Free At Last

Will, I really enjoy your writing, and this is my first response to your blog.

The hierarchy of the energy distribution of the whole world, not just our own country, will not allow for a loss of control over energy. Therefore we will never get energy independence if we were to rely on the system that is already in place.

Unfortunately, coward politicians will not shoot their campaign funds in the foot by even suggesting alternatives to the current system. Instead they would only theorize that there is a new way, but only if distribution is still centralized, as it is at present.

We will always be distracted from finding the truth about hydrogen as fuel. One such distraction is that “liquid hydrogen” would need to be distributed as is the distribution of gas and oil today. This is exactly the kind of thinking that the current hierarchy would like us all to believe. As long as they can keep control of energy resources, they win their game, and we all loose, more and more becoming slaves to the gas pump and oil prices.

Relatively how much energy does it take to pull oil out of the ground and then refine and distribute it and then burn it, when compared to “converting hydrogen?” When you think of it, what is so efficient about oil? It takes an enormous amount of energy to extract, refine, distribute, and use oil. It also takes complete dependance on the oil industry.

Hydrogen does not need to be “converted” into a liquid and distributed under the control of the same system as we now have for oil. Hydrogen is a gas, and must be used in it’s natural state, not from a “conversion” to liquid and then back to gas. The “experts” are just not able to think outside of the current centralized energy paradigm.

Imagine a non-centralized paradigm, where individuals use their own hydrogen directly from a gaseous state, produced locally, and not distributed at all. Each individual gets this hydrogen from an abundant natural resource. It can power cars, home heating, home electrical generators, etc.

Why in the world would the politicians and energy lobby ever let this become reality? They will tell you over and over and over, until you believe them, that water cannot be used as a source for hydrogen gas, and then recite their bogus excuses. But anyone who has taken 9th grade science, knows that it can. Imagine the possibilities! : )

Hi Will, this is also my first comment and I agree with Barry regarding the “local” source strategy. As a homeowner is San Diego, I’m constantly reminded of the bad decisions of big business and government. How can SDG&E justify the billions of dollars to send power from the desert to San Diego? Why can’t they just spend that money providing solar panels to every home and business? Same with the oil/gas problem, the simplest solutions are overlooked! How many companies are still using petroleum-based chemicals to manufacture their products?

Just as we did in our quest to land a man on the moon, technologically advanced countries have an obligation to lead the way to better solutions for the whole world. I hope we will take this responsibility seriously in our efforts to save this planet for our future generations.

Will,
You have got to get a grip. This is the first time I have seen you so totally offbase. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a storage means. As such, it competes with batteries, pressure acumulators, wound up springs, flywheels and the like. It will always require more energy to obtain and later extract energy from hydrogen than you will be able to get out of it. Progress is being made on the dense storage of it using soption, and the efficient extraction of its energy using fuel cells, but it is critical that we not lose sight of the fact that it is is a energy storage means. Like the electric car with batteries, the energy will always have to come from somewhere, like a coal powered powerplant.

What we need to promote clean energy and energy independance is for Congress to stop their petty bickering and extend tax credits for clean energy. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biogas, wave energy, these are examples of the energy sources that need to be developed.

The hydrogen economy will develop when it becomes economical (cost competitive) to store energy by making and carrying about quanities of energy. Advances in battery technology or ultracapacitors could mean that day will never come.
Jon

I have to agree with Jon, Will. But for perhaps different reasons. I have great faith in the free market system (perhaps misguided but faith all the same).

What is stopping investors with an environmental conscience from investing in the development of alternative fuels?

We can blame big oil or the auto industry all we want for buying up promising companies developing competing technologies, or blame our government for not providing enough tax relieve to encourage the development of new fuels.

Last time I checked, my congressional representative did not hold the purse strings or decision making power on my personal investment choices. That’s a long way of saying perhaps we should put our money where our mouth is if we really believe that alternative energy is important.

I disagree from Jon when he says that tax incentives are needed. In order for me to believe that, I would have to believe that my government has much more control over things than I am ever willing to give them.

Jon has it right when he says supply and demand rules the market for energy. Change one of those two elements and you make an impact. (”make it economical”)

Once it becomes profitable for someone to develop, produce, and market an alternative it will happen. I could demand that my government take my tax dollars and invest it in the search for alternatives as you suggest, but then why not rely on the same greed that created the billions of dollars in profit for oil companies to do the same for the next generation of energy?

Thank you so much for raising these issues in your weekly blog, and for allowing a free an open discussion of all the ideas out there. I really appreciate your leadership and the way you shine a light on issues that impact us all.

Warm regards,

Stan

Mr. Marre,

I have to agree with both Stan and Jon. Virtually, all of the energy in our solar system comes from the sun. Everything else is just a storage medium, whether it be oil, grains for ethanol, or hydrogen. The sticking point is how we harness the energy from the sun, whether it be photocells, wind turbines, wave generators, or the use of electrolysis or compressors to separate out hydrogen.

Iceland uses hydrogen for their cars, but the power for the electrolysis comes from the virtually free electricity they get from geothermal sources, which allows them to convert the hydrogen on the spot at each of the filling stations.

Once we can reliably harness the power of the sun, we have all kinds of options to use to store this energy for transportation or other needs.

If someone can put forth a plan that addresses these issues and addresses the economics of the use by the public, I see no barrier to raising the necessary political will and investment for the startup costs.

Thank you for your insight and continuing thoughts regarding the state of our world.

Best regards,
-Dave

Will,

You are way off base on this one - this is pure ‘fantasy’ and makes me start to wonder about your credibility. Jon is exactly right - hydrogen must be produced from either water or fossil fuel and it takes more energy to create than it produces. Moreover, it would take decades to construct the infrastructure needed. There is no alternative fuel today that can complete with fossil fuels -period. The best bang for the buck today is wind power. Geo-thermal also has a lot of potential along with fuel cells.

