Reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil?

Bush talks fuel cells, but the US gov't gives tax breaks to SUV owners. The first may mean something in the distant future; the latter is happening right now.

they give tax breaks to hybrid cars, just not as much as they do to SUV buyers (grrrrr). I listened to a bit on NPR today about this.

I am strongly sceptic on the issue: hydrogen fuel does not make mankind independent of the fossil fuel. There is no free hydrogen in the Earth athmosphere (if there was some, the first lightning would cause the powerful explosion). Disintegration of water into hydrogen and oxygen requires external energy supply, and energy that the resulting hydrogen contains potentially is lower than the energy needed to obtain hydrogen (no process is hundred percent efficient, so part of the energy used to disintegrate water is spent to its mere heating). And such energy may be obtained mainly from the fossil fuel. So, both dependency on the oil supply and air pollution will not disappear.
Well, it is possible to import hydrogen from Russia and Norway: both these countries possess large number of hydropower plants; these are ecologically neutral (if we neglect disappearance of thousands of sq. miles under water as a result of dams building) and their energy is relatively cheap, but this will retain dependency of the USA on the foreign fuel suppliers.

Streissd - that's what the radio program I listened to said. That processing to make hydrogen would use more fossil fuels than energy production uses now - it would make the pollution and depletion worse, not better. Unless we come up with some entirely new technology.....

Entirely new technology exists, but it is not less dangerous: I mean nuclear energy usage. Nothing better can be introduced, since even President Bush and the Congress of the USA cannot abolish the law of conservation of energy... Energy cannot appear from nothing: this is one of the fundamental principles of nature defined by the Creator.

Too true, littlek!

Steissd

Obviously you didn't get the tenor of that link: being against the idea of a hydrogen car means being against Bush!

"And part of the Freedom Fuel initiative could include research into greener ways of deriving hydrogen, such as using renewable energy for electrolysis -- the separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen. But at the moment, the mining, oil and gas industries are still necessary for the production of hydrogen, so Bush isn't risking any political capital from his supporters by endorsing the technology. "

fusion?

we cannot put a man on the moon becuase we do not have the technology to put a man on the moon therefore we shall not consider hydrogen as a source of energy because we do not have the technology. i guess i will go live in a cave because logic eludes me.

Nuclear fusion is a process similar to the ones that occur in the thermonuclear bomb or inside the Sun: the nuclei of the light chemical elements fuse to produce a heavier nucleus (for example, two nuclei of deuterium produce one nucleus of helium, and a large amount of energy is released). The problem is that no reliable mechanism to maintain controllable fusion reaction has yet been developed. Scientists started working on the problem since mid-'50s, but with no result.

Dyslexia, there can be no technology that contradicts the fundamental laws of nature. That is why no one has ever succeeded to build a perpetuum mobile, for example. God has endowed people with powerful intellect, but our abilities are restricted by the basic properties of the material world.

at the risk of confronting the laws of god:Cars powered by electricity from hydrogen fuel cells are being designed because they will eliminate discharges of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions. Such a "zero emissions" vehicle is a goal of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which involves the automobile industry and the Department of Energy.

A proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell is the technology of choice in the automobile industry for future electric cars because of its low-temperature operation and rapid startup. PEM fuel cells have been plagued with problems, but recent developments at ORNL may make this technology more feasible and affordable.

The problem with using today's PEM fuel cells to power cars is that their bipolar plates (positive and negative electrodes), which are made of machined graphite, are too heavy, too brittle, and too costly for use in automobiles. ORNL's solution is to make bipolar plates from a carbon-fiber composite, which is lighter, tougher, and cheaper than machined graphite.

OK, I agree that fuel cells parameters can be improved further and further, including their weight, efficiency, etc. But the fuel for fuel cells cannot be obtained without burning oil/coal/natural gas/fissile nuclear fuel on the power plants. More, it will take more oil to be burnt if compared to usage of gasoline made of oil directly in the cars: if an additional intermediate stage is inserted between oil and gas tank, technological processes that this stage includes will inevitably consume their share of energy.

Right. The advantage of fuel cells comes from the idea that power plants, fossil fuel and especially nuclear, are only efficient at their rated capacities. Separating hydrogen and oxygen from water lets them maintain efficient operation at other than peak load times. There sole advantage lies in their ability to store, not create, energy.

Fuel cell technology has a long way to go before it become feasible for the use in automobiles. That aside how does it reduce the need for oil? Fossil fuels, oil coal and, etc., will be needed to produce the needed fuel. In the mean time Bush has given the auto industry a 20 or more year reprieve from the need to produce fuel efficient auto's. The can go right on producing and selling the gas guzzling Hummers and SUV's . The auto companies are dancing with delight.

Realistically we will not see serious development of "alternative fuels" or those vehicles with alternative methods of energy extraction until they are practical. The Only thing even remotely close to real life "alternative fuel" to date is ethyl alcohol mixed with gasoline to form Gasohol. Problem is that this has less caloric content than regular gasoline, which means you have to burn more of it to get the same energy output as conventional gas. So any decrease in emissions may be countered by having to burn more of it. Furthermore, in my travels thru Mid-Atlantic States up into Maine I have seen little or no stations offering Gasohol, which tells me it is not a viable product.

The only way for these alternatives to be successful in the real world is by becoming more economical. The government can try to force these new technologies into the mainstream with large subsidies either to manufacturers or consumers (as they do now) or by increasing fuel taxes. However, these methods only hide the true cost, which the consumer will pay for in the end anyway.

As long as petroleum products are available at cheaper cost we should continue to use them. In addition we should buy and draw down other countries' reserves and save our own (what little there are) for the future. In addition we should continue to subsidize research in this area.
There is no reason why us Americans cannot continue to use this source of cheap energy, available from others, while developing more futuristic solutions.

As far as Hydrogen generation for future systems, I suggest using the tried and true method of electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water for fuel use. We could first develop sources in the USA. Then before the oil runs out in OPEC countries we could help them build nuclear reactors for further electrical energy to continue the hydrogen production. It would, of course, be their responsibility to properly dispose of the nuclear waste (which we could send into the sun, after properly billing them for this service).
:wink:

JM

Taxation may be a good and efficient instrument for resisting gasoline wastefulness. If the indirect taxes of gasoline are increased 100 percent, but the owners of the energy efficient vehicles would get the excessive tax money return, it would make the SUVs owners to consider changing their vehicle...

There is a problem with increasing taxes on such items as cigarettes, alcohol, and in this case Fuels. This is the inequity in leveling the tax, it does not sink all boats equally. It is true that owners of "Gas Guzzlers" can make a conscious decision to cut down their gas use or even to purchase more efficient vehicles. People of lower incomes have less of a choice to discontinue discretionary use of their vehicle ( They consider themselves lucky if they can afford to get to work let alone take vacations elsewhere then home).

The other point I would make is that gas money for lower income groups is a higher percentage of living expenses then that of higher income groups. Most homes probably spend the same absolute amount in gas to get to and from work. Given an increase of say $1000 due to gas expenses in a year, who is going to feel the increase more: that family making $23,000/year or one making $90,000?

JM

Exactly - we have the proof here. (Which is perhaps the reason that most of General Motors Corp.'s fuel-cell research happens in Germany. )

I guess Bush finally got a wakeup call.
S.U.V.'s Under Fire
The time has come to move past the era of the inefficient
and unsafe S.U.V. Even the Bush administration is getting
nervous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/opinion/09SUN2.html?th