
- Start date
- Status
virginiadiver69
New member
Thanks for your concern. :love1:
spike78
New member
Hydrogen production is not limited to extraction from natural gas and can be made abundantly cheaply and cleanly.
I totally agree regarding your points on Biofuel. Current technologies are nowhere near efficient enough, both from a land usage standpoint and from a production standpoint to be a viable alternative. There are emerging technologies in this arena, (utilizing algae for example) that may prove to be viable alternative energy sources. You have to keep in mind though, that even though you do burn it, and release carbon, that carbon was sinked from the environment when the plant was grown, and not liberated from ancient stores of buried carbon
For me personally, I try and limit the scope of the problem to my personal world and the choices I make to limit my impact. Looking at this problem globally can have the effect of causing paralysis in acting due to the huge scope of the issue. Small changes in the way we live our lives can greatly effect the impact we have on our local, and by extension, global environment.
I think that there is value to discussing the science regarding the facts about climate change. I would however argue that there is really no argument that decreasing the impact of human activity on the environment is beneficial.
I do not believe that this is actually true. Especially the abundant and cheap part. But my mind is open. Show me.
I also do not believe this is true other than to relieve a society's sense of helplessness. But again, my mind is open.
This isn't the problem. The problem is that the ancient stores you mention are used to produce the biofuels. Diesel in tractors, shipping, refining etc. Basically your just adding alot of money to the cost of a gallon of gas by turning it into a gallon of biofuel.
Just as a matter of explanation. I would ask that people do not attach motivations or judgements to my curiousity of the science. I am all for alternative energy sources and conservation. My motivations are different. I believe oil is funding terrorism. But the results are the same.
I believe GW is junk science. I do not care about the results otherwise. I'm not in favor of pollution, wasteful explotation of resources, or even necessarily question the fact that the globe may be warming. It all about the science. I have difficulty with experiments failing reproducability, specificity, and sensitivity. I question the lack of good math or physics. I question reliance on computer models whose predictions are not born out.
I object to the politicization of the issue. Or the rediculous arguments by people with no scientific background. Especially when they want to argue with me, a scientist. Present company excluded.
oh well, its still fun. Thanks guys.
Mike
spike78
New member
Here on the left coast, Hydropower. Cheap, Clean and abundant. I would also point to wind power as an abundant alternative source of Hydrogen. The biggest benefit in my mind to Hydrogen is the ability to manufacture the fuel on-site eliminating the costs of distribution.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Society is hardly helpless. It's really not that hard NOT to do something. Small decisions like where you live in relation to where you work, what vehicle you choose to drive all have a very large impact on how energy is utilized in this country.
How do you figure? Are these elements unable to utilize the same fuel they are producing? As far as transportation is concerned, you can't compare those costs to those of traditional petroleum as they both have distribution costs. Biofuel though has the benefit of being produced domestically reducing these costs in comparison to traditional petroleum. Once again, I'm still not a fan of bio-fuels in their current incarnation. The technology isn't efficient or cost effective.
The reason I posted was due to what I felt were unjustified attacks on the pursuit of alternative energy sources and the statement that society is helpless to reduce it's wasteful consumption of resources. How much better off would we be in this country if we could curtail our consumption of foreign oil by 10%? 20%? 40%? Politically, economically, and environmentally, the small investment in conservation would pay off exponentially.
Great post Spike. Makes alot of sense.
I have already said in this thread that hydrogen can be made on the back on generating wind power from electrolysis. Some people have got there fingers in there ears I think......
I also asked why would they use mineral diesal in the tractors and trucks on a bio fuel farm/plant? errrrr I dont think they would,surely they would use there bio diesal as there the people producing it. :lol:
I'm also totally against the current bio fuels. well apart from used chip fat,but theres not that much of that around. :lol:
The second generation bio fuels need to be pushed through.
I have already said in this thread that hydrogen can be made on the back on generating wind power from electrolysis. Some people have got there fingers in there ears I think......