The best answer to the fuel dilemma is conservation - constructing buildings that don’t use energy and building mass transit systems to get people out of cars. Re-localizing economies is another answer to reduce transportation costs of food and other necessities. We have build an entire economy based on cheap fossil fuels and those days are now over - the sooner come to grips with this new era the faster we will adopt real solutions instead of grasping for hydrogen straws.

Regards,
Tom

A few things:

1) Will Marre, your blog is great and very enjoyable. I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

2) The problems with hydrogen are well known, the problems with batteries seem insurmountable. Why? A lot of money has been spent supporting excellent research that has yielded technology that is still (still!) inadequate.

3) A lot could be acheived through relatively low tech means, as other posters here have suggested.

4) If we, as a people, are addicted to a wasteful, unsustainable way of life, we need to find a way to overcome this ourselves. Getting angry at oil companies is a waste of time and energy if we can’t actually do anything about it. A windfall profits tax is a partial solution (that’s generous, it may be just a way to vent), what is needed is to eliminate their strangle hold on our government.

5) Consider ‘Tools for Conviviality’ by Ivan Illych. Thought provoking at the least, it is the kind of thinking that we need to re-explore.

6) as in 1), your writing is sincerely appreciated, do keep up the excellent work!

An ordinary scientist

It seems to me that revenue from oil is being used to help Saudi Arabia and its allies form a global government that will be located in Dubai. This global government will finally admit that they are what they are… the wealthiest members of the military/industrial complex who will govern the world to suit their purposes. In my view, the only thing that can change the insanity we are experiencing is a catastrophic inability that threatens our very existence. Until that happens, the concerned people who read this blog will not really make a significant impact. I realize that this has a conspiracy theory ring to it but that is not my reasoning. I believe only what I see happening.

Well, I don’t know much about alternative energy, so I won’t comment on it, but I have enjoyed reading this and the ensuing comments.

A few moments ago, not having seen this, I posted on your last entry asking you to point fingers. I think this was a step in the right direction. Thanks, keep on.

Will,

In reference to Hydrogen energy, there is something going around on the internet concerning HHO energy and its causing a lot of stir.. not sure what to make of it, but I think you should be aware of it.. www.water4gas.com

The future will be one without oil. It can’t be helped. Its not a renewable resource. It’s not something we can avoid. (My own blogs and podcasts are starting to change in focus from Multiple Sclerosis, which I have, to surviving the coming energy shift [not crisis, not collapse, but shift.])

Energy is starting to get the press it needs. Now if only we could get the politicians to get their heads out of the oil barrel.

We’re going to have a problem though with our societal attitudes towards child rearing.

There are 6.4 billion people alive right now.

A “post petroleum” world can’t support more than 2 billion.

The myth of the “nuclear family” is going to be replaced by communal child rearing.

Luckily human beings have already got a foundation at doing this with the Kibbutz.

We just have to find ways to adapt and expand that role because we just can’t afford not to.

Your physicist friend is right on! Another hydrogen energy source, that has not been mentioned much lately but will come back into view once gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon, in nuclear fusion. This is not to be confused with nuclear fission (such as the atomic bomb and Three Mile Island). Nuclear fusion is how the Sun works, by fusing hydrogen atoms together which gives off energy (exothermic).
Fusion reactors (also called plasma reactors) use hydrogen as the “fuel” which could be obtained from sea water in the form of deuterium (heavy hydrogen). In case of some catastrophic event, like an earthquake, that might destroy the reactor the only thing that would be released into the atmosphere is helium and hydrogen gas and water vapor. No radioactive materials at all!

The first electricity producing reactor is now being built in Cadarache, France for a cost of 5 billion euros (~$8 billion US$) and will be operational by 2016.

Transportation is one of those areas where we need to seriously reexamine its entire premise. There are two areas involving transportation in particular, that can be virtually negated and the savings in energy would be astounding.

Firstly is personal transportation, namely automobiles. Cities have been redesigned to be auto-centric places and the resulting urban sprawl has further necessitated the use and ownership of automobiles. There is no reason why this need be so. The personal motorcar could all but be eliminated from city streets with appropriate design and planning. The only place where automobiles make sense is in rural areas, and in use as service vehicles. Not only does this make for tremendous savings, it makes for a clean, quiet, and equitable environment while allowing citizens free reign over their environment.

Secondly is freight transportation. We need to rethink what we purchase and from whence it came. Locally grown food does not require transportation over long distances, and locally manufactured products stimulate the economy of a city, or a region while also negating such a need.

We have all the tools necessary to begin to reshape our world so that humanity (yes, all six and a half billion of us) can live in relative peace and harmony with one another and the earth that sustains us. We simply need the leadership and vision to do so.

All of the above posts are in agreement–there are a LOT of solutions to an energy crisis and the use of fossil fuels. The problem is not alternatives–there are plenty of energy sources. Unfortunately, the free market will not work this one out because it does not account for social cost. When you drive your Hummer and pollute my air with the toxic emmission for your inefficient and overly-large internal combustion engine, you pay nothing to me for polluting my air. You pay nothing to use my air and add toxins to it. If the free market accounted for social costs, we would not have the problem because the price of gasoline would be higher–say the economic cost of $3.50 plus the $2 per gallon tax collected from car owners to clean the air that they pollute. That’s the role of government–to step in when and only when the free market does not produce the best solution for all. Once all costs are accounted for, the free market will take care of the problem. So can you please write your politicians and tell your friends to do the same–to please, please add a tax to the cost of gasoline so that the free market will solve the energy mess?