NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?

That we're still twenty years behind Brazil?

Whadda you think?

Do you want to know what I think? I think it's a con. If they cared about oil security and the environment they would remove the small business tax deduction for SUVs. They would also introduce fuel efficency standards for SUVs. But rather than do that they would prefer to spend money on a boondogle that makes it seem as if the government is doing something rather than doing nothing.

Hasn't it been said almost everywhere in the world by now?

It's not exactly groundbreaking, although at least he's got with the times slightly.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?

If he was so interested in Hydrogen being the fuel of the future, he wouldn't be invading Middle Eastern countries to secure his supply of future oil...

oh, sorry, cynic mode off. The Fuel of the future is self-righteousness - haven't you ever seen the car Ed Begley Jr powers entirely from it?

If he was so interested in Hydrogen being the fuel of the future, he wouldn't be invading Middle Eastern countries to secure his supply of future oil...

oh, sorry, cynic mode off. The Fuel of the future is self-righteousness - haven't you ever seen the car Ed Begley Jr powers entirely from it?

Possibly he was trying to attract the eco-friendly crowd, but at the same time knows that most fuels are hydrocarbons, and that he'll get his fuel from the hydrogen in those.

When Bush says Hydrogen is the fuel of the future its one of two scenarios.

1. He is saying it to broaden his appeal to the public despite not believing in what he is saying.
2. He believes in what he saying and has finally realised that neoconservatism is suicidal nonsense.

In any event if its a case of #2, he has left out an explanation as to why his administration has done nothing thus far but follow the neoconservative agenda uninterruptedly and with blind faith, where American control of the international oil market and oil pricing plays an absolutely central role.

Bush: hydrogen is fuel of the future...
... but only when in the hands of [insert petrochemical company here]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?

I think that if there's anything Bus understands, it's large volumes of hot gasses. :)

Hydrogen isn't a fuel.

Unless we find vast untapped reserves of hydrogen gas somewhere, it's not much more than a battery.

To get hydrogen you'll most likely have to crack seawater, which is done with ... Electricity. So, while you're getting hydrogen to power your car, you're putting an immense amount of electricity into the very beginning of the process.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. Ethanol is a fuel, the energy from it comes indirectly from the sun, we don't have to provide it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?
It takes more energy to create the hydrogen than you get out of it, which means that if you want to use it to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions (incidently, water is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 anyway) then you need nuclear powerstations to provide electricity for electrolysing water, but environmentalists hate nuclear power because they're stupid and illogical.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?
He doesn't have any other choice after the raid for oil in the Iraq wasn't successfull.

It's an energy carrier, not a fuel. Bush doesn't understand energy.

It takes more energy to create the hydrogen than you get out of it, which means that if you want to use it to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions (incidently, water is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 anyway) then you need nuclear powerstations to provide electricity for electrolysing water, but environmentalists hate nuclear power because they're stupid and illogical.
Prehaps photoelectrolisis ?Not very efficent I know but very affordable and with investment into research may provide a viable method of production.Bio mass and ethanol are probably a better way to go though.My only issue with those though is that vast tracts of land will be needed to supply future world demand.I believe prehaps one of the most intresting solutions might lie in off shore nuclear power production.

Right now the immediate goal would appear to be indepence from foreign oil. And while that's a laudable goal it's not putting us any closer to sustainable energy. Brazil has the right model I think. Hydrogen is likely being pushed because there's a good deal of money to be made in it. Let's face it, when you can charge a company for electricity to make hydrogen that seems much better to business than a bunch of farmers growing crops to turn into ethanol.

"Off-shore" as in ocean-based platforms, or "off-shore" as in other countries? Neither sounds like a very good idea. With the first, you have less stable reactors than mainland systems, and with the other one, we'll be A) in the same boat as we are now, paying through the nose for power, and B) unable to impose our safety standards on the reactors.
Better to keep the power generation in our own hands, and in safe, stable areas of land.