I also asked why would they use mineral diesal in the tractors and trucks on a bio fuel farm/plant? errrrr I dont think they would,surely they would use there bio diesal as there the people producing it. :lol:
I'm also totally against the current bio fuels. well apart from used chip fat,but theres not that much of that around. :lol:
The second generation bio fuels need to be pushed through.
Like I said, most hydrogen is now made of methane (natural gas). The other sources of hydrogen while possible, are not very commercially viable either because of expense or volumes needed. As far as the "left" coast and the use of wind and hydropower (dams), California has to buy energy from other states because of its reluctance to build new power sources. Hydropower depends on availability of water and new dams. Not abundant, not cheap, for new dams.
What I mean is the scope of the perceived problem. Its analogous to walking by an forest fire and urinating on some embers and thinking your helped put the fire out.
No. They are not efficient enough. It is too close to a 1:1 relationship. It would be possible if you could use 1 gallon of fuel to produce say 5 gallons. But its now 1:1.1 Just not economically viable.
The last part if my post was just an aside, not directed to you. However, there are no unjustified attacks on alternative energy. I don't care myself what turns on the lights. I just pointed out facts about their viability. I'm not a big fan of "feel good" propaganda. Just the facts please.
Rossini, like I said, producing the volumes necessary to re-engineer power plants and cars will not be done with electrolysis.
Here's the thing. If any of these sources were possible the market would be all over them. The US uses 7 billion barrels of oil a year. 55 gallons per barrel. $113 per. If someone thought they could get that $791,000,000,000 don't you think they would?
By who? The United States Department of Research and Developement. No such thing. I guess you must mean giving money. Who gets the money for the research? The oil companies have the expertise and distribution networks. Hmmm, I see no problems giving oil companies, who are now making record profits, tax money. Yeah, the people will definately support that.
Sorry, but you both suffer from a serious affliction. Liberal idealism.
Mike
The problem is when millions of people of people walk past that forest fire thinking the same thing and just keep on walking. If they all stopped and peed on the fire it would be put out
It's not about just one person in the world doing something, but getting lots and lots of people to do something. All those little personal actions when combined with lots of others does indeed add up to something that can have an effect
spike78
New member
You are correct that most hydrogen is currently extracted from Methane. Unlike fossil fuels however, hydrogen can be generated using alternative means in large enough quantities to make it economically viable, especially when you remove the transportation and storage costs associated with current sources. Here is a good example of private implementation of this structure:
http://www.hynor.no/english
I will still disagree with this one. Although California does import power, it does so from hydropower states like Washington and Nevada. currently the measure of break even on new dams is measured in decades, as the costs of fossil fuels continues to increase, the economics of hydropower make more and more sense. The same goes for wind power.
I agree that the perceived scope of the problem has a paralyzing effect on action. This is just a problem with the perception rather then the realities of the issue.
Totally agree. From my first post I've stated that Biofuels in their current incarnation are not valid. This doesn't necessarily mean that the theory is invalid. Current studies by the University of Washington are investigating alternate sources of biofuels such as algae and fast growing trees that would boost yield up to 1000 times current yield per hectare.
Absolutely not. The initial costs associated with a move to alternative fuels are not in the scope of private enterprise. The companies that are large enough to make such an investment are not going to be able to justify such an expenditure when they are making record profits on the current infrastructure. As much as I hate to say it, government funding, like funds used during the buildout of the current interstate system, will be required to put in place the infrastructure for a move off foreign oil to alternative energy sources. How much more secure would we be as a nation if instead of making huge investments in national treasure in the securing of oil sources overseas, we invested that money domestically in energy infrastructure. Three trillion dollars goes a long way...
virginiadiver69
New member
Where does government funding come from?
The profits are high because of a growing worldwide economy.
% wise...profits are in line with every other corp.
Keep in mind though...about 60% of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico. The rest COULD come from our own waters if pandering lawyers would grow a pair.
Yeah, still confused over the gov'mint funding question. The suggestion is that if we throw money at the problem it will be solved. My question is "Where will the money go?" Who gets it?
