For several months now, a hydrogen fuel cell has been quietly powering the light at the historic South Gare lighthouse, which can be seen from 25 miles out to sea. The lighthouse, built in 1884 and located at the mouth of the River Tees, plays a pivotal role in the success of Teesport, one of the UK’s three busiest ports. The lighthouse can be lashed by salty water at unpredictable moments. It was previously prone to power outages when the mains power cable was damaged by rough winds and heavy seas.
Such successful implementation of hydrogen fuel cells proves their reliability in critical situations and in some of the most hostile environments. It also proves that fuel cells can be the most economic solution, while at the same time being beneficial in regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
References:
Teesside world first in fuel cells
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2007/11/05/teesside-world-first-in-fuel-cells-84229-20063700/
Hydrogen power lights up the seas
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/mg19626285.700-hydrogen-power-lights-up-the-seas.html
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 147
Thanks for posting, Donna.
A lighthouse... poeticaly precient....
Thanks
Dan
The deception comes NOT in looking at today's costs. Because of the very large amounts of energy required by light houses the deception comes by way of the proponents of hydrogen implying that it is reasonable for society to fund such high cost experiments to promote their causes, in the hopes that it will lower the cost eventually.
There is now the same need if not greater for the Hydrogen or some alternative energy. The ages shift, progress moves, needs adapt, humans do what they can... Don't throw that Cost Dribble ... It is nothing but FEAR... Fear obscures if it does not aid... Grasp the Fear and understand it... Don't flail it about ... The deception you talk about is a continued extention of the lack of Context... What are the Costs??? There is no deception in discussing the potential of alternatives such as Hydrogen in costs... There is awarness of what is possible keeping in mind the Needs and the Reasons for the Needs... Of course there are costs associated ... but where does the bottom line of the balance sheet end? Come up with a Rekonning en Toto of Costs involving blood, lives, suffering, dolars, yen, euros, gold, DNA, species, ecology, habitat, grains, rains, sea level, quality of life, and parse it out as to whoes pockets those costs are alloted to... and then bring up the idea of cost... But bring it up as a tool in knowing where to assign resources and what to expect rather than as a Boogy Man's teeth ratteling on at the end of a chicken's clawed foot...
Just some context... that's all...
The deception comes in "externalized costs" (or "subsidized pricing") of fossils. However, with oil approaching $100/barrel, alternatives are looking more and more attractive.
Like David, I hesitate to speak for Sam, but I think the point of the article is that the lighthouse is being powered by hydrogen - that's not theoretical - it's being done. You can continue to labor under the myth that deployment of alternatives only comes with losses to the economy, but actually the reverse is true, which explains why alternatives are drawing, increasingly, private investment capital. Of course, if we had followed your logic, we would not be communicating now via our pc's and the internet.
Hydrogen can be produced at minimal cost, e.g. by using surplus energy of solar and wind facilities to make it. Hydrogen can also be produced by burning biowaste by means of pyrolysis, as discussed in the article Agrichar, at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977155102
The cost of this would also be minimal given the advantages of getting rid of waste and the production of agrichar and the benefits for the environment.
This lighthouse example is not a high cost experiment to promote hydrogen, Dan, hydrogen simply turned out to be the most cost-effective, safe, reliable and clean solution. We're at the brink of a new age, as David described above, and there will be many more cases to come, such as hydrogen-powered cars, airplanes and industrial facilities, as we are shifting into the hydrogen economy. Read the articles Wild Green Yonder and Solar-Hydrogen Demo Project in Sacramento, at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977166023
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977163811
I know that you like to push nuclear power, but we've had that discussion under the article The Nuclear Delusion
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977131568
Did you know that the US is actually giving Russia aid to replace its nuclear mess, including the radio thermo-electric generators that power remote lighthouses, radars, weather stations. We're literally paying for Nuclear lighthouses to be replaced
http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/28067
"Just some context... that's all..."