I also think that bush is not being very honest with his audience with statements like that.

But I'm interested in the fact that some people here mentioned Brazil. I'm afraid I'm not very well informed, what is so special and positive about the situation there?

"Off-shore" as in ocean-based platforms, or "off-shore" as in other countries? Neither sounds like a very good idea. With the first, you have less stable reactors than mainland systems, and with the other one, we'll be A) in the same boat as we are now, paying through the nose for power, and B) unable to impose our safety standards on the reactors.
Better to keep the power generation in our own hands, and in safe, stable areas of land.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear.I was thinking something on the lines of ocean floor based sodium cooled reactors or prehaps next generation VHTR reactors which may prove to be quite stable.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.I was thinking something on the lines of ocean floor based sodium cooled reactors or prehaps next generation VHTR reactors which may prove to be quite stable.

Ah. Yes, that makes much more sense.

you can power your car from vegtable oil, i no someone who just drives round to the back of the local chippie and gets a top up from there waste oil

you need a converter though...

at least the fuel is free, the chip shop would just chuck it out otherwise

I also think that bush is not being very honest with his audience with statements like that.

But I'm interested in the fact that some people here mentioned Brazil. I'm afraid I'm not very well informed, what is so special and positive about the situation there?

Brazil has for the last 30 years been working to use ethanol to power vehicles. GM even makes cars that run on pure ethanol. In the next year or two they'll meet their goal. They have a vast infrastructure in place that they've built over the last 30 years to make it happen. They grow the crops (Sugar cane mostly I believe), convert them into fuel, and then either mix it with regular gasoline (75/25 Ethanol/gas) or run pure ethanol. It's sustainable, and means they're very close to not needing any foreign oil. If the middle east goes to hell, it won't affect them in the slightest.

Basically OPEC's worst nightmare. If the US had done the same, we'd tell Saudi Arabia et al to suck our collective cocks.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?

As long as they have to burn fossil fuels to make the hydrogen, I'm sure he will think it is the fuel of the future.

As long as they have to burn fossil fuels to make the hydrogen, I'm sure he will think it is the fuel of the future.

Bingo.

Or keep "trying" to make the engine......

As some automotive experts have commented, biodiesel is not going to wean anyone away from the use of fossil fuels. You still need a good quantity of diesel gas to start the vehicle up and some more just before shutting it off to clean out the injectors. So yeah, you'll use less, but you won't be able to just stop using it.

And to be fair Tactical Grace, I think you'll find that when asked, the majority of people will tell you they see hydrogen as a fuel source like gasoline or LNG. Bush isn't the only one.

Concevable private use Hydrogen pwoer is 20 years off-public use powerstations maybe 10 years, thats what my uncle recons and he works in this area. He says that the real problem is making it convent and affordable. A hydrogen engine is very, very large and produces little energy for the amount of hydrogen it uses.

Concevable private use Hydrogen pwoer is 20 years off-public use powerstations maybe 10 years, thats what my uncle recons and he works in this area. He says that the real problem is making it convent and affordable. A hydrogen engine is very, very large and produces little energy for the amount of hydrogen it uses.
What about fuel cells?

Concevable private use Hydrogen pwoer is 20 years off-public use powerstations maybe 10 years, thats what my uncle recons and he works in this area. He says that the real problem is making it convent and affordable. A hydrogen engine is very, very large and produces little energy for the amount of hydrogen it uses.

Also, alot of the metals they use in the engine are quite rare, and they still have not figured out how they are going to get them (or subsitutes) in quantities sufficient for mass production.

What about fuel cells?
Thsoe things are not only bulky but they also contain very little hydrogen-not enough to create the power WE need. I'm no expert on all this though.

Hydrogen isn't a fuel.

Unless we find vast untapped reserves of hydrogen gas somewhere, it's not much more than a battery.

