NationStates Jolt Archive

Why haven't we heard anything about these? It seems that everyone is talking about the hydrogen car, such as the GM hardwire (I think thats whats GM's one is called) but if these cars are making electricity for them to drive without using a battery, just using hydrogen and oxygen, why have we not heard about power plants, to supply household energy as well as that for cars. My understanding (Admitdly according to James May's review of the GM hardwire) is that one hydrogen car could produce enough energy to run at least a dozen households. And when you consider the size of car chasis, you soon see that a not too big building could power a town or too. So why is it they only talk about hydrogen power powering cars and not household supplies

Quite simply because energy is required to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hence, it is a waste of energy to use energy to separate the water, and then burn the resulting hydrogen to make water. Ideally such a process is zero-sum gain, but realistically it loses energy. The reason why we can do this for cars is that we are creating a temporary store of energy that the car can take with it and burn as and when it needs energy.

It may have something to do with the fact that there is no good source of hydrogen so you'd have to make the fuel before using it and that currently requires much more energy than the fuel can release.

[Edit]
PHOOEY! Close but no cigar.

Hydrogen isn't renewable, Hydrogen is obtained through the electrolysis of water, which requires electricity. Guess where this electricity comes from? Conventional power stations, which burn coal, oil or other fossil-fuels. I still think we're decades away from having wind, solar, or hydro-electric sources fulfilling our needs, and nuclear power is non-renewable.

(Beaten to it *Sulks*)

Don't worry guys, Steorn is going to solve it all.

http://www.steorn.net/

Hydrogen isn't renewable, Hydrogen is obtained through the electrolysis of water, which requires electricity. Guess where this electricity comes from? Conventional power stations, which burn coal, oil or other fossil-fuels. I still think we're decades away from having wind, solar, or hydro-electric sources fulfilling our needs, and nuclear power is non-renewable.

(Beaten to it *Sulks*)Well if you're going to take that line with nuclear power you might as well take it with the so called 'renewable' energy sources as well.

- 'oh noes, we only have 6 billion years of solar power left!!!1!1120!!'

Hydro-electric is more than possible right now, it's already been put into practice. The problem with it is that you need a dam and a fairly big river for it to work and those aren't exactly everywhere.

Wind power will not be a primary source of energy in the near future. The problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works. And did I mention it takes quite a bit of energy to make them? Or that they only work when the wind is actually blowing?

And as for that "Steorn" thing-a-ma-bob, perpetual motion is something you'll only see used by the bad guys in some Bond movie. It's not possible. There is no such thing as free energy or a free lunch.

i live in the desert. i have my own well. i would love to have a solar powered hydrogen generator that could provide a reasonable amount of hydrogen for my personal use.

Hydrogen isn't renewable, Hydrogen is obtained through the electrolysis of water, which requires electricity. Guess where this electricity comes from? Conventional power stations, which burn coal, oil or other fossil-fuels. I still think we're decades away from having wind, solar, or hydro-electric sources fulfilling our needs, and nuclear power is non-renewable.


Nuclear power is renewable for all intents and purposes. Not only are there enough fissionable materials to last for an extremely long time, but improvements in reprocessing are enabling us to use more and more of what we've already consumed.

However, it would make more sense to synthesis natural gas from coal or produce it from biomass than use hydrogen, which would deliver far less energy relative to the investment. However, it would make even more sense to use solar or geothermal for heating and switch over our heating needs from natural gas to these sources.

Either way, renewable resources are going to become major contributors to our energy needs in the near future; they are the future, and the economic benefits of renewable energy are many times superior to those of fossil fuels.

Quite simply because energy is required to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hence, it is a waste of energy to use energy to separate the water, and then burn the resulting hydrogen to make water. Ideally such a process is zero-sum gain, but realistically it loses energy. The reason why we can do this for cars is that we are creating a temporary store of energy that the car can take with it and burn as and when it needs energy.Just use some akaline earth metals and you should be fine.

