Clean Energy

[alex]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How about the(admittedly manipulated) buying public?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I think you can blame the public too. But you can't legislate the public being inane (or not being inane, I suppose). You can legislate that the California emissions laws become federal laws. You can legislate the EPA's mandate about Electric/ZEV cars being X% of the sold cars in the US. You can legislate funding for methanol/ethanol/biodiesel (not just subsidize the damn farmers, which is another debate).

People... Well, people will be stupid. However, they're generally very malleable, and if you give them a choice between biodiesel and methanol, they are bound to pick something greener than petroleum.

I'd happily pay a few thousand dollars to convert my car to propane or methanol. But there's just no way for me to do that. Maybe if the government subsidized a program to convert vehicles, we could get there. It isn't even a seriously difficult conversion. Many race cars can run on methanol or gasoline. In fact, Ford sells these "FFV" vehicles which can run on Methanol or gasoline. But when was the last time you saw a gas station selling methanol?

Sorry Alex I have to disagree with you, somewhat, on this point. The most effective and efficient way to "manipulate" the populace into more environmentally friendly cars is to.
A. Give them what they want.
B. Give it to them at a lower price.

So. If you want people to buy alternative fuel vehicles, Personally, I would prefer to see Hydrogen cars take over, then get make these cars available at the same or lower prices than the gas powered cars. And, this is very important, these vehicles MUST perform to the same standards as the gas powered cars.
Americans REFUSE to drive around in tiny matchbox cars that are passed by people on ten speeds.
In order to accomplish the above criteria. Auto makers need to kick in the R&D. H2 cars already perform as gas cars, except they have about half the range per tank of fuel. Fix that problem and ALL our car woes are over. Economies of scale will reduce the per item price of any new type of vehicle.
This dilemma is almost over since within the next 15-20 years H2 cars will replace the gas ones.

[PatrickHenry]

Maybe high fuel prices will have some effect. I recently drove a rental Toyota Echo in California. I was amazed to be doin' 90 on I-5. Oakland to LA on one miniature tank of gas. Trunk big enough to put a massage table and all of two peoples luggage... Gas cars can be efficient and more or less clean in the running down days of Peak Oil.

[glenn_w_l]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
Simple...we can encourage the production of cars that use alternatives to gasoline. We still control the demand end of the spectrum in this regard (The US/Europe), so if most of the gars used __insert fuel alternative here__ the big countries wouldn't have gasoline powered cars to buy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yes....why not ethanol...an easy to produce fuel that burns into carbon dioxide and water. It seems pretty crazy to me that we're burning up huge petrochemical reserves that are useful for so many other purposes.
Its hard to beleive they couldn't design an efficient engine that ran on ethanol.

[mojo_the_migo]

Two questions:

First off, I am in no against the development of alternative fuel sources. I have no problem driving an AMERICAN MADE hydrogen, ethanol, or poop powerd car. However, anything debated on what will happend to a lot of middle east countries? Is it possable that it will be good for them, those countries to diversify their economy more?

Second, are hydrogen powered SUVs feasable in the first couple of years of hydrogen cars? Is hydrogen capable in performing in large muscle cars?

[argonak]

hydrogen powered vehicles are very feasible. the problem lies in where you get your hydrogen first.

it takes electric power to produce it, so you ahve to get your electricity from somewhere anyway. cleanest ways to produce that are wind and hydro, but most common ways are coal, diesal and natural gas.

so typically you're going to be polluting anyway when using hydrogen, you'll just not see it coming out of your car.

lotta environmentalists are fully against every form of power generation (even wind in some places if you can believe it) and at the same time are against pollution (duh). part of the problem is that there is so many green groups, and they don't all agree. One might sue you to get rid of that coal plant, and then another will sue you to prevent the installation of wind generators in all that unused pristine land. its a rough situation. we gotta get that electricity from somewhere and all the clean and natural solutions (up to now) have a stability problem, you can't control their input. so you need a LOT of stations to give you command over your power supply.

[Domino]

Water can be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen through chemical means, if it is done between 800 and 1000 degrees centigrade, using, and recycling, sulfur and iodine. These temperatures are currently difficult (expensive) to reach, but the next generation of nuclear reactors will be made to operate in this range specifically so that hydrogen can be made.