To get hydrogen you'll most likely have to crack seawater, which is done with ... Electricity. So, while you're getting hydrogen to power your car, you're putting an immense amount of electricity into the very beginning of the process.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. Ethanol is a fuel, the energy from it comes indirectly from the sun, we don't have to provide it.

But Ethanol wastes crop space (which isn't so freely available as you think) and is unpractical to produce in large enough quantities. Hydrogen, as a part of a Nuclear-Hydrogen or Green-Hydrogen energy revolution can use green(er) energy to create feul-cells.

Bush probably does think hydrogen is the fuel of the future. "The future" as in a time when he is not president.

Point is, I doubt he's going to do much more than talk about it. He's not going to push any reforms through Congress, nothing of the sort. He'll talk and talk and talk about how it is the "fuel of the future", while his friends in Congress make sure that "future" starts after he leaves office.

Yes, lets drive big bombs around.

Although the idea of using Ethanol in the future is just as ridiculous.

As some automotive experts have commented, biodiesel is not going to wean anyone away from the use of fossil fuels. You still need a good quantity of diesel gas to start the vehicle up and some more just before shutting it off to clean out the injectors. So yeah, you'll use less, but you won't be able to just stop using it.

And to be fair Tactical Grace, I think you'll find that when asked, the majority of people will tell you they see hydrogen as a fuel source like gasoline or LNG. Bush isn't the only one.
Isn't that only with an unmodified diesel engine?

Yep. George Bush just wants to eat your babies. He's a liar and doesn't mean anything he says about what's good for the American people. He's evil. Not that terrorists are evil, because Bush is blowing them up for oil. So they must be pretty good. Ironic.

Yep. George Bush just wants to eat your babies. He's a liar and doesn't mean anything he says about what's good for the American people. He's evil. Not that terrorists are evil, because Bush is blowing them up for oil. So they must be pretty good. Ironic.

Why would George Bush eat babies when they are worth so much on the open market?

Yep. George Bush just wants to eat your babies. He's a liar and doesn't mean anything he says about what's good for the American people. He's evil. Not that terrorists are evil, because Bush is blowing them up for oil. So they must be pretty good. Ironic.
As a liberal, I think I speak for all of us when I say that terrorists are our favorites.

Isn't that only with an unmodified diesel engine?

Sounds familiar, without going to look it up(it is way to nice outside to keep sitting on my ass in front of a computer), I'd say you are more than likely right. Not sure what would be different in the engine for it to run bio-fuel 100% of the time.

But Ethanol wastes crop space (which isn't so freely available as you think) and is unpractical to produce in large enough quantities. Hydrogen, as a part of a Nuclear-Hydrogen or Green-Hydrogen energy revolution can use green(er) energy to create feul-cells.


A considerable amount of crop space could be freed up if farmers had a viable alternative to growing what are otherwise unprofitable crops (that is unprofitable without government subsidies). Cotton for instance. With farmers going bankrupt left right and center in this country it's an option worthy of consideration.

Brazil pulled it off, I see little reason why we can't, or atleast drastically cut our oil needs.

Yes, lets drive big bombs around.

Although the idea of using Ethanol in the future is just as ridiculous. It's already being done. And hydrogen doesn't explode, it's vastly lighter than air, does make a neat blow torch though.

Sounds familiar, without going to look it up(it is way to nice outside to keep sitting on my ass in front of a computer), I'd say you are more than likely right. Not sure what would be different in the engine for it to run bio-fuel 100% of the time.
Well, basically anything that sends us on a path of relying less, by whatever percent, of fossil fuels is a good thing. It seems the only way that will happen is by stabbing pretty much blindly in every direction until the path which makes most sense opens up. I don't agree that we should just sit around and wait, though. We seriously need to come up with an alternative that will work.

Brazil pulled it off, I see little reason why we can't, or atleast drastically cut our oil needs.

