Fu@ked By Bush Again

BiPo;
I think all the research money should be applied to "hot air" as a power source; then the entire country could be powered by "Bush"! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Bo Go Wo this is one of those rare times I miss something about Abuzz, mainly the valuable response option...... Very Happy

0 Replies

I would dearly love to see petroleum go the way of the buggy whip. And the article you linked to is absolutely correct - as long as the hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels there will be little overall benefit to the environment by running cars on hydrogen.

As far as I'm concerned, our best long term strategy would be to develop fusion power, and then produce hydrogen from the electrolysis of water. In the interim, we could produce electricity through wind power or solar cells for the electrolysis. That's always been one of the big problems with wind or solar power - how to store the electricity produced. Storing it through hydrogen production eliminates that one problem.

0 Replies

Every action of Bush has this surface "for the people" rhetoric, but, the word suggested by bi-po in the title says it all about the end result.

0 Replies

Well, not to give Bush a pat-on-the-back, but since most of the pollutants we now enjoy come from autos, the use of hydrogen will eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of non point CO/NOX. As for making H2 out of fossil fuel, it will be done at production facilities where the CO2 and NOX can be contained or pumped into storage.
It will be better to secure H2 from solar stills and nooks but, until we learn how to make safe liquid metal nook energy sources, well have the same trouble as the Russians and their nuclear programs. liquid metal reactors are not as safe (but are more efficient than hot water reactors)

We arent exactly getting screwed , just diddled

0 Replies

Even getting diddled can cause disastrous results if you're being didddled by a pus filled infection.

0 Replies

Here's the definition of "trust - firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confident belief; faith." Why the majority of Americans trust GWBush will remain a mystery for the remainder of my life. c.i.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar, your signoff is wonderful. Is it original?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar:

I read this, but as long as the oil indutry continues to fund Bush Inc. this is the best we'll get.

"Utne Reader" had an article on a kind of "energy net" where you'd have a decentralized energy grid--I think

0 Replies

Yes eoe my signoff is original. Thanks

0 Replies

Bi-Polar<

I'll respect your wishes not to editorialize here. That's only because your title to this thread sums up the message of any comments I would have.

0 Replies

Quote:

President Bush promises that fuel-cell cars will be free of pollution. But if he has his way, the cars of tomorrow will run on hydrogen made from fossil fuels.

Amidst all his editorializing, I can't find any cost comparisons for the various methods of harvesting hydrogen. Why? Surely that information would give us a clearer picture of this issue.

Here's a comparison I found with minimal effort:

Quote:

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY STEAM REFORMING
In this process hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels such as natural gas. The aim of the process is to seperate hydrogen from carbon component of the fuel. During the first step fuel decomposes to hydrogen and carbon monoxide by steaming on catalytic surfaces. In the second step which is called shift reaction, CO and water convert to CO2 and hydrogen. The temperature of reaction is higher than 200 C. The cost of production ranges between $7 and $12 per gigajoule compared to $2.30 per gigajoule for natural gas.

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM WATER
Hydrogen can be produced by dissosication of water. Water splits into its two basic species, oxygen and hydrogen by using electrolysis which is the only practical method currently. In this method an electric current passes through water. The current enters the electrolysis device through the cathode which is charged negatively and leaves through the anode which is charged positively. During the process, hydrogen is seperated and collected at the cathode whereas oxygen is seperated and collected at the anode. With this method , hydrogen is very pure and can be used in electronics, food industries and space program. The production cost is as high as $28 per gigajoule.
WVU's NAFTP-HYDROGEN Review

I also found these statements on the National Hydrogen Association Web site:

Quote:

Currently, the reforming of natural gas is the most economical process for producing hydrogen. Within decades, hydrogen produced from biomass, wind and solar sources will be the ultimate, abundant, renewable based energy currency.
http://www.hydrogenus.org/nha_bro5.htm

So it would seem that the decision to focus on carbon fuel extraction technologies first and renewables later is a sound one, based on scientific and economic realities, whereas the author's take on the whole issue is either motivated by political bias or ignorance of his subject matter.

0 Replies

Most people in this country are consenting to be f@cked by GWBush, so they can't call it 'rape.' c.i.

0 Replies

At some point Scrat, here is a bigger picture than the bottom line, unless we want future generations to remember us as selfish bastard who left them a filthy world, which they probably already will.

I submit that if we eliminated pollution and poisoning of our food chain and environment as much as possible, the amount of money we would save on not treating environmentally related diseases might more than make up for the extra cost involved in consuming with common sense and real care for ourselves and our Earth.

Just a thought

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

At some point Scrat, here is a bigger picture than the bottom line, unless we want future generations to remember us as selfish bastard who left them a filthy world, which they probably already will.

While it is true that there "is a bigger picture than the bottom line", it is also equally true that there is a bigger picture than the environment. In fact, it makes far more sense to simply write that the big picture must incorporate both economic and environmental considerations.

What I know of this issue (which includes the fruit of discussions with a close relative who works in the hydrogen fuel generation field) I believe the course being taken is the best one. By leveraging existing carbon fuel sources we can make far greater strides in utilizing hydrogen in a shorter period of time. Those strides will both necessitate and aid in the development of the renewable sources that are currently too costly to leverage to any meaningful capacity.

In other words (and in my opinion), we either push forward now using carbon fuels as the source of our hydrogen, or we will be forced to push back any significant efforts towards hydrogen fuel cell technology for at least 20 years.

0 Replies

And the fact that the super rich in the Bush inner circle will profit tremendously is merely a happy coincidence.

0 Replies

A very happy coincidence, indeed! Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

It's not very credible to say "No War, No War",
unless we have a detailed and active Peace Plan to offer as an alternative.
In the same way, it's not very credible to say "No more oil, No more oil",
unless we can come up with workable solutions that are better than oil.
A "No" to anything is useless without a better alternative.

So, to drastically reduce the oil industry what would have to happen?
Hydrogen fuel cells are only fancy batteries, for transporting energy, not creating it. So:

1) How much solar, wind, and geothermal hardware would it take
to power all automobiles and electric grid requirements
(assuming fuel cells are already 100% in place)?

2) How much new knowledge and technology needs to be developed first?

Question

Anyone have an idea what the cost and timeframe would be for those two steps?
Are we talking $20B? $200B? $2,000B? 40 years out? 80?

THAT'S what it would take to get GW's Oil Inc. off the streets and out of our lives,
regardless of the political situation.

Or is some other Ultimate Solution possible? Let's focus on the solution...
Ideas?

0 Replies

[delete]

0 Replies

Fu@ked By Bush Again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know