Sorry David I think nonsense is a better word to describe that posting of yours.
Sam, Steve and David,
Is it that none of you know the cost? Or is it that you don't want to answer the question because you know the today's cost of producing hydrogen is enormous?
Sam,
I have seen you reference many articles, (mostly your own) to validate the points you make but in those articles there is very little that validates any points you make.
"Hydrogen can be produced at minimal cost, e.g. by using surplus energy of solar and wind facilities to make it."
Well let's see what it costs to produce hydrogen today.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0219/p15s01-stss.html
Currently, extracting hydrogen from natural gas costs $3.60 to $7.05 per kilogram, even with the best technology,
http://www.getenergysmart.org/Files/HydrogenEducation/8HydrogenProductionCoal.pdf
The overall DOE goal is to reduce the cost of hydrogen produced from coal to $2.50/kg at the pump by 2008 and $1.50/kg at the pump by 2010.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=99
hydrogen can be produced at good wind sites (class 4 and above, without financial incentives) for approximately $6.64/kg H2. This hybrid wind-to-hydrogen production system has pros and cons. It reduces the cost of producing the hydrogen, which without grid backup would be $10.69/kg H2
Hydrogen production from biomass is a thermodynamically inefficient and expensive process, in which approximately 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent of the total solar energy is converted to hydrogen at a price of currently about $7.05/ kg H2 by gasification in a midsize plant
The committee estimated the cost to produce hydrogen using electricity from solar PV devices to power electrolyzers. In the current technology case, with a favorable installed cost of about $3.28/Wp, the electricity cost is estimated to be about $0.32/kWh and the hydrogen cost to be $28.19/kg
http://www.uic.com.au/nip116.htm
(hydrogen from nuclear)
The IS cycle coupled to a modular high temperature reactor is expected to produce hydrogen at $1.50 to $2.00 per kg.
Well look at that Sam nuclear can produce hydrogen as chap as coal but without all of the C02!
Nuclear wins another one!
Nuclear the Clean Safe Energy of the future.
- "what it costs to produce hydrogen today."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0219/p15s01-stss.html
Today isn't early 2004, Dan, it's Nov 7, 2007. What do you mean with today?
- http://www.getenergysmart.org/Files/
HydrogenEducation/8HydrogenProductionCoal
The link doesn't seem to exist, Dan.
- http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=99
This appears to be from a 2002 publication.
- Hydrogen production from biomass ... solar energy is converted to hydrogen
Producing hydrogen from biowaste is something different than using solar power and electrolysis, Dan. Are you confusing a few things here?
- http://www.uic.com.au/nip116.htm
A page by the Australian Uranium Association - not likely to give the full cost of nuclear, nor to point out that hydrogen can be produced cheaper using clean, safe and renewable energy.
It looks to me that you've been googling around a bit, Dan, without having real expertise in the area and just selecting a few pieces of information that you found that happened to suit your obsession with nuclear. If you're deluding yourself that you're doing the nuclear industry a favor, then snap out of it, Dan, you have very little credibility and you're not helping the nuclear industry.
A couple of points here: 1. cost is always based on assumptions. As I stated above, fuels we use today are subsidized, so that they appear cheaper than they really are; 2. all new technologies are "prohibitively expensive" before they reach mass production. If the cost of new technologies alone prohibited their deployment, we would not have computers today; 3. private capital is being invested in renewables at an increasing rate; 4. a different set of assumptions re: renewables and hydrogen can be found here (p.20, myth #9) and here; and 5. if you are really confident in nuclear energy's ability to compete with renewables, then you will sign this PETITION to deny $50 billion in federal loan guarantees to build new nuke plants.
Finally, Dan, use this link - it will help make your posts easier to read.
The problem is that I provide FACTS that discount your opinions,
And since you don't like those FACTS you find ways to discount them
without providing FACTS of your own.