Yes but Brazil uses sugar cane which is much cheaper and easier to convert into ethanol. Imorting ethanol from the the Caribean and South America would probably be much cheaper than trying to make it in the U.S. This is likely to be try even if improvments are make in ethanol production as South American countries will also benefit from these improvments.

I think that if no subsidies were given for hydrogen or ethanol and the government only acted to encourage economy and efficenty in general, for example by giving a rebate for buying a car that uses little or no gasoline, then people would switch to hybrids and plug in electric cars with ethanol only being made from sugar cane in tropical countries.

The problem still is where to obtain cheap hydrogen.

Take a look at the common sources right now and you know that it has to be produced with a high input of energy to work on a grand scale.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid557.php

Without resolving where that energy comes from (and don't say nuclear power or burning natural gas!) you'd have to go either biochemical via plants or solar/wind.

But Ethanol wastes crop space (which isn't so freely available as you think) and is unpractical to produce in large enough quantities. Hydrogen, as a part of a Nuclear-Hydrogen or Green-Hydrogen energy revolution can use green(er) energy to create feul-cells.

Not cellulosic ethanol; if we were to use waste products and things like switchgrass we could produce a lot of it using waste land and without a lot of fossil fuel input to produce it.

If we were to make our biodiesel from algae, we could meet 100% of our demand for it with only 15,000 square miles of land (not arable land, any land); that's only two tenths of one percent of total land area in the United States.

That is to meet 100% of our fuel needs, including gasoline demand.
That technology is currently feasible but is still too expensive for commercialization; the cost will definitely fall as the technology advances and it is advancing...a few commercial plants are being started. Even better, algae can use the CO2 produced by power plants for food through photosynthesis meaning they could seriously combat CO2 emissions and fight global warming.

Ethanol and biodiesel along with hybrids and improved fuel economy will all serve as a bridge to hydrogen in the near future. Honestly, it seems oil will be rendered obsolete and willfully abandoned in favor of green technology.

Yes, lets drive big bombs around.

Although the idea of using Ethanol in the future is just as ridiculous.

If you can't see the fun in that, then I pity you. :p

Not cellulosic ethanol; if we were to use waste products and things like switchgrass we could produce a lot of it using waste land and without a lot of fossil fuel input to produce it.

If we were to make our biodiesel from algae, we could meet 100% of our demand for it with only 15,000 square miles of land (not arable land, any land); that's only two tenths of one percent of total land area in the United States.

That is to meet 100% of our fuel needs, including gasoline demand.
That technology is currently feasible but is still too expensive for commercialization; the cost will definitely fall as the technology advances and it is advancing...a few commercial plants are being started. Even better, algae can use the CO2 produced by power plants for food through photosynthesis meaning they could seriously combat CO2 emissions and fight global warming.

Ethanol and biodiesel along with hybrids and improved fuel economy will all serve as a bridge to hydrogen in the near future. Honestly, it seems oil will be rendered obsolete and willfully abandoned in favor of green technology.


Too bad burning the biodiesel puts it right back out. :D Though I am in favor of Solar Towers and the like to. So much land with no use....why not slap a few of those on the empty land!

Okay, all you hydrogen naysayers. I've believed in hydrogen for a long time. I'm actually in college (Rochester Institute of Technology Senior, 25 miles away from GM's alternative fuel research plant) as an automotive engineer specializing in alternative fuel sources. I have interned with delphi so i think i have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. Any of you afraid of the fuel need only look at gasoline, we drive bombs as it is. As far as bio alternatives, they are far less efficient than the hydrogen engines we currently have. The hydrogen cars that GM is currently working on are opperating at about 65-75% efficiency. Gas? 23-30% efficient.
Honestly, we can't feed all of the people of the world as it is, so why would we set aside space to make crops set aside for fuel? As for all the naysayers of nuclear energy to produce the energy to use electrolosis, what is your main concern about nuclear energy? safety?

"The sun is a mass of incandesant gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace. Where hydrogen is made into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees."
-They Might Be Giants

Why would George Bush eat babies when they are worth so much on the open market?
Because they taste good, duh.