Just use some akaline earth metals and you should be fine.

Those have to be separated from their ores, too.

In the future all cars will run on clean, renewable clockwork energy.

It has the added bonus that it is simple to understand, and therefore must be the right answer.

Nuclear power is renewable for all intents and purposes. Not only are there enough fissionable materials to last for an extremely long time, but improvements in reprocessing are enabling us to use more and more of what we've already consumed.
Don't forget about them thar breeder reactors. With a few of those you could turn nearly all of the Uranium-238 in the world into Plutonium-239 and get plenty of power from it. And that's not all, U238 is pretty good for radiation sheilding and can reduce the critical mass required and increases weapon efficiency.

However, it would make more sense to synthesis natural gas from coal or produce it from biomass than use hydrogen, which would deliver far less energy relative to the investment. However, it would make even more sense to use solar or geothermal for heating and switch over our heating needs from natural gas to these sources.
Now here's where you lose me. If you think that coal is so terrible for its carbon content then why are you saying that it should be used to make another fuel? The excess carbon has to go somewhere. It takes more energy to grow, harvest, and process the biomass into fuel than the fuel can provide. Solar is too inefficient at present an in the near future. Geothermal is limited to where there's enough heat near the surface and drains that heat.

Either way, renewable resources are going to become major contributors to our energy needs in the near future; they are the future, and the economic benefits of renewable energy are many times superior to those of fossil fuels.
Really? Then why did it take this long and as many subsidies as they've gotten for them to become competitive? The only one that shows any significant promise of actually meeting demand on that short list of yours is fission and everyone and their cousin is scared to death of it right now for no good reason. So scared that a new plant hasn't been built or even planned in years in the US.

Now here's where you lose me. If you think that coal is so terrible for its carbon content then why are you saying that it should be used to make another fuel? The excess carbon has to go somewhere. It takes more energy to grow, harvest, and process the biomass into fuel than the fuel can provide. Solar is too inefficient at present an in the near future. Geothermal is limited to where there's enough heat near the surface and drains that heat.

I don't think coal is terrible by any stretch. With present technology, it's less than desirable due to the pollution and waste produced but given that we're going to be developing clean coal plants in the near future, there's no reason to not use a resource that is as abundant and as cheap as coal. We should use it for power and for producing natural gas, especially since it can generate the kind of stable power needed for alternative energy.

Tapping geothermal/solar is good simply because it enables us to generate heat without having to use natural gas.

Really? Then why did it take this long and as many subsidies as they've gotten for them to become competitive? The only one that shows any significant promise of actually meeting demand on that short list of yours is fission and everyone and their cousin is scared to death of it right now for no good reason. So scared that a new plant hasn't been built or even planned in years in the US.

Well, one reason is because the technology wasn't ready, and the other is that fossil fuels were (artificially, in the case of natural gas) extremely cheap up until about 8 years ago. Alternatives simply weren't ready to compete with fossil fuels. Of course, we do need to subsidize alternative energy for the simple reason that fossil fuels get massive amounts of government money and we need to level the playing field.

There is a lot of alternative energy capacity out there, it's just that the industry's going to have to grow for a while to begin to harness that power and become a significant component of our energy needs.

And the resistance to nuclear is mostly just ignorant scaremongering from the past...we need that power, and we need it now. A lot of people are realizing that it's ridiculous, though, and that's why we are going to see new nuclear capacity come online in the next decade.

nuclear power is non-renewable.

Yeah, but I don't think it's going to vanish any time soon.

Um, what planet are you on? Wind power is the cheapest source of power-- even cheaper than coal in some cases. Last year it grew at a 300% rate of growth. It is also the only source of alternative energy which has a decent amount of economic profitability other than hydroelectric power. We have had wind energy a long time. So what if it is intermittent, the energy goes into a battery for use at a later time when it is needed. The intermittent argument isn't that good of an argument. Combing solar and wind into a battery is not that hard. What it comes down to is that you are producing electricity.

