WarrenJ Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 For your consideration . . . . http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html “There is a lot of money in the field now,” he continues. “I think that it was a mistake to start with a ‘Presidential Initiative’ rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories—otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.” Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues. “In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with ("green") electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem." There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Good article! No , it doesn’t make sense from an effieciency standpoint. We’ve done the clacs for a while on hydrogen use as the technology evolves somewhat, and like he said, unless some fundamental laws of physics change there’s no way to achieve effieciency from an econimical standpoint. From just a transportation standpoint, as battery technology evolves (that’s the weak link), hybrid/electric cars really lead the way. There’s a link on that site to solar technology for residential use that I found so valuable that I have an appointment setup for an estimate to install a 12kw min system. It’s something that’s on my list of things to get going, and that link really kicked me in the pants. Thanks for that! '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 To continue on this subject, I forwarded the link on hrydrogen ineffiency to some of my associates in my group, and here's a reply to ponder: "If we build more atomic powerplants http://www.unistarnuclear.com/UniStarBroch.pdf there will be excess capacity at the plants each evening so the excess electricity can be used to make hydrogen (and O2)" I replied "Hey, when in doubt, get the nukes out!" Maybe we can keep up with Iran... '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted December 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 To continue on this subject, I forwarded the link on hrydrogen ineffiency to some of my associates in my group, and here's a reply to ponder: "If we build more atomic powerplants http://www.unistarnuclear.com/UniStarBroch.pdf there will be excess capacity at the plants each evening so the excess electricity can be used to make hydrogen (and O2)" I replied "Hey, when in doubt, get the nukes out!" Maybe we can keep up with Iran... I don't have figures on the amount of "excess capacity" available in the evenings. In any event, the question at hand is whether or not it makes economic sense. Are your colleagues suggessting it costs less to produce electricity in the evenings? Or are they simply noting that more is available without giving any concern to its cost? I think the latter. There is less available wind derived power at night and I'd bet your last dollar that solar derived power is very costly on the dark side of our third rock. It's the economics stupid (not you)! BTW, you're welcome! Any time I can kick you in the pants just let me know. Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 ^^^^ Warren, the way I understood it is the capacity on the grid is substantially less from 7pm- 6am. Since nukes produce continually for the same cost (or lack thereof), the surplus could be diverted for powering the production of hydrogen. Add more nukes, get more hydrogen! Practically speaking, I think that would go over socially/politically/economically like a poke in the eye with the proverbial sharp stick.. As far as solar in my application goes, I have ~800 sq ft available on a 40 degree sloped southern exposed composite roof. More than enough to offset the power for this compound. There are quite large rebates and tax credits available at a state (Ca) and federal level to make this project financially very attractive for me in both the short and long term. '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted December 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Warren, the way I understood it is the capacity on the grid is substantially less from 7pm- 6am. Since nukes produce continually for the same cost (or lack thereof), the surplus could be diverted for powering the production of hydrogen. Add more nukes, get more hydrogen! Practically speaking, I think that would go over socially/politically/economically like a poke in the eye with the proverbial sharp stick.. TANSTAAFL! More energy may be available for diversion during the evening hours, but that DOES NOT change the cost of production of power. It simply makes more energy available during an alternate time frame. It still costs the same per unit time. It's time-shifting, NOT cost-shifting. And let's not kid ourselves. In the current socio-political atmosphere nuclear power is as dead as your great aunt Bertha. Unless (until) solar, wind, ocean current derived power sources become proven failures (if they do) nuclear power will remain anathema on our shores. Economically, it remains a no-go. Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Your'e preachin' to the choir buddy! Warren, the way I understood it is the capacity on the grid is substantially less from 7pm- 6am. Since nukes produce continually for the same cost (or lack thereof), the surplus could be diverted for powering the production of hydrogen. Add more nukes, get more hydrogen! Practically speaking, I think that would go over socially/politically/economically like a poke in the eye with the proverbial sharp stick.. TANSTAAFL! More energy may be available for diversion during the evening hours, but that DOES NOT change the cost of production of power. It simply makes more energy available during an alternate time frame. It still costs the same per unit time. It's time-shifting, NOT cost-shifting. And let's not kid ourselves. In the current socio-political atmosphere nuclear power is as dead as your great aunt Bertha. Unless (until) solar, wind, ocean current derived power sources become proven failures (if they do) nuclear power will remain anathema on our shores. Economically, it remains a no-go. Regards, Warren '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stsjoe Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Definite drop in load at night, but our nukes run at full power until they have to be shut down for an outage (18 months or so) cost per mega watt is cheap compared to coal. If the pump storage facility was used during the day the excess is used to reset it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMachine Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I don't know BMW's V12 or maybe its a V10 that they are producing next year can run on either petrol or hydrogen, both in a tradtional type combustion engine, Hydrogen combustion I think is a pretty good idea since current engine designs can be adapted to it....the question is producing the hydrogen for it. As the technology develops hydrogen posses a lot more power than gasoline I gather so more hp will be possible. info on the BMW here: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/d...ress016915.html As far as solar power goes, its pretty much useless in the buffalo area (way to much cloud cover, they scraped that and instead there is going to be and has been several large projects proposed and going to built for COAL power! The new ways of burning coal are much cleaner and its so cheap and the country has so much its right now the best route to take. The Green's Machines 1998 Deville - high mileage, keeps on going, custom cat-back exhaust 2003 Seville - stock low mileage goodness! 2004 Grand Prix GTP CompG - Smaller supercharger pulley, Ported Exhaust Manifolds, Dyno tune, etc 1998 Firebird Formula - 408 LQ9 Stroker motor swap and all sorts of go fast stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted January 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 . . . . . Hydrogen combustion I think is a pretty good idea since current engine designs can be adapted to it....the question is producing the hydrogen for it. As the technology develops hydrogen posses a lot more power than gasoline I gather so more hp will be possible. Well yes, but if the overall efficiency in producing/storing/transporting hydrogen is as low as it now appears to be, what's the point? There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMachine Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 True, technology just has to develop, we'll get there, the first hydrogen stations in California make the hyrogen from tap water and electricity, so transportation isn't the issue, the main impact that needs to be looked and solved is what would happen to the powergrid/water system with the added strain of hydrogen stations. Be neat if they could get it under control and easy to produce, heck could even use ocean water since it real hard to convert it to drinking water. The Green's Machines 1998 Deville - high mileage, keeps on going, custom cat-back exhaust 2003 Seville - stock low mileage goodness! 2004 Grand Prix GTP CompG - Smaller supercharger pulley, Ported Exhaust Manifolds, Dyno tune, etc 1998 Firebird Formula - 408 LQ9 Stroker motor swap and all sorts of go fast stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BagtheLac Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 i did a whole thesis on hydrogen and alternative energies. the biggest problem with hydrogen, is the cost to retool the country's fuels system i.e. hydrogen "refineries," "hydrogen stations," etc. some will sit there and say, "well they've had success with hydrogen cars and stations in big cities," which is true, yet thats such a small scale. Another problem with hydrogen and fueling the country with it is it's instablility, as we know hydrogen can be very unstable, and if we were to transport it in our conventional ways, i.e. tankers on highways etc, we run into huge safety problems, its bad when gasoline fuel tanker trucks have accidents on our roadways, yet it would be catastrophic in most cases if we were to have hydrogen fuel tankers involved in accidents. just a little food for thought. BTW: hydrogen "refineries/factories" will be a huge cost, that some petrol companies may not be able to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 I'm not convinced that hydrogen is even needed based on the theory that there is a limited supply of oil. If hydrogen is necessary it will likely have more to do with combating pollution (and perhaps global warming, which I'm not convinced is caused by carbon dioxide emissions even assuming there is such a thing) than limited oil. Like most, I would like to see cleaner air so I'm all for hydrogen as an alternative source of fuel if can be produced, transported and used safely. However, is it possible that water vapor spewing from tailpipes of millions of cars will effect global weather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenJ Posted January 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 . . . . . However, is it possible that water vapor spewing from tailpipes of millions of cars will effect global weather? Well, I'd guess we'd need yet another impact study. It likely wouldn't be nice if the entire U.S. of A. enjoyed Seattle's weather now, would it? Arghh . . . . Interesting days lie ahead. Regards, Warren There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. - Ludwig von Mises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.