If we were to make our biodiesel from algae, we could meet 100% of our demand for it with only 15,000 square miles of land (not arable land, any land); that's only two tenths of one percent of total land area in the United States.

15,000 square miles would be a square nearly 4,000 miles across. That's a lot of land (or possibly water). All that algae would require a lot of specialized equipment to collect the hydrogen, increase CO2 levels and so on. I think this would be very expensive. Too expensive to be practical.

Rather than using land for algae I have another suggestion. Using currently available farmers and equipment and marginal farmland, grow switchback grass or whatever crop produces the best biomass yeild in an area. Then rather than using the very inefficent and expensive process of turning it into ethanol, burn it to generate electricity. This energy can be used for electric transportation, or in the short term this electric power could substitute for gas and oil heating in buildings and the gas and oil could be used for transportation instead.

A few percent of the carbon in the biomass would be trapped as ash after being burnt and this ash is chemically inactive and can be stored for very long periods of time, so this process would actually be carbon negative. That is it would remove some CO2 from the air.

In my estimation this would be easier, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than using algae. There is plenty marginal farmland ready to produce biomass, plenty of coke ovens that can be used to prepare it for burning and many brown coal thermal plants could either handle the ash or be adapted to handle it.

The hydrogen cars that GM is currently working on are opperating at about 65-75% efficiency. Gas? 23-30% efficient.

I think people are worried about where they hydrogen will come from rather than the efficenty of future hydrogen cars. But even 65-75% efficency is only about the same as currently available hybrids and less efficent than an electric car. I think that Japanese car manufacturers may get the jump on GM and take market share with more economical hybrids, plug in hybrids and possibly all electric cars. The same goes for some European car manufacturers.

"The sun is a mass of incandesant gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace. Where hydrogen is made into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees."
-They Might Be Giants

NOT THAT SONG!

Though you cannot stop starvation or anything like that in its entirety, systems aren't in place and it takes alot of manpower and labor and money do to those things. Though hydrogen alone will not solve global energy needs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/22/bush.hydrogen.ap/index.html

Whadda you think?

This is going to help him in his weapon research, isn't it?

:eek: A HYDROGEN FUEL CELL POWERED ROCKET TO LAUNCH NUKES AT IRAN!!!!!

As for all the naysayers of nuclear energy to produce the energy to use electrolosis, what is your main concern about nuclear energy? safety?


That, and the storage of radioactive waste.

15,000 square miles would be a square nearly 4,000 miles across. That's a lot of land (or possibly water). All that algae would require a lot of specialized equipment to collect the hydrogen, increase CO2 levels and so on. I think this would be very expensive. Too expensive to be practical.

The algae use I support is for biodiesel, not hydrogen. That's another technology and one that's farther in the future than the one I'm talking about. This is a 2010-2012 reality, if not earlier.

they have a 50% oil yield and grow rapidly, feeding themselves by photosynthesis which consumes CO2 and produces oxygen. They could feasibly be used at power plants, producing fuel for local vehicles while acting as organic CO2 scrubbers.

Algae could be grown anywhere, decentralized in to local facilities to produce biodiesel wherever it is needed; urban areas could produce it just as easily as rural ones or suburbs. That 15,000 square miles could be divided evenly between the 50 states for a total land usage of 300 square miles per state or concentrated in a few larger ones and shipped around the country.

Rather than using land for algae I have another suggestion. Using currently available farmers and equipment and marginal farmland, grow switchback grass or whatever crop produces the best biomass yeild in an area. Then rather than using the very inefficent and expensive process of turning it into ethanol, burn it to generate electricity. This energy can be used for electric transportation, or in the short term this electric power could substitute for gas and oil heating in buildings and the gas and oil could be used for transportation instead.