Sam,
"Today isn't early 2004, Dan, it's Nov 7, 2007. What do you mean with today?"
Has the production of hydrogen become drastically more economically viable
in the last 3 years?
Sam, Please provide some FACTS.
"- http://www.getenergysmart.org/Files/
HydrogenEducation/8HydrogenProductionCoal
The link doesn't seem to exist, Dan."
Sorry Sam,
It took me about 15 minuts to find that information this morning.
Anyone interested in finding the FACTS shouldn't have a problem in finding
it for themselves.
"- http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=99
This appears to be from a 2002 publication."
Sam,
If you have any more current information (FACTS) that dispute these FACTS
please post them.
"- Hydrogen production from biomass ... solar energy is converted to hydrogen
Producing hydrogen from biowaste is something different than using solar power
and electrolysis, Dan. Are you confusing a few things here?"
It's a comparison Sam, I know you don't like the FACTS I post but you are welcome
to provide your own FACTS if you can find them.
You claimed that "Hydrogen can be produced at minimal cost, e.g. by using
surplus energy of solar and wind facilities to make it."
My comparison show how far out of touch with reality you are.
"It looks to me that you've been googling around a bit, Dan, without having real
expertise in the area and just selecting a few pieces of information that you
found that happened to suit your obsession with nuclear. If you're deluding
yourself that you're doing the nuclear industry a favor, then snap out of it,
Dan, you have very little credibility and you're not helping the nuclear industry."
Sam,
Yah the internet is a pretty amazing thing, when a relatively uneducated conservative
like myself can find experts to discount just about every one of your opinions
it must be frustrating.
And since you don't like those FACTS you find ways to discount them
without providing FACTS of your own."
I provided facts with links. I'm not surprised you didn't address them. Here, I'll try again:
1. cost is always based on assumptions. As I stated above, fuels we use today are subsidized, so that they appear cheaper than they really are;
How much are we paying for a gallon of gas?
Commentary: The Real Costs of America's Nuclear Power Program and the Impact on Global Climate Change
2. all new technologies are "prohibitively expensive" before they reach mass production. If the cost of new technologies alone prohibited their deployment, we would not have computers today;
Nanosolar: Toward Solar Cost-Competitiveness
POWER FROM THE SUN
3. private capital is being invested in renewables at an increasing rate;
Global Annual Investment in Renewable Energy Hits $100 Billion
Banking on Green Energy
4. a different set of assumptions re: renewables and hydrogen can be found here (p.20, myth #9) and here; and
Twenty Hydrogen Myths (Myth #9, p.20)
Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential
5. if you are really confident in nuclear energy's ability to compete with renewables, then you will sign this PETITION to deny $50 billion in federal loan guarantees to build new nuke plants.
6. Finally, regarding the cost of hydrogen from sources other than the nuclear industry's assumptions as estimates:
Can We Afford It? Technology advancements could make solar-derived hydrogen, with its potential for near-site delivery, cost-competitive.
Can We Get There? Technology advancements could make a hydrogen electric economy viable—and expand opportunities for all renewables
I don't really expect you'll read any of this - but the information is there for anyone, who is interested.
Solar Powered Homes Sell Quickly Despite Market Crunch
James Woolsey: "This current year we will borrow something on the order of $320 billion dollars, nearly a billion dollars a day, to import oil."
James Woolsey on ending the oil era
"1. cost is always based on assumptions. As I stated above, fuels we use today are subsidized, so that they appear cheaper than they really are;"
Remove the subsidies and nuclear is the most cost effective, cleanest and among the safest form of energy production.
"Commentary: The Real Costs of America's Nuclear Power Program and the Impact on Global Climate Change"
By Beth Wellington, Published on February 12, 2007
"Beth Wellington is a Roanoke, Virginia based poet and journalist."
A poet? Sure I always rely on poet journalists to prove my points.
Oh that's right I forgot the left often take their cues from the likes of artists, actors and musicians.
