"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

[Meanz Beanz]

I'm sure you will work it all out.

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by Rick Willoughby

Water is our issue not oil.

Oil is everyones issue like it or not.

Peak oil is as serious as it gets for the way the world is structured currently. Without adequate oil we cannot feed the world the way we currently do. Oil is a component in everything we touch and do everyday, its a massive task to rearrange ourselves to use other methods and energy sources to a level that will maintain our current standard's of living. In fact with current technology its not achievable in the required time frame. An energy crisis of huge proportions is developing, it will damage economies, lead to famine and possibly war. Peak oil is everyone's problem and needs to be taken seriously at all levels. Solve the energy issues and the rest can be overcome, even seemingly inefficient solutions like desalination can make sense if enough energy is availble at a low enough cost. As for water, well it seems like we in Australia will have some temporary relief from drought as the decadal cycles turn. Lets hope we use the time wisely and prepare for what undoubtedly will be a rougher cycle next time.

[intrepid71]

Originally Posted by RatliffFranklin

Unless it's from a natural gas well, hydrogen is right now a form of energy storage not an energy source. It won't become an energy source until some means is found (perhaps artificial photosynthesis) that takes less energy to split hydrogen from water than what you get back.

If the second law of thermodynamics is to be believed, you will *never* produce any net energy from the following H2O => H2 + O => H20. I doesn't matter what sort of shenanigans occur in between, barring a nuclear reaction, if you start with water and end with water, you will always have a net energy loss. If that wasn't the case, you would have yourself the makings of a perpetual motion machine.

[charmc]

Hydrogen as fuel for transportation is being considered because it will reduce CO2 emissions and because, if produced using bacteria or other non-combustible energy converters (solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear), it reduces dependence on crude oil and its volatile suppliers. A lot of the greenie simpletons who look to movie stars for their life guidance think it's energy conservation also, but no serious person thinks that.

[milliken]

Originally Posted by intrepid71

If the second law of thermodynamics is to be believed, you will *never* produce any net energy from the following H2O => H2 + O => H20. I doesn't matter what sort of shenanigans occur in between, barring a nuclear reaction, if you start with water and end with water, you will always have a net energy loss. If that wasn't the case, you would have yourself the makings of a perpetual motion machine.

Ultimately, that's true. People in power generation tend to look at hydrogen as a difficult to produce, difficult to store, costly to move energy transport medium more akin to an electron than to a chemical reactant. The 'well to wheels' efficiency of hydrogen generation isn't that great in most scenerios. When combined with something like a reversible solid oxide fuel cell system and nuclear power (i.e., something like being evaluated by DOE/INEL) the overall economics are better but there is some ..uh.. curiosity.. about the idea of producing large amounts of hydrogen next to a nuclear power plant.

The modern breeder reactor isn't a bad source of energy, partiuclarly if the US would adopt a more pragmatic view toward operation and decommishining. Does anyone REALLY expect the US to truck a radioactive core from the site of operation across 1000-2000+ miles of open road to end up storing it in the deserts of the west? What's INFINITELY more likely and probable is that in 50 years, we'll have 27 gigantic concrete mountains - staritng with Yankee and each about the size of a cooling tower - that memorialize our early endevors in spliting the atom. That doesn't help mobile transporation but it would help with baseline production.

Bacterial / biomass production of hydrogen isn't bad either but it's not a panacea - it's essentially an alternate form of solar/geothermal conversion. The problem with that approach is 'energy density'. "Growing things" be it algae, bacteria, or corn all grow because it's in THEIR best interest to grow and they're going to reproduce within they're own constraints. Despite the "Maxrix" concept, I can't turn my dog into a furnace for my house by simply stuffing 5000 kCal of food into his mouth eveyr hour. Likewise, try as I might, I can't 'make' an anaerobic digester, cornfield, or algae farm produce more energy than what the organic thing can reasonably accommodate. Once they're done growing, I have to then expend energy to 'concentrate' the biomass and convert it into a reasonable fuel - again, not a 'cheep' prospect from an energy efficiency standpoint.

[intrepid71]

Originally Posted by milliken

Ultimately, that's true. People in power generation tend to look at hydrogen as a difficult to produce, difficult to store, costly to move energy transport medium more akin to an electron than to a chemical reactant. The 'well to wheels' efficiency of hydrogen generation isn't that great in most scenerios. When combined with something like a reversible solid oxide fuel cell system and nuclear power (i.e., something like being evaluated by DOE/INEL) the overall economics are better but there is some ..uh.. curiosity.. about the idea of producing large amounts of hydrogen next to a nuclear power plant.

The modern breeder reactor isn't a bad source of energy, partiuclarly if the US would adopt a more pragmatic view toward operation and decommishining. Does anyone REALLY expect the US to truck a radioactive core from the site of operation across 1000-2000+ miles of open road to end up storing it in the deserts of the west? What's INFINITELY more likely and probable is that in 50 years, we'll have 27 gigantic concrete mountains - staritng with Yankee and each about the size of a cooling tower - that memorialize our early endevors in spliting the atom. That doesn't help mobile transporation but it would help with baseline production.

