Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion
You are not logged in.
Okay, we will set aside the question of whether or not Global Warming is real, and whether or not it is man-made or not. There is no consensus on either of those questions, so we won't bother with them. Assume, for the moment, that GW is real, and that man has some impact on it.
My question relates to one of the proposed solutions to the problem: switching from fossil-fuel driven engines to hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.
A very brief technical synopsis of how fuel cells work: Take hydrogen and recombine it with oxygen inside of the fuel cell. The two things produced are electricity and water vapor. The electricity is used to drive the vehicle's electric motors, and the water vapor is emitted as exhaust.
Here's my question: Since the most prolific greenhouse gas (over 95%) is, in fact, water vapor, isn't this actually going to make the situation WORSE? Shouldn't there be some talk about legislation to prevent these cars from emitting water vapor, and instead letting it condense into water (which would, btw, be pure enough to drink by EPA standards...) If we allow these vehicles to emit this water vapor into the atmosphere, haven't we simply exchanged one greenhouse gas for another?
Eric
Offline
...thats, a good question
but won't the water vapor amount drop off w out the co2/carbon(i forget which it is) in the air to cling to?
but i agree better safe than sorry
Offline
Cool thing with hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells is you don't have to actually exhaust it out you could actually collect the water and apply energy back to it to re-split it and get your hydrogen and oxygen back again. Mind you to really have a near zero emission impact you would have to generate the power to do the splitting with solar energy which takes time.
Offline
Solar or wind (why does everyone forget wind, which is more efficient than solar?), or geothermal...
And Neitherspace: Water vapor in the atmosphere is always there. It doesn't form *clouds* until it has particulate matter (which CO2 is not) to cling to. There isn't nearly enough CO2 in comparison to the amount of H2O(g) (is that how you indicate state of matter? I forget...) to really have any effect on what the water vapor's doing.
Eric.
Offline
True about wind however how many people want a big ass turbine in their yard to charge their car? At least with solar you can make it part of the roof of the garage. Other thing is solar is more consistent than wind in most places.
Offline
tsk, tsk, tsk. You're not keeping up with the technology.
They have invented a wind turbine that is perhaps 8 feet tall, and about 3 feet in diameter. (Or it could be 3' tall and 8' long, since it can be laid on its side...) It isn't a "fan" design, it's a helical design. It was created to take advantage of the highly variable wind in cities. This wind turbine also reacts to very small amounts of wind, as well as making use of stiff breezes. It's also, I must admit, really damned cool looking.
And it is my belief that in the future, people will make the choice to produce their own power, rather than to depend on an increasingly shaky electric power grid. It is cheaper and more reliable, at this point, to just do it yourself.
Eric
Offline
Shouldn't that have happened years ago?
I heard somewhere that then President Jimmy Carter had a bill on his desk to give tax breaks to those who installed solar power in their homes or businesses. Even with how wild Carter was/is about saving the environment, the bill went unsigned.
Solar and wind power BOTH are getting better and better. You don't even really need direct sunlight anymore for solar power. You just need there to be a sun, even if you can't see it. But very few people are installing any kind of alternative power into homes or businesses.
What would have to change in order to get people to install alternative energy sources? Even with the rising gas prices, there is almost no change in demand for gasoline. There hasn't been a mad outcry from the people or the Congress, for an alternative. Right now, the only alternative was have is Ethanol made from corn which is, at least partially, responsible for our existing oil crisis, not to mention driving up food prices.
From what I can, people want an alternative but they aren't screaming mad for it. Even the whacko-environmentalists aren't doing it. Look at Al Gore and the idiot Micheal Moore.
Offline
I think that one of the big issues about alternative energy sources is how to store the 'excess' you generate (geo-, wind, tidal, et al) so that you can use it to even our the supply to meet the demand.
I just heard on the radio the other day that someone (Toyota with its Prius) is looking to make it into a plug-in vehicle (I also heard over a year ago that garage mechanics have been doing this with a switch 'off line' as it were for a while). The only problem with the current technology (Li-ion bats) is that it will last 10 years at 15k/year but then will cost you about 10k$ to replace.
I used to drive a Geo Metro. It got an honest 53 mpg on my commute (~90 miles/day). They quit making it (or GM when they bought the tooling decided in 2000 to only sell it to fleet sales (5+ cars/sale)). Now they're selling 8+ year old Geo's for 7 or 8 grand! Did GM ever screw the pooch on that one!
I think that wind using the 8x3' wind turbine that Eric spoke of or tidal-electric would be good (coupled with bats or maybe used to heat sodium to molten state then recover the energy by going from liquid to solid to run a generator) but we'll have to see.