"2. all new technologies are "prohibitively expensive" before they reach mass production. If the cost of new technologies alone prohibited their deployment, we would not have computers today;"
Of course, but we are not going to strangle the economy of this country to suit the extreme environmentalists.
When things become cost effective then people will accept and buy them.
Yours and Sam's hydrogen dream world is sometime in the future but for now we have alternatives available including nuclear.
Twenty Hydrogen Myths (Myth #9, p.20)
I have already posted opinion from experts from within differing fields concerning energy production who disagree with Dr. Lovin and his assumptions.
"5. if you are really confident in nuclear energy's ability to compete with renewables, then you will sign this PETITION to deny $50 billion in federal loan guarantees to build new nuke plants."
No Steve I think we NEED Nuclear power I welcome and support any help the government can provide to get these power plants in operation.
"Can We Afford It? Technology advancements could make solar-derived hydrogen, with its potential for near-site delivery, cost-competitive."
"Can We Get There? Technology advancements could make a hydrogen electric economy viable—and expand opportunities for all renewables"
These last two articles are forward looking articles they look towards the future, the possibilities in the future not what is viable today.
Your first link didn't work and the second article admits "Optimizing Electrolysis Systems
Before electrolysis can be considered a viable energy source, the cost and efficiency of commercial electrolyzer systems must improve."
Even they admit that the process which would be used to produce hydrogen utilizing solar and wind needs to improve before it is viable.
"One more thing."
Well then Steve,
lets build more of them, but that doesn't take away that the sun doesn't shine at night and that the wind doesn't always blow and that clouds can stay around for weeks, and that any technology that allows the energy from these sources to be stored is years away, possibly decades.
You're kidding. Remove the subsidies and nuclear dies a quick death. But if you believe that, then sign the petition I linked above.
Dan: "A poet? Sure I always rely on poet journalists to prove my points."
So you don't have any specific disputes with the article itself - just the author. Anyway, it's better than referencing a nuclear industry website for the costs of hydrogen.
Dan: "...we are not going to strangle the economy of this country to suit the extreme environmentalists."
That's exactly what we're doing with oil (see "One more thing 2, above), and I'm not willing to underwrite nuclear energy to the tune of $50Billion in federal loan guarantees - but you apparently don't have a problem with that.
Dan: "I have already posted opinion from experts from within differing fields concerning energy production who disagree with Dr. Lovin and his assumptions."
Lovins disagrees with your nuclear experts. So what? I'll believe Lovins before I believe vested interests.
Dan: "I think we NEED Nuclear power I welcome and support any help the government can provide to get these power plants in operation."
We need nuclear energy like we need arsenic. Anyway, I didn't think you had such great confidence in nuclear energy. You won't sign the petition because you don't think that industry can make it on its own, and you're right - it can't. It becomes very clear that your standard for nuclear is very different than your standard for renewables/hydrogen. BTW, Lovins calls for termination of all subsidies for the entire energy sector. I guess he really believes in markets.
Dan: "These last two articles are forward looking articles they look towards the future, the possibilities in the future not what is viable today."
I've already said that the computer industry would never have happened if your "reasoning" had been followed. Another point that you seem to ignore.
Dan: "the sun doesn't shine at night and that the wind doesn't always blow and that clouds can stay around for weeks, and that any technology that allows the energy from these sources to be stored is years away, possibly decades."
That's an old, meaningless criticism of solar and wind, which misses the point - they are selling in an otherwise difficult market. I also have linked to articles about Nanosolar and increasing investments in solar and other renewables. You ignore that information.
"That's an old, meaningless criticism of solar and wind,"
No it isn't, it's just that you are not willing to face the truth about alternative energy production. You would place hardships on our society in order to advance your ideals.
"That's exactly what we're doing with oil"
We've been dealing with oil for more than a hundred years and the economy has accepted the subsidies and related costs of using oil with out much problem.
"Lovins disagrees with your nuclear experts. So what?"