Biomass power produces CO2, which in turn could be used to feed algae that photosynthesize and are harvested for biodiesel. That in turn is used in vehicles and the electricity goes to consumers, creating a fossil-fuel free energy system. The technology does work and has been proven, but it requires improvement to make it cost effective and competitive with ordinary biodiesel and petroleum fuels.

A few percent of the carbon in the biomass would be trapped as ash after being burnt and this ash is chemically inactive and can be stored for very long periods of time, so this process would actually be carbon negative. That is it would remove some CO2 from the air.

CO2 would also be removed by algae in the process of growing it, and the biodiesel used in place of fossil fuels would further reduce pollution from energy generation and transportation.

In my estimation this would be easier, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than using algae. There is plenty marginal farmland ready to produce biomass, plenty of coke ovens that can be used to prepare it for burning and many brown coal thermal plants could either handle the ash or be adapted to handle it.

Algae don't require any farmland, they're grown at industrial sites and can be produced in very large quantities with little land area. They produce little or no pollution (after all, they're plants) and absorb a lot of CO2; at the same time they can be raised almost anywhere which makes it possible to have a fully integrated energy supply chain without fossil fuels once the actual infrastructure is built.

A few more years of work and it will be ready for large scale implementation. Another option are the recently invented miniature reactors that can convert products in to biodiesel many times faster than conventional methods and use less energy, which would enable the supply chain to be further decentralized. Distributed generation is the future of energy regardless of the exact methods used.

That, and the storage of radioactive waste.

A nuclear power plant runs on a relatively small mass of radioactive material for a long period of time. So first off, its not as big a deal as its made out to be. Secondly, I vote we build a big f***ing rail gun and just launch it out of orbit :p

Where we find hydrogen is easy: we pump water out of the sea. How we power it is also easy: we park a couple of square-miles worth of photo-voltaic cells out in the Nevada desert and hook them up to power lines.

Yep. George Bush just wants to eat your babies.

Nahh. Not unless he is secretly fat bastard.


He's a liar

True

and doesn't mean anything he says about what's good for the American people.

True.

He's evil.

True.

Not that terrorists are evil, because Bush is blowing them up for oil. So they must be pretty good. Ironic.
Hmm. There are terrorist groups all over and yet he only seems to focus on the ones near oil.....

The algae use I support is for biodiesel, not hydrogen.

Sorry Vetalia, I got my algaes mixed up.

I tend to base my predictions for the future on dollars and cents, which suggests that the cheapest sources of energy for transportation should "win." However, the economy operates a bit like evolution. What came before can have a big effect on what is to come. For example we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards because it was designed to stop mechanical typewriters from jamming, not because it's efficent for typers and now we don't need to worry about jamming we still can't change to a more efficent system because of the installed base. I wonder what effect the installed base of internal combustion vechiles and internal combustion engine manufacturers will have. I am a little concerned that industry groups will try to distort government policy for their own short term gain.

I think the cheapest way to run transportation will probably be first through hybrids and other fuel saving technologies, then plug-in hybrids and then probably all electric trucks and cars. All the necessary technolgy requred for this seems in place and it doesn't have any chicken and egg problems. That is I can charge my plug in hybrid using the current electricity grid, but there is nowhere I can currently buy say hydrogen.

If bio-diesel can be produced cheaply and added to normal diesel or directly substitute for it in unmodified cars and trucks, then it would avoid any chicken and egg problems that would make it difficult for people to switch over. So I guess I'd basically like to know if bio-diesel can be added to normal diesel or can it be used directly in unmodified trucks and cars? Also, do you see it able to compete in the long term with vechiles that are charged off grid power, as opposed to being a short term solution to high oil prices?

Where we find hydrogen is easy: we pump water out of the sea. How we power it is also easy: we park a couple of square-miles worth of photo-voltaic cells out in the Nevada desert and hook them up to power lines.