Let's look at the progress so far. Iowa and Ohio corn farmers have lobbied successfully to get subsidies for ethanol production. What have we gotten. Well, first, sugar cane is a much better source of methanol but we're using corn. Farmer trying to get those subsidies are taking other food crops out of production for corn. The price of feed grains are through the roof. So, we have developing nations starving, chicken, beef and bread extremely expensive here and an alternative fuel that is inefficient, cannot be piped, and uses as much fuel to make as it produces. Your tax dollars in action. The government is not capable of the creativity it takes to solve this problem. Its going to take the creativity of a greedy capatalist.
Sorry Bill. It was not meant to be a barb. Its just a belief of mine that liberals (not politcal liberals, but real liberals) think in idealistic terms. Liberals think "what if?" and conservatives think "how?"
Liberals see the possibilities and converative see the problems. We need both, but the truth will always be in the middle.
Let's look at the progress so far. Iowa and Ohio corn farmers have lobbied successfully to get subsidies for ethanol production. What have we gotten. Well, first, sugar cane is a much better source of methanol but we're using corn. Farmer trying to get those subsidies are taking other food crops out of production for corn. The price of feed grains are through the roof. So, we have developing nations starving, chicken, beef and bread extremely expensive here and an alternative fuel that is inefficient, cannot be piped, and uses as much fuel to make as it produces. Your tax dollars in action. The government is not capable of the creativity it takes to solve this problem. Its going to take the creativity of a greedy capatalist.
Sorry Bill. It was not meant to be a barb. Its just a belief of mine that liberals (not politcal liberals, but real liberals) think in idealistic terms. Liberals think "what if?" and conservatives think "how?"
Liberals see the possibilities and converative see the problems. We need both, but the truth will always be in the middle.
spike78
New member
In my opinion, from special project funding, like the way the war is currently funded, or from the budget of the department of defense, as it is a national security issue.
Do you have any documentation for this? I can't see how this could be the case, especially in the current economy. "Every other corp" is not pulling down record profits quarter on quarter.
I don't think 60% is a valid number: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Either way, last I checked, both Canada and Mexico were still foreign countries.
Last edited:
spike78
New member
I would guess the US Department of Energy. As for what it's used for, my guess would be R&D grants (similar to DARPA) and Hydrogen infrastructure.
Again, no argument from me here. Corn Ethenol is way worse than pumping oil out of the ground as far as the economic and environmental impact is concerned.
You may be surprised that I consider myself conservative. The problem I see is that the current conservative movement has lost sight of it's ideals. I would expand further but I fear that may be stepping over the line in the scope of this discussion.
virginiadiver69
New member
Your right...a quick look at that chart accounts for about 55% of our counties foreign oil supply coming from North, Central and South America ( please check my math ). Foreign countries to be sure but not "over seas" ( last time I checked ).
and...
Sounds more like optimist vs. pessimist, or the old is the glass half full or half empty
BTW, I'm in full agreement on the corn for fuel idea, or any other cellulose based idea for ethanol. Cellulose just doesn't ferment without considerable effort to break it down into simple fermentable sugars. Better off with high sugar, low cellulose (at least compared to corn) crops like sugar cane, sugar beets and potatoes that would readily yield fermentable sugars. The algae for biodiesel does show some promise. Many algaes such nanochloropis can have an oil content has high as 50%, with some work getting even higher yields. The real interesting work being done with algae on a pilot basis is piping power plant exhaust through cultures and utilizing the CO2 to enhance the algae growth, as well as scrubbing the power plant exhaust.
Actually they are higher than other corps, record breaking high at that. Kind of have my doubts about the growing economy, at least around here. I know quite a few people, myself included, that have been forced to reduce discretionary spending due to huge increases in fuel costs. I also know quite few business that rely on tourism dollars that have seen a decrease in business as result of a decrease in traveling. Not exactly good things for the overall economy.
- Status
Similar threads