If you want non-intermittent renewable energy-- you use geothermal energy, which by the way wasn't even funded in the Bush budget. Geothermal is a better source of power if you are worried about intermittent energy sources. Also biomass is non-intermittent. Hydroelectric power is non-intermittent as well. These easily fill in the gap for your intermitten argument for renewable energy. So the sun shine doesn't shine sometimes and the wind doesn't blow. The end result is electricity which goes into a battery, or in the future a fuel cell. So you're utility won't get energy from wind or solar all the time. They can still send the electricity any time they want. It still reduces costs. When your solar electric and windmill isn't running, you buy electricity from the utility which is running a biofuel turbine, geothermal plant, or hydroelectric turbine. It is not hard to figure out.

If you are really worried about them producing enough energy, both solar and wind energy can be used for hydrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen. Solar hydrolysis of water produces hydrogen to power cars if you want. So does wind hydrolysis, XCEL energy does wind hydrolysis. Hydrolysis is simply splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. GE is working on making this more efficient. They especially like solar hydrolysis of water it is comparable in price to gasoline.

Pfft, burning Hydrogen. A more efficient use would probably be Fusion. The problem is that nuclear fusion is so powerful, there's no way to contain the energy and prevent the plant from becoming a Hydrogen bomb. If cold fusion technologies soon exist, then we could use fusion to split up the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. That way, you'll have power plants that are extremely efficient and a source of portable fuel that theoretically burns clean.

Funny thing about hydrogen... they always talk about manufacturing it by hydrolysis, but this is an extremely inefficient process. The way most hydrogen is manufactured is by burning methane and water vapor, producing hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide. Methane, of course, is natural gas, a fossil fuel. The so-called "hydrogen economy" is, barring some great breakthrough, a pipe dream.

No, the energy source of the future will be solar, and not in the traditional ways. New solar cells are being developed that can operate more efficiently than current photovoltaics, even on cloudy days, and are smaller, cheaper, and more widely usable than the current clunky, inefficient models. There are even solar cells in development that can be woven into fabrics. Satellites, even existing ones, can beam solar power down to Earth from space, where it can be harvested more efficiently. For non-electrical applications, solar will be extremely useful as well. Small, portable solar ovens are being widely distributed in Africa by aid groups to reduce demands for firewood and diesel fuel and to provide homegrown solutions to water-borne disease issues. A solar furnace built in France in the '80s (I think--I'll have to check on this) can produce enough heat to smelt many ores into metal without using any fuel. The sun gives us all the energy we will possibly need. We simply need to figure out how to harvest it more efficiently.

I don't think coal is terrible by any stretch. With present technology, it's less than desirable due to the pollution and waste produced but given that we're going to be developing clean coal plants in the near future, there's no reason to not use a resource that is as abundant and as cheap as coal. We should use it for power and for producing natural gas, especially since it can generate the kind of stable power needed for alternative energy.

I was under the impression that the clean coal fired plants aren't exactly so bad, but it is how the coal is obtained which is a big problem, such as the mountain topping that is going on in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

I was under the impression that the clean coal fired plants aren't exactly so bad, but it is how the coal is obtained which is a big problem, such as the mountain topping that is going on in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Yes, that is a major issue; I imagine we will need to develop more environmentally friendly ways of mining coal if we want to expand coal as a power source without increasing the negative effects of obtaining it in the first place. The possibility of rising coal prices due to increased demand may stimulate investment in newer, cleaner techniques, but it would probably be beneficial to also tighten regulations on the forms of mining allowed in order to mitigate the environmental impact.

At the very least, however, we can significantly cut down on the CO2 through the use of algae-based biodiesel in trains and heavy equipment. That's a step in the right direction, although the devastation caused by coal mining is still a serious problem.

I'd snip/quote all of you that have said how inefficient H2 producing plants or modules are, but I'll reply to save space...