Offline
One other thing to throw in the mix: I was watching a program on Science Channel (I think it was) the other night, which showed a working fusion reactor. They (one of the people working on it) said that a "commercially viable" generator was about 50 years out.
So... okay... I don't expect to live that long, but the question we should be asking is this: Is it more cost-effective to switch everyone over to solar/wind now, and then to switch them over to fusion in 50 years, or does it make more sense to just make fossil-fuel production more efficient and environmentally friendly, and then switch to fusion when it comes? I don't actually know the answer, but something tells me it's easier to make a known process more efficient than it is to implement a whole new process.
Once fusion hits as commercially viable, it will put all the other electricity-producing methods completely out the window, because it is several orders of magnitude more efficient. And fusion has no nasty after-effects, even if the station blows to smithereens.
So, we shall see what we shall see, I guess.
Eric
Offline
Greetings
The fusion breakthrough would be game changing and maybe if they run at it hard even before 50 years but as you say, what until then?
I'd like to see a mix of technology to get us there with wind and solar getting a decent push into the mainstream. Oil has passed the peak and we are pumping out of a declining reserve that means we need to be moving into other fuels quickly and frankly I'm tired of having my energy controlled by foreign powers who don't like me much. That's one reason I like ethanol...
What I've seen of the Chevy Volt gives me a thought that they've got a good idea for that fill-in transport Heres a fascinating article about GM attempting to turn on a dime
I could see larger and larger pools of people falling off the grid as energy gets expensive and alternatives get cheaper. Won't be long before neighborhoods start buying wind turbines and setting up solar farms...
Enjoy the journey
Offline
Corn-ethanol will never be viable. It isn't cost-effective, AND it raises the price of all corn-based food products. (Yeah, they're actually taking away food crops to produce fuel. Not good.) Plus, it takes nearly as much energy to produce the ethanol as the ethanol gives back, so that's a non-winning game.
If they can make cellulose-based ethanol work better, that would be good. That uses plant "scraps", rather than actual food product, so it would be utilizing something that isn't sold currently.
I agree that "the grid" needs to go away. Power needs to be produced on as local a level as possible. The MOST preferable place to produce power is in the home. Obviously, this will never happen with, say, fusion, but a good combination of wind and solar would work.
I agree we need to stop depending on foreign oil, but I think fossil fuels can carry us until fusion takes hold, especially since people will be dropping off the grid to produce their own power by other means. I would be more concerned about replacing the OTHER things we use oil for, like making certain plastics, and asphalt and such.
Eric
Offline
Just have to add one quick thing;
Ethanol is not just raising the price of corn-based foods, it's raising the price of almost ALL Food.
One of the main ingredients in the stuff farmers feed to cows, pigs, chickens, and yes, the stuff we feed to dogs and cats is CORN. So the rise in cost for meat, milk, cheese, eggs as well as pet food can all be traced back to the shortage of corn.
Put simply, ethanol does not use the same kind of corn we eat. But the people who make ethanol pay better than the super market does. A farmer can make more money raising corn for ethanol than he can by growing corn for eating. Why wouldn't they switch?
Offline
what about sugarcane ethanol i've heard its slightly cleaner Burning and cheaper to make
Offline
Jefferson wrote:
Ethanol is not just raising the price of corn-based foods, it's raising the price of almost ALL Food.
Greetings
Certain amount of oil company "fibbing" in the ethanol discusion.
I spent part of my miss-spent yoputh on a farm in SD where they raised corn, soybeans, and oats marketed some and fed the rest to beef and pigs. This was long ago and the economies were different but the "science" is the same -
A bushel of Corn weighs about 55-60 lbs, that means at $7 a bushel about $0.13 lb. It takes 2 lbs of corn to add 1 lb weight to a chicken, 4 lbs of corn to add a pund to a pig and 9 lbs to convert to a pound of beef.
Now how much of the FINAL COST TO YOU is farmer and how much is Tyson is a debate all its own...
I don't think ethanol is as big a factor as "high fructose corn syrup" (see can of soda pop label) and of course the exports to places like China and India where consumer are becoming rich enough to add to their diets plus of course the costs of things used in production like fertilizer and all those tractors and harvesters that burn that expensive fuel.
So to me the indictment of ethanol is still unproven and likely more excuses by folks with a vested interest in the status quo.
Enjoy the journey
Offline
Sorry, WarLord, but the economic INviability of ethanol has been proven by government agencies as well as independent research firms.