I see your ignoring the many other expert opinions I posted. (blinded by your faith in Lovins are we?)
"You're kidding. Remove the subsidies and nuclear dies a quick death."
I've already posted studies that show that nuclear produces energy at a cost at about the same level as coal (cradle to grave) but without the C02 output and that nuclear receives less subsidies than coal does, so remove the subsidies from all of the power producers and nuclear remains the most cost effective form of energy.
"You won't sign the petition because you don't think that industry can make it on its own,"
I want the federal loan guarantees so we can build as many nuclear power plants as possible.
The energy crunch our country will be facing in the future will restrict our economy to the point that research even into your blessed hydrogen will slow to a crawl. We need nuclear power to help avert this energy crunch.
I've written my representatives in support of nuclear energy and advised them to provide any support they think reasonable to help get this necessary energy source advancing towards production.
Your feeble attempts to paint me as unsupportive of nuclear energy because I won't sign your petition is… well feeble.
Politicians never even see these internet petitions, they never make it past the filters.
I prefer to use more effective forms of advocacy.
as for your initial question: "what is the (today) cost..." ...
It seems you were never really interested in that number...
As you apparently already had the formed idea that it is "enourmous" ...
However, you never really attended to Context or attempted to provide assessment as to cost in relation to en Toto Reckoning as I described above...
It seems from what you are providing that this is more a matter of Pushing a Nuclear agenda than truly discussing the true merrits and true detractions of Hydrogen based energy ...
Regarding the Nuclear Hope... Truly it is not a Bad Word or a Bad Hope ... But it has had over fifty years to Frooo-it... as it were (to come to fruition and fulfill its hope and promise) ... it has not quite done it... and an assessment as to why might be worth investigating and discussing, taking all points and aspects into consideration... Truly there are were many people who had great hope for the energy source... Atoms for Peace and all...
Regarding this example of Hydrogen at the light house.... What are you talking about deceiving Tax Payers??? This light house was in Brittain!!! Does GI Joe there have his heart set on Protecting the Brittish Tax Payer as well as the Beaches of Normandy or the White Cliffs of Dover???
Regarding the deception of today Cost: What is the Cost of getting a College education... Some may call it Astronomical ... meaning ... Enormous... But, it pays off doesn't it? Compare not making the Investment of that cost versus the Payoff of Realized Potential after making that Investment... Nuclear with its subsidies seems to be in a Postion of constant Welfare State at this point... Like I said... It has had over Fifty years to show it self... The increased Need for alternatives, be it Nuclear or Other or both and all, has Increased the stakes and pressure to find the Answer to the Energy Question...
It's just that Nuclear Just doesn't seem to be getting there...
But comming back to the point of your initial question of cost... It just seems your are shaking Boogy Man Bones in throwing out of context ideas to Obscure the discussion...
Fossil Fuels had their investment costs but it paid off at some point for the investors...
Nuclear has had its day to prove itself and some real issue linger...
Hydrogen.... what is its potential???
Solar ??? Wind???
The Ocean: Waves ever lap and rage, Tides never cease... Since the first atmosphere formed and dropped rain to fill the ocean basins... as long as there is a moon ... as long as there is a sun... There will be tides shifting non stop, moving unfathamable amounts of mass and potential energy ...
What is the (today) cost of Hydrogen???
What is the (tomorrow) cost of not Exploring Hydrogen???
You seem to ignore so much of what I am trying to tell you. I'm not placing hardships on our society - at least none that information technology has placed. Renewables are already expanding - with fewer subsidies than fossils and nuclear - and they stand to reward investors with profits. I just don't want that process sidetracked by useless, expensive distractions, like nuclear. And yes, your criticism about solar not shining and night and wind not always blowing - I have answered those criticisms many times before, and yes, the criticism is nonsense.
Dan: "We've been dealing with oil for more than a hundred years and the economy has accepted the subsidies and related costs of using oil with out much problem."