Or it might be cheaper to put windmills in a windy place. Although wind is inconsistant it might not matter so much for hydrogen production. But, wouldn't it be easier to just use the power generated to charge electric cars or plug in hybrids? This way we would would just need to gradually increase current electrical production and distribution. We wouldn't need an entirely new system of hydrogen transportation and distribution. Also electric cars can start small, without big investments. Hydrogen cars can't. Someone can charge a plug in hybrid no matter what town they live in, but it's going to be very hard to get hydrogen if you're the first person in town to buy a hydrogen car.

Sorry Vetalia, I got my algaes mixed up.

I tend to base my predictions for the future on dollars and cents, which suggests that the cheapest sources of energy for transportation should "win." However, the economy operates a bit like evolution. What came before can have a big effect on what is to come. For example we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards because it was designed to stop mechanical typewriters from jamming, not because it's efficent for typers and now we don't need to worry about jamming we still can't change to a more efficent system because of the installed base. I wonder what effect the installed base of internal combustion vechiles and internal combustion engine manufacturers will have. I am a little concerned that industry groups will try to distort government policy for their own short term gain.

I think the cheapest way to run transportation will probably be first through hybrids and other fuel saving technologies, then plug-in hybrids and then probably all electric trucks and cars. All the necessary technolgy requred for this seems in place and it doesn't have any chicken and egg problems. That is I can charge my plug in hybrid using the current electricity grid, but there is nowhere I can currently buy say hydrogen.

If bio-diesel can be produced cheaply and added to normal diesel or directly substitute for it in unmodified cars and trucks, then it would avoid any chicken and egg problems that would make it difficult for people to switch over. So I guess I'd basically like to know if bio-diesel can be added to normal diesel or can it be used directly in unmodified trucks and cars? Also, do you see it able to compete in the long term with vechiles that are charged off grid power, as opposed to being a short term solution to high oil prices?

Ever wonder where you're gonna get the electricity for your plug-in car? Also, the chicken egg came first.

Sorry Vetalia, I got my algaes mixed up.

No problem.:cool:

Honestly, I think biodiesel algae will be the research path to hydrogen production so pursuing biodiesel will advance the findings of the other fields that could use algae, like hydrogen.

I tend to base my predictions for the future on dollars and cents, which suggests that the cheapest sources of energy for transportation should "win." However, the economy operates a bit like evolution. What came before can have a big effect on what is to come. For example we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards because it was designed to stop mechanical typewriters from jamming, not because it's efficent for typers and now we don't need to worry about jamming we still can't change to a more efficent system because of the installed base. I wonder what effect the installed base of internal combustion vechiles and internal combustion engine manufacturers will have. I am a little concerned that industry groups will try to distort government policy for their own short term gain.

That's a big concern of mine as well as many other supporters of alternative/renewable fuels and energy independence; however, both the political climate as well as the economics of these technologies will ensure that they will not be thwarted by special interests. There's just too much momentum (and money) behind these technologies and it's just getting started.

Industry has done it before; in the USA, the first cars actually ran on ethanol but pressure from the oil industry and Prohibition (which makes me wonder if the oil industry actually had a role in that legislation) stopped that from becoming the standard. General Motors and Standard Oil forced the use of tetraethyl lead rather than ethanol as an anti-knock agent, and we're still having problems with it on the sides of our roadways and soil.

However, since the economics of alternative energy are so attractive and have strong backing from a lot of states in the US it is almost guaranteed that the auto manufacturers will be unable to stop the technology from taking off. They might be able to prevent the CAFE standards from being raised, but they aren't going to be able to stop a profitable industry with a lot of big names backing it; Bill Gates is a huge investor in clean energy and biofuels for one.

Also, many automakers see a PR boon as well as a profit opportunity from biofuels; by building hybrids and biofuel vehicles, they are commtting both to energy security and independence as well as to the wellbeing of the farmers of whatever country they sell their vehicles in.