I remember hearing somewhere how either Honda or Toyota was thinking of making small H2 producing plants for home-application that were powered off of a geothermal source... I'll see if I can dredge a link up.

Well, one reason is because the technology wasn't ready, and the other is that fossil fuels were (artificially, in the case of natural gas) extremely cheap up until about 8 years ago. Alternatives simply weren't ready to compete with fossil fuels. Of course, we do need to subsidize alternative energy for the simple reason that fossil fuels get massive amounts of government money and we need to level the playing field.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes everything worse and is fairly appalling from an economics point of view. The answer is not to throw in more subsidies to counterbalance subsidies (which both causes further distortion and costs a lot of money) but to simply eliminate subsidies across the board. This makes things more efficient and allows technologies to compete based upon their own merits rather than by the quality of their lobbyists.


Um, what planet are you on? Wind power is the cheapest source of power-- even cheaper than coal in some cases.
What planet are you on? Wherever you are, the only reason why wind would be cheaper than coal is if it were heavily subsidized. Turbines are very expensive to build and maintain and the blades have a little problem with breakage in gusting winds or with icing. The operational cost is negligible, but only if you ignore the whole lifecycle of the windmill.

Every wind farm I've seen has had about 15% of their windmills non-functional. Given the high cost of building and repairing them, that gets very expensive very quickly. We are back to the point that the only reason why wind is as viable as it is can be directly attributed to government subsidy. Even in Germany, where you see windmills everywhere, they are loudly proclaiming how they are in the forefront of renewables but are quietly building 6 (last I heard, could be more by now) new coal burning plants.

So what if it is intermittent, the energy goes into a battery for use at a later time when it is needed. The intermittent argument isn't that good of an argument. Combing solar and wind into a battery is not that hard. What it comes down to is that you are producing electricity.

Do you have any idea how insanely expensive it would be to try to store that much electricity? I have heard of some people looking into hydrogen storage (wind/solar power used to create hydrogen when power is high, and use the hydrogen in a fuel cell when power generation is low) but the sunk cost of building those is high and the power loss prohibitive so you would have to build an enormous excess of capacity.

If you want non-intermittent renewable energy-- you use geothermal energy, which by the way wasn't even funded in the Bush budget. Geothermal is a better source of power if you are worried about intermittent energy sources.

I agree with you here – it is fairly easy to exploit in small amounts and is constant. The problem is that the systems I have seen (with the exception of those lucky enough to be on top of geothermal vents) produce very small amounts. Much like solar or wind, this is good for rural areas but you cannot power a city.

Also biomass is non-intermittent.
You really need to look into the full lifecycle of the system and what externalities it generates. Trying to get a biomass system large enough to power a small town would create many problems. Once again, great to power your farm, cannot power a small town.

Hydroelectric power is non-intermittent as well.
You just have to damn up a large river and cause a lot of environmental problems to do it. It may be non-polluting but you’ve just destroyed a couple ecosystems, not to mention messing up the weather patterns for the region. Most places do not have a conducive geography to building a significant hydroelectric damn anyway.

These easily fill in the gap for your intermitten argument for renewable energy. So the sun shine doesn't shine sometimes and the wind doesn't blow. The end result is electricity which goes into a battery, or in the future a fuel cell. So you're utility won't get energy from wind or solar all the time. They can still send the electricity any time they want. It still reduces costs. When your solar electric and windmill isn't running, you buy electricity from the utility which is running a biofuel turbine, geothermal plant, or hydroelectric turbine. It is not hard to figure out.

None of these options come without substantial problems. While these renewables are a nice idea, they fall far short in practicality.

That being said, I think it a great idea for people to look into trying to become more self-sufficient in terms of power generation. Individuals could put a solar array on the roof, farms could build a biomass system, etc. The power grid could then supply the power gap. Unfortunately it becomes quite a challenge if this is done on a wide scale as the power companies will have to try to tailor generation to the fluctuating demand (gas turbines are fairly quick start and fill in for short term power losses elsewhere already).