Details here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf70.htm

In each of the leading thermochemical processes the high-temperature (800-1000°C), low-pressure endothermic (heat absorbing) decomposition of sulfuric acid produces oxygen and sulfur dioxide: H2SO4 ==> H2O + SO2 + 1/2O2 There are then several possibilities. In the iodine-sulfur process iodine combines with the SO2 and water to produce hydrogen iodide which then dissociates to hydrogen and iodine. This is the Bunsen reaction and is exothermic, occurring at low temperature (120°C): I2 + SO2 + 2H2O ==> 2HI + H2SO4 The HI then dissociates to hydrogen and iodine at about 350°C, endothermically: 2HI ==> H2 + I2 This can deliver hydrogen at high pressure. The net reaction is then: H2O ==> H2 + 1/2O2

There are other chemical reactions being researched.

[argonak]

Water can be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen through chemical means, if it is done between 800 and 1000 degrees centigrade, using, and recycling, sulfur and iodine. These temperatures are currently difficult (expensive) to reach, but the next generation of nuclear reactors will be made to operate in this range specifically so that hydrogen can be made.

didn't know about that, sounds very cool.

[Pooeypants]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to use electrolysis?....

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by argonak, hydrogen powered vehicles are very feasible. the problem lies in where you get your hydrogen first. it takes electric power to produce it, so you ahve to get your electricity from somewhere anyway. cleanest ways to produce that are wind and hydro, but most common ways are coal, diesal and natural gas.

Agreed that fossil sources for hydrogen are a faulty solution to the problem of supply. I note that you didn't mention solar as a source for clean electrons.

If the middle east deserts were utilized for H2 production, producing countries shift from being suppliers of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons to a different energy regime could be eased. Their silica and abundant solar radiation could boom their economies even more than oil has.

Petroleum is much more valuable as a raw material for durable goods than as a fuel, IMO.

[Comrade]

I dislike petroleum for one reason: I love nuclear reactors.

Petroleum is otherwise incredibly useful. I wonder how many "No Blood for Oil" people drive cars or use products made with the assistance of electricity.

[argonak]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to use electrolysis?...

not if its more efficent to use chemicals. hard to tell without looking at the actual engineering information. since the nuke plant is making electricty and all that heat anyway, might be better to just save your power and use chemicals, or it might not. its not really that important, as nuke plants get sued by green groups as soon as they hit the drawing board anyway.

Agreed that fossil sources for hydrogen are a faulty solution to the problem of supply. I note that you didn't mention solar as a source for clean electrons.

solar is less common these days due to a lot of equipment issues. its very rare in my neck of the woods so I didn't think about it. Wind is much better due to the simplicity involved. And hyrdo has the advantage of more "control" over your power source, you can save up water, but not wind.

If the middle east deserts were utilized for H2 production, producing countries shift from being suppliers of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons to a different energy regime could be eased. Their silica and abundant solar radiation could boom their economies even more than oil has.

that sounds like it would be a massive undertaking and extremly problematic equipment wise. Those new air movment plants down in would probably be a better use of area than solar plants. I don't know a lot about weather, but I would imagine that any instalation in the middle east would have extreme difficulty from wind blown sand and grit, much more so than in other regions.

the best thing about H2 production is that pretty much anyone can do it. all it takes is electricity and water.

[glenn_w_l]

Where's the greatest concentration of harvestable power with the least environmental footprint?
Oceanic water currents like the gulf stream!
A scaled down version of a new turbine that anchors to the sea floor has been tested and a full scale version is planned that should generate one megawatt per unit. Not bad!
see

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-7.html

[glenn_w_l]

Originally posted by Comrade, I love nuclear reactors.

Beware Comrade! Reactor huggers tend to get nasty things growing over their bodies!

[argonak]

A scaled down version of a new turbine that anchors to the sea floor has been tested and a full scale version is planned that should generate one megawatt per unit. Not bad! see

aren't there a lot of accessbility problems and salt deposit difficulties associated with sea turbines?

sounds like a good idea otherwise.

[Domino]

I once read something saying that maintaining a surface charge on a sea turbine would keep salt from sticking, such that a turbine could maintain its own charge while still supplying power. However, I have no source, and lack the knowledge to comment effectively. Anyone else?

I just recalled seeing a very interesting article on a hypothetical hydrothermal power plant that looked very promising. I'm looking for more information on that now...

[Comrade]

Originally posted by glenn_w_l, Beware Comrade! Reactor huggers tend to get nasty things growing over their bodies!

Nah, lets call it accelerating the evolutionary process. :)