Here's the simple fact: Ethanol uses corn. A LOT of corn. Another simple fact: If you use corn to make fuel, you can't use it for anything else. A final fact: When there is less of something, and the demand for it stays the same, the PRICE GOES UP. Therefore, anything that uses corn in any way will now cost more, because there is less corn to make it with.
And the science of how much energy it takes to produce ethanol is very straightforward. It is almost a 1:1 ratio of energy put in versus energy taken out.
Blaming High Fructose Corn Syrup for the rise in food prices is pretty much a non sequitur, since we have been using HFCS for over twenty years. Our use of it might be growing, but that would not account for any recent rapid rise in prices.
So, you can choose not to believe the evidence against ethanol if you wish, but it sounds more like you're letting your ideology lead you, which is pretty much what you just blamed the other side for.
I, personally, have no vested interest. I can't drive, so I don't have to use gas OR ethanol.
Eric
Offline
Eric Storm wrote:
And the science of how much energy it takes to produce ethanol is very straightforward. It is almost a 1:1 ratio of energy put in versus energy taken out.Eric
Greetings
I'm oK with a trade of one BTU of coal or nuke generated power for one BTU of ethanol
We have much COAL in the US and every gallon of imported oil left on the boat is a win but again with cogeneration and other terchnology those efficiencies are rising and its not one to one...
But even so food export is big cost factor and belive it or not HFC is also a big buyer that competes with beef farmers and ethanol plants for that corn.
Brazil has switched almost entirely to sugar based ethanol with excess ethanol to export cheap but its not available in the US! That fact alone makes it clear that there is much about the oil v. ethanol market that is not transparent nor simply a matter of supply/demand and price
Enjoy the journey
Offline
WarLord wrote:
I'm oK with a trade of one BTU of coal or nuke generated power for one BTU of ethanol
This statement just proves you are completely ideologically driven, rather than concerned with the economics of the issue.
I don't bother debating ideologues.
Eric
Offline
Eric Storm wrote:
WarLord wrote:
I'm oK with a trade of one BTU of coal or nuke generated power for one BTU of ethanol
This statement just proves you are completely ideologically driven, rather than concerned with the economics of the issue.
I don't bother debating ideologues.
Eric
Greetings
But you missed the science part of the discussion!
That bushel of Corn weighs about 55-60 lbs, that means at $7 a bushel about $0.13 lb. It takes 2 lbs of corn to add 1 lb weight to a chicken, 4 lbs of corn to add a pund to a pig and 9 lbs to convert to a pound of beef
If corn was FREE before (it wasn't) the cost of ethanol represents twenty six cents of every pound of weight added to chicken, But if we even assume more realisticaly corn doubled in price since the age of ethanol, your order of chicken McNuggets has added about a DIME worth of high value corn! Your McD quarter pounder increased in cost about a QUARTER!
I'm not seeing the cost as exorbitant when taken against the ills of imported oil
Idealogue, not so much
Enjoy the journey
Offline
Yeah, once you lumped coal and nuclear power together to compare them to ethanol, you labeled yourself an ideologue.
Eric
Offline
Eric Storm wrote:
Yeah, once you lumped coal and nuclear power together to compare them to ethanol, you labeled yourself an ideologue.
Eric
Greetings
Half the power for this 'puter is generated by NUKE the other half by coal from Montana with peaking by Nat Gas. And before i retired I worked in all of them plus the refinery;)
Enjoy the journey
Offline
Just something I would like to add to the earlier comments about everyone going off the grid. Is that really a desirable thing? Sure it is great when you don't have to pay the utility company money for you power but what happens when your generation solution breaks? Do you really want to be without power until such time as you can fix it or would it be better to have a whole system that you can fall back on when needed?
The way I would envision it is if you are generating a surplus of power that goes into the grid and perhaps you even get a small credit to go towards those times when your own generation capasity is not up to supplying all your power needs.
Offline
All the grid does is guarantee that when something bad happens, EVERYONE is out of power. I imagine that "power generation insurance" would become a popular item, to cover the cost of repairs and maintenance.
Any form of electrical grid entails an infrastructure that will always be playing catch-up. You're just asking for trouble.
Eric
Offline
Maybe this is a stupid question but just like cutting down the rain forests of South America has supposedly changed the weather patterns in Africa, making it dryer, wouldn't wind turbines that cut the speed of the wind even if at a minute rate, cause even more changes in the weather patterns?
Offline
I've often asked that question. Especially now that they're talking about underwater turbines in the Gulf Stream.
Eric
Offline
Unless someone was to build a turbine kilometers wide and hundreds of meters high I don't think a wind farm would have any noticeable effect on the overall wind patterns. If so building skyscrapers in NY and Tokyo would effect the weather too.
Offline