The number 1 way, far ahead of any other method, to reduce the need for fossil fuels is simply to be more energy efficient. Billions of dollars are wasted every year in the US from simply not being cognizant of the cost of electricity. Better insulation in homes and offices, turning the lights off when nobody is in the room (especially in office buildings at night), there are countless ways to cut back on energy usage which would yield far better results for everyone than building more power plants.

Satellites, even existing ones, can beam solar power down to Earth from space, where it can be harvested more efficiently.
I’ve seen those plans… dumbest idea ever. Stop producing greenhouse gasses and just heat the earth directly! The energy absorbed by the atmosphere would heat the earth, so any significant scale orbital power generation would bring about the same problems as simply sticking to fossil fuels. Microwaving the earth is not exactly what I call an intelligent solution.

For non-electrical applications, solar will be extremely useful as well. Small, portable solar ovens are being widely distributed in Africa by aid groups to reduce demands for firewood and diesel fuel and to provide homegrown solutions to water-borne disease issues.

There are many reasons why the third world development need not be the polluting industrial revolution we went through. Technology is far more advanced and efficient which could easily be turned into low cost solutions for development.

Solar water distillation and ovens is one of those cheap and easy fixes, especially near the equator where solar power is at its best. This is why I think the best solution would be to get a few creative engineers out there to live in these villages for a couple weeks. That way they can find out what the real problems are and come up with solutions.

Don't worry guys, Steorn is going to solve it all.

http://www.steorn.net/

When exactly are they supposed to come out with their "proof"?

Don't worry guys, Steorn is going to solve it all.

http://www.steorn.net/
You know, I'd rather not trust a company that has failed to file any sort of accounts for the last couple of years...

I think it's entirely possible to have alternate energy scouces like hydrogen or wind in the U.S. But not with fucking bush and cheney in the white house because they got fucking rich off of the oil america runs on. fucking whores

Although I am not a huge fan of solar and wind power, I acknowledge that they can be used to supplement nuclear energy, especially in the light of new technologies that is making their construction cheaper. So in their defense energy companies already have to worry about varying demand and providing different amounts of energy. There are certain peak times during which the public uses much more energy than the rest of the day. In California, where they don't really have brownouts any more, they still don't have a lot of surplus electricity.

Because of this they have large public campaigns informing of these peak usages, asking people not to do laundry or vacuum until after 5, turn up the thermostat (the air conditioner being the main reason for the high peak I believe) and do several other things. As the commercials say, "It pays to flex your power" Or something like that.

Anyways, Although it is true that solar power (and wind power, though it is much less consistent than solar) isn't constant, however it produces electricity during the day, especially the middle of the day. Because of this the inconsitency of it would serve to help dampen the current energy peak, not enlarge it further.

Pfft, burning Hydrogen. A more efficient use would probably be Fusion. The problem is that nuclear fusion is so powerful, there's no way to contain the energy and prevent the plant from becoming a Hydrogen bomb.

What!!

Fission runs the risk of going into a chain reaction if not controlled properly.

Fusion on the other hand does not, if anything goes wrong the process stops working. It is inherently safer than Fission because it can't have a run away chain reaction. This is also the reason why it is so difficult to get it to work becasue unless the conditions are correctly controlled it will just stop working.

I won't bother answering the OP as many people have already pointed out the problem with their logic.

What!!

Fission runs the risk of going into a chain reaction if not controlled properly.

Fusion on the other hand does not, if anything goes wrong the process stops working. It is inherently safer than Fission because it can't have a run away chain reaction. This is also the reason why it is so difficult to get it to work becasue unless the conditions are correctly controlled it will just stop working.