Bacterial / biomass production of hydrogen isn't bad either but it's not a panacea - it's essentially an alternate form of solar/geothermal conversion. The problem with that approach is 'energy density'. "Growing things" be it algae, bacteria, or corn all grow because it's in THEIR best interest to grow and they're going to reproduce within they're own constraints. Despite the "Maxrix" concept, I can't turn my dog into a furnace for my house by simply stuffing 5000 kCal of food into his mouth eveyr hour. Likewise, try as I might, I can't 'make' an anaerobic digester, cornfield, or algae farm produce more energy than what the organic thing can reasonably accommodate. Once they're done growing, I have to then expend energy to 'concentrate' the biomass and convert it into a reasonable fuel - again, not a 'cheep' prospect from an energy efficiency standpoint.

Hydrogen may never be an energy source for us, but it is too soon to tell if it might not be a good storage medium for transportation applications. It is difficult to handle and has low energy density when you factor in containment, but it burns easily and produces only water vapor as an exhaust. Fuels cells could potentially offer higher efficiency but at the moment they are too expensive and fragile.

The question then becomes what is the most efficient way to produce it. Currently hydrogen is produced mostly by steam reforming with natural gas. Since the goal is to get off fossil fuels, this isn't good solution. Nuclear energy seems like one approach, but the public is going to have to be convinced that the safety and waste issues have been solved.

I don't know much about bacterial or biomass production, but it sounds like an interesting concept.

This guy believes he has invented a breakthrough that would make solar PV about 100 times more economical than it currently is. Instead of using the electricity to help power the grid (which is a problem at very large scales because solar is not an on-demand source) he intends to produce hydrogen with it. Eventually he would like to have the hydrogen used directly as fuel for everything, but for the near term he plans on using the hydrogen for upgrading low quality coal to high value hydrocarbon liquids.

http://www.usoal.com/

http://www.mokindustries.com/

[TeddyDiver]

It's much easier to transport electricity than hydrogen so with hydrogen there would be a huge industry of small scale electrolysis plants. Everyone could have their own... It's a nightmare for oil/refining industry.. They are allready lobbing bils against it..
Next there's police on the road. Stop please. Howdy Sir! May I check you got any moonshine hydro in the tank...

[charmc]

Originally Posted by intrepid71

This guy believes he has invented a breakthrough that would make solar PV about 100 times more economical than it currently is. Instead of using the electricity to help power the grid (which is a problem at very large scales because solar is not an on-demand source) he intends to produce hydrogen with it. Eventually he would like to have the hydrogen used directly as fuel for everything, but for the near term he plans on using the hydrogen for upgrading low quality coal to high value hydrocarbon liquids.

http://www.usoal.com/

http://www.mokindustries.com/

Sounds like a significant advance in reducing the cost of solar PV panels, and an interesting business plan. This is the kind of stuff the private sector starts to develop as the costs of traditional fuels rise.

I remember reading that there are some projects using hydro and geothermal power generators to split hydrogen. Denmark, possibly Iceland also, I think.

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by charmc

This is the kind of stuff the private sector starts to develop as the costs of traditional fuels rise.

As much as the public hate it, the best thing to combat high oil prices is "high oil prices". We need the impetus of high oil prices to get the private sector working hard on this one, the sooner the better.

[Frosty]

Unfortunately Hienz you are correct.

When fuel gets unafordable electric cars will come, they will have to.

The problem is the fuel industry is huge, many countries have oil,-- cutting fuel tomorrow would turn the entire world into extreme financial difficulty. It will take a long time,-- and needs to.

It is coming and places like Dubai know it and are diversifying interests, infact have been for a long time.

More trouble for places in the middle east in the future I fear for those who do not diversify now.

[Meanz Beanz]

Speaking of electric cars they can make sense now, all that is missing is wide public acceptance and hence a decent "mass market"

Maybe $100+ oil will start to turn a few heads...

It's a ball tearing Mini QED!

[charmc]

Originally Posted by Meanz Beanz

It's a ball tearing Mini QED![/url]

Cool. I can imagine guys in Mini QEDs and Teslas racing each other in near silence.

[Meanz Beanz]

They would probably play the noise of revving engines and turbo waste gates on those insane stereos they have. After all it seems to be all about the noise. Maybe they will clip playing cards onto their mud guards so that they flap in the spokes .... I dunno but being left in peace is not probable IMO, unfortunately.

Looking forward to seeing more electric hybrid tech for boats

[Frosty]

The recent increase over the last week from 88 to 100 was discussed on Bloomberg. There was no reason for the increase. It was felt that the reason was as flimsy as investor speculation or even the suggestion of dealers enjoying the novelty of dealing with oil at over 100.

Surely the technology for accessing oil betters daily, apart from rhetoric rattling from Iran (which could be snuffed out like a candle if needed) seemingly affecting the price of oil.

I agree with Bush, some stability in the market for very important commodities needs thinking about. The stock market and share holders are becoming too powerful and we are left to their manipulations.

Some action as,-- investing in oil requires a minimum 6 months period for instance as a suggestion.

Immature investors that crap there pants at the prospect of sitting on investments over weekend are not good for the market or the world.

But all this concern is miniscule when the Government themselves want high oil prices. You dont see any complaining do you.

High oil prices will drive us (no pun intended) to alternative fuels then the government need not to bother about being accused of apathy of reducing co2.

The man in the street pays for it again.

[charmc]

Damn, Frosty, you did it again!

Just when you've convinced everyone you're a doddering curmudgeon who spends his days bitching about trivia, you go and spout some intelligent, insightful, and thoughtful observations.

Maybe you're twins?