The desire for energy independence drives a lot of purchases as does the cost advantage alternative fuels have over traditional gasoline or diesel, and that means huge profits for any company that can dominate the upcoming switchover to flex-fuel vehicles. Right now, there are 600 million cars worldwide and that's growing rapidly; even if 25% of those were fully flex-fuel capable (and that's way more than there really are) that would still leave a market for 450 million cars not counting replacements or growth in the total market.

I think the cheapest way to run transportation will probably be first through hybrids and other fuel saving technologies, then plug-in hybrids and then probably all electric trucks and cars. All the necessary technolgy requred for this seems in place and it doesn't have any chicken and egg problems. That is I can charge my plug in hybrid using the current electricity grid, but there is nowhere I can currently buy say hydrogen

If not electric, than definitely hydrogen. Biofuels, gasoline hybrids (and biofuel hybrids), and fuel efficiency will be the bridges between fossil fuels and electric vehicles. I imagine electric vehicles will then be the standard until large scale hydrogen fuel cell technology is in place; the technologies are all complementary, which means improvements in biofuels and hybrids will lead to advancements in hydrogen and electric plug in vehicles.

Hybrids only need time to become cost competitive; lithium ion flow batteries are going to be a huge step forward since they have already been shown to be safer, lighter more efficient, and cheaper than other types of batteries currently used in hybrids.

Their implementation (which is occuring now) will reduce the cost difference between hybrids and ordinary vehicles and will make plug in hybrids possible on a large scale; the plug ins currently being tested use lithium ion batteries and that technology will be vital in bringing them to market.

If bio-diesel can be produced cheaply and added to normal diesel or directly substitute for it in unmodified cars and trucks, then it would avoid any chicken and egg problems that would make it difficult for people to switch over. So I guess I'd basically like to know if bio-diesel can be added to normal diesel or can it be used directly in unmodified trucks and cars? Also, do you see it able to compete in the long term with vechiles that are charged off grid power, as opposed to being a short term solution to high oil prices?

All diesel engines can currently run on 5% biodiesel/95% diesel without and modification, and some can run on 20% biodiesel/80% diesel without modificiation while almost all modified vehicles can run on up to 100% biodiesel.

The main problem still facing running vehicles on pure biodiesel is its tendency to gel at temperatures of 40 degrees Fahrenheit/4.44 Celsius; that's not a problem with 5% biodiesel or 20% in most cases, but 100% biodiesel does still have that problem.

New biodiesel plants on average produce it for a cost of $1.04/gallon, but that continues to fall with each successive generation of plants and technology. The cheapest biodiesel can be as low as $0.50 per gallon, but that's more for individuals producing their own than commercial quantities.

Ever wonder where you're gonna get the electricity for your plug-in car? Also, the chicken egg came first.

Petroleum accounts for about half the energy used in the United States. However, since electric vechiles are so much more efficent than internal combustion ones, to power all cars and trucks in the U.S. with electricity would only require about a 20% increase in power generation. So if the U.S. stopped burning petroleum in cars and trucks and instead used it to to generate electricty for electric vechiles instead, they would use less than half the petroleum they currently use.

I expect the extra power required will come from a combination of coal, nuclear and renewable sources. The exact mix will depend upon cost, environmental effects and political factors. The gradual introduction of cars that get at least some of their power off the grid shouldn't be a problem, especially since a good deal of the power used would be off peak.

And thanks for explaining about the chicken/egg thing.

The main problem still facing running vehicles on pure biodiesel is its tendency to gel at temperatures of 40 degrees Fahrenheit/4.44 Celsius; that's not a problem with 5% biodiesel or 20% in most cases, but 100% biodiesel does still have that problem.

Thanks for the bio-diesel infomation. It sounds like something that could be most useful in the tropics.

If you can't see the fun in that, then I pity you. :p

LG, you just made me think of you riding on top of an MK82 Snakeye with wheels attached and prop fan in the back...

I dunno which future he's talking about, because as far as I know, THIS is the fuel of the Future.

http://www.outatime.it/public/40-mr_fusion.jpg