I won't bother answering the OP as many people have already pointed out the problem with their logic.Are you sure? I only say this because of this -
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38870000/jpg/_38870693_hmbomb278.jpg

My main understanding of the problem with fusion is that they haven't figured out a way to start the process without resorting to nuclear fission of the magnitude found in atomic weapons.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes everything worse and is fairly appalling from an economics point of view. The answer is not to throw in more subsidies to counterbalance subsidies (which both causes further distortion and costs a lot of money) but to simply eliminate subsidies across the board. This makes things more efficient and allows technologies to compete based upon their own merits rather than by the quality of their lobbyists.

I agree with that in principle, but unfortunately it's not going to happen. Subsidies are always going to be there because the lobbies for the energy and agricultural industries are simply too strong for the government to really take a stand against, at least while we still have a significant number of Congressional representatives that support corporate welfare.

There has been some progress in eliminating the ridiculous tax breaks given to oil companies in recent years, but that's nothing compared to the hundreds of billions our military spends on guarding their oil interests around the world.

However, if we are going to spend money on subsidies, I'd rather have them go to developing clean, domestically produced and renewable energy than have them go to enemies like Hugo Chavez or the Saudis ...that's one thing I'm sure about.

Are you sure? I only say this because of this -
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38870000/jpg/_38870693_hmbomb278.jpg

My main understanding of the problem with fusion is that they haven't figured out a way to start the process without resorting to nuclear fission of the magnitude found in atomic weapons.

erm, that picture doesn't really prove a point... i dunno if you know this little fact about nuclear fusion, but the extreme pressure and temperature required for it [althought once started it supplies its own heat] have the result of stopping the fusion completely as soon as a small change in those conditions occurs... there is NO possibility of a fusion plant exploding, just as there is no chance of a fission plant exploding...
anw, they do have a problem with starting the fusion reaction, but they are very near to finding a solution... and as for containing the reaction, i believe they developed a magnetic field 'casing' for it...
fusion reactors, whether cold or not, are the future of energy production, for the simple reasons that they produce absolutely no waste [their product is water, which can be then hydrolised using the excess energy from the reaction, and there's a lot of that, and used as the fuel], produce A LOT of energy, and are absolutely safe [they have their own built-in safety switch in a matter of speaking]

There is no "one size fits all" solution for the energy problem. Every solution (Wind, Solar, Hydro, Nuclear, Coal, Geothermal, Tidal, Bio-Fuels, Hydrogen etc) has its pros and cons.

What we should be doing is to pursue *all* these technologies and constantly innovate with them (increase efficiency and lower costs) and use them where it makes sense.

I am more interested in using nuclear power to generate Hydrogen fuel for autos.

PsychoticDan (or other energy Gurus) , if you are seeing this, can you please comment on the above ?

You know what I always think of when people go on about hydrogen power?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/images/zeolite/hindenberg.jpg

Boom.

You know what I always think of when people go on about hydrogen power?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/images/zeolite/hindenberg.jpg

Boom.

Yes! Look at all that energy being released!

[You are aware of the fact that the Hindenburg disaster was mainly due to the ship being coated with rocket fuel, yes?]

Nuclear power is not as cheap as people think it is. It takes approximately ten years to build a nuclear power plant. Plus nuclear power plants need to be near water sources. In addition there is considerable risk of pollution. Combined with security threats and direct local opposition, very few new nuclear power plants will make it to the actual building stage. If you have 32 nuclear power plants planned, probably less than half of them will be built. Uranium is also a limited resource, much like oil, it goes up in price with market demand.

In the time it takes and the resources involved to build a nuclear power plant, a lot of other resources could have been built. There are intermittent power sources that are not quite as bad as nuclear. Coal fired biomass with flue capture systems designed to capture residues are probably a far better and cheaper option than nuclear power plants. These could use switchgrass or wood chips for the energy and be run as a cogeneration facility, steam and heat. Because of the use of biomass to capture carbon, these are actually carbon negative if the flue capture systems are used.

There are a number of things which can be done immediately to improve our energy situations. The first is to upgrade our energy distribution system so that there is less loss of power during transmission. The second is to upgrade existing hydroelectric systems, add fish ladders and other systems to reduce environmental damage and start building small distributed hydroelectric turbines which do not have the same impact on the environment.

Where solar and wind power make the most sense is in large scale construction-- skyscrapers, convention centers, and other very large structures actually reduce costs because of the amount of solar and wind installed. The cost of large green buildings is approximately the same as conventional buildings. Also because of the huge amounts of energy involved in skyscraper construction, energy efficiency-- natural lighting, natural ventilation, solar panels, wind turbines, high efficiency light bulbs, tends to pay off fairly quickly within the first ten years. Skyscrapers are energy hogs. The US Green Building Council is growing very fast, and LEED certification is becoming very popular. Much more popular than for small homes.

Yes! Look at all that energy being released!

[You are aware of the fact that the Hindenburg disaster was mainly due to the ship being coated with rocket fuel, yes?]

I didn't know that. And I'm not really sure if hydrogen power would do that anyway. It's just what I think of.

My favorite alternative energy car by the way is the Air Car. It is almost too good to be true. Air engines all the way.

http://www.theaircar.com/

and I remember reading somewhere about a certain type of bacteria that gives off hydrogen gas when mixed with sucrose... (table sugar) I wonder why I haven't heard about either of these alternatives being applied...

http://news.com.com/Fuel+cell+pulls+hydrogen+out+of+bacteria/2100-1008_3-5683881.html
Edit: Also http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=16
I believe that biological methods are the answer for producing hydrogen in viable quantities, if that is the route we want to take. The next big problem is storage.

I’ve seen those plans… dumbest idea ever. Stop producing greenhouse gasses and just heat the earth directly! The energy absorbed by the atmosphere would heat the earth, so any significant scale orbital power generation would bring about the same problems as simply sticking to fossil fuels. Microwaving the earth is not exactly what I call an intelligent solution.



There are many reasons why the third world development need not be the polluting industrial revolution we went through. Technology is far more advanced and efficient which could easily be turned into low cost solutions for development.

Satellite-solar, contrary to what you might think, is not "microwaving the earth". The reason microwave ovens heat things up is because it selects frequencies that are absorbed by water. If we select a frequency that is not readily absorbed by atmospheric gases, the energy will reach the receiver more or less intact, there to be converted to electricity. Even the existing network of comsats and other satellites is generating excess energy that can provide significant amounts of energy. Additionally, these satellites can beam power to each other so that the energy can be redirected to where it needs to go. Experiments as early as the 1950s have used satellite power to keep drone aircraft aloft, and, with a few thousand functional satellites orbiting Earth, there is enough power being produced for a small city.


I've been preaching the third-world sustainability idea for years. Here's a perspective:

What can be done about humanity's environmental impact? This is, unfortunately, not a question with an easy answer. Part of the reason that there has been little meaningful response is that large industrial economies have a substantial inertia regarding change. It's like trying to turn an oil tanker in a narrow passage. Developing nations lack any other model to follow as a sustainable, "ecological" economic model has yet to be implemented in full on any sort of large scale, and so they turn to heavy oil-dependent industrialization as well. This results not only in a fossil-fuel economy doomed by diminishing supply and hegemony by foreign governments and multinational corporations, but also tends to lead those nations into a destructive cycle of boom-and-bust economics and escalating debt. If a sustainable "ecological" economic model can successfully be implemented, it would provide a powerful alternative for developing nations allowing them to become self-reliant and, possibly, to survive after the collapse of the oil economy while traditional industrial economies (such as our own) will not. Costa Rica is attempting this; they have pledged to wean themselves completely from non-renewable energy by next year. They also are pioneering renewable uses of their natural resources, such as ecotourism, permaculture, and recycling.
Unfortunately, significant obstacles still exist to the implementation of such an economic model. Many developing nations face skyrocketing foreign debt due to a broken international financial system designed to keep developing nations dependent upon the industrial nations and the multinational corporations and other monied interests they are represented by. Political corruption, disease, poverty, and ethnic/sectarian violence provide substantial obstacles to proactive efforts to improve things. The given is that the industrial world will eventually lose its power. The question is whether the developing world will be dragged down with us or whether they will find their own way to thrive in the new world order that will result.
An "ecological" economy provides considerable promise for stability, human rights, and improved quality of life. Farmers in India, once extensively in debt to chemical companies while their field productivity plummeted in the face of collapsing soil ecology, organized to change to a permaculture system based on harvesting a local tree whose sap has natural pesticide properties, and, in doing so, ultimately learning to use a healthy local ecosystem to benefit their farms. Their productivity is higher than it has ever been and there is not one toxic chemical to be seen in the area. The farmers are out of debt and free of corporate exploitation.

You know what I always think of when people go on about hydrogen power?



Boom.Know what I think of when I think of gasoline in cars?
http://www.pb.unimelb.edu.au/emergency/template-assets-custom/images/car-fire.jpg

http://news.com.com/Fuel+cell+pulls+hydrogen+out+of+bacteria/2100-1008_3-5683881.html
Edit: Also http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=16
I believe that biological methods are the answer for producing hydrogen in viable quantities, if that is the route we want to take. The next big problem is storage.Why not just biological methods to create petrol. Then you don't even have to worry about storage methods. It will create a carbon neutral cycle. So there won't be any additional emission of CO2.

Why not just biological methods to create petrol. Then you don't even have to worry about storage methods. It will create a carbon neutral cycle. So there won't be any additional emission of CO2.

Actually, the big technology coming out in the next year or two is biodiesel from algae; these algae produce huge amounts of oil which can be turned in to biodiesel, and the amount of land needed to meet all of our diesel demand is something like only 4% of the total cropland in the United States (compared to all of it or more with crop-based fuels).

These algae take CO2 and use it during photosynthesis to create a carbon-neutral source of fuel; even better, they will consume more CO2 than is produced by the biodiesel, which means they actively reduce CO2 from other sources at the same time that they offset the amount produced from the fuel itself.

Nuclear power is not as cheap as people think it is. It takes approximately ten years to build a nuclear power plant. Plus nuclear power plants need to be near water sources. In addition there is considerable risk of pollution. Combined with security threats and direct local opposition, very few new nuclear power plants will make it to the actual building stage. If you have 32 nuclear power plants planned, probably less than half of them will be built. Uranium is also a limited resource, much like oil, it goes up in price with market demand.

There is Uranium everywhere, and it is extraordinarilly cheap, will it run out eventually? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore it instead of using the several centuries supply of it we have? No. Also the risk of pollution is quite small.

Actually, the big technology coming out in the next year or two is biodiesel from algae; these algae produce huge amounts of oil which can be turned in to biodiesel, and the amount of land needed to meet all of our diesel demand is something like only 4% of the total cropland in the United States (compared to all of it or more with crop-based fuels). Aye, I've seen you talking about biodiesel before. I just wanted to write a slightly longer post than 'what about biodiesel'...These algae take CO2 and use it during photosynthesis to create a carbon-neutral source of fuel; even better, they will consume more CO2 than is produced by the biodiesel, which means they actively reduce CO2 from other sources at the same time that they offset the amount produced from the fuel itself.That sounds like false economy to me. The carbon has be going somewhere, it just can't disappear out of the system. I presume that the excess carbon would be stored within the algae as a means for its energy storage. There will probably come a point when the algae absorbs too much carbon and the rate of photosynthesis slows down. or that the algae grows so much that layers beneath are in the shadow of the algae on top. So either algae will be dumped when it grows too much or as part as of the harvesting process. The algae will either be burned to get rid of it, or chucked on a dump where the carbon will reenter the natural carbon cycle. Unless the excess algae is disposed of underground then the carbon would not be removed from the carbon cycle and hence not from the atmosphere permanently.