So you have a double standard when it comes to renewables then. Society can deal with subsidies/tax breaks for fossils (that really is another debate), but it cannot deal with the same for renewables. Maybe, it's just that you're biased.
Dan: "I see your ignoring the many other expert opinions I posted. (blinded by your faith in Lovins are we?)"
Yep. When you post "experts" from the nuclear industry, I consider them vested interests. Lovins is not vested. He directs an independent energy research foundation. And yes, I do have faith in him - mainly because I've read his work.
Dan: "I've already posted studies that show that nuclear produces energy at a cost at about the same level as coal (cradle to grave) but without the C02 output and that nuclear receives less subsidies than coal does, so remove the subsidies from all of the power producers and nuclear remains the most cost effective form of energy.
Your sources are suspicious, and I've already addressed that all of these estimates ride on assumptions. Lovins exposes the assumptions your "experts" make - or put another way, he doesn't hide the externalities.
Dan: "I want the federal loan guarantees so we can build as many nuclear power plants as possible.//The energy crunch our country will be facing in the future will restrict our economy to the point that research even into your blessed hydrogen will slow to a crawl. We need nuclear power to help avert this energy crunch."
I hope you lose - there are better alternatives - much better.
Dan: "Your feeble attempts to paint me as unsupportive of nuclear energy because I won't sign your petition is… well feeble."
I didn't say you were "unsupportive". I said you are not confident that nuclear can survive on its own. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to get me to pay taxes to support it. If you were confident in nuclear, then you would sign this petition. And you accuse me of wanting to place "...hardships on our society in order to advance your ideals." I'd go with Lovins' suggestion that all energy sectors sink or swim without federal help, but you won't.
Dan: "Politicians never even see these internet petitions, they never make it past the filters."
They must be seen by someone in their offices. I get responses, regularly.
BTW, Dan, oil will hit $100 barrel soon (if it hasn't already - I haven't checked today). Lovins' comparative figures oil:hydrogen are based on <$40 barrel. You can protest all you want about the expense of these new technologies today, but investments are going up and prices are coming down. Solar is about to hit mass production in a big way. So sell your stock in those nuclear plants - avoid the rush!
"You seem to ignore so much of what I am trying to tell you."
No I am not.
What you and Sam imply (the hydrogen economy) that is right around the corner is actually 10-20 years away.
The only technology available to store wind and solar energy is through chemical reaction and the developer admits to a 20 hour storage limit.
There is nothing between now and your hydrogen economy 10 to 20 years from now to get us through the impending energy crisis NOTHING.
All of the ideas you and Sam have offered that will provide energy in the meantime are minimal at best they will not provide enough electricity to power our economy.
"I'm not placing hardships on our society" Sure you are Steve, that's the M.O. of all environmentalists, from the 70s when the earthfirsters were driving railroad spikes into trees to stop logging and the environmental organizations that sued the oil companies and successfully stopped new oil refineries from being built.
The primary goal of environmentalists is to create hardships on society in order to advance their ideals.
How high will petroleum products rise in price if what you suggest (remove subsidies from energy products) be done is done?
You think that won't cause any hardships? Either you don't understand or you are not concerned with the impact such a thing would have on our society.
"So you have a double standard when it comes to renewables then."
No I don't, I think the existing subsidies for renewables are pitiful, I certainly don't think we should revoke existing subsidies just because You, Lovins and a few environmentalists want us to in order to advance your agendas.
I live in Hawaii that has both the greatest potential for using alternative energy (solar and geo thermal) and the highest percentage of power produced from petroleum (90%). Our state has some of the lowest credits for owner installed solar energy products of any in the entire United States.
Beyond that if a person wants to install a grid tied P.V. system on their home they have to be allowed by the local utility, because of current regulation the utility only has to allow 2000 homes on the island of Oahu to be "net metered", there are some areas of our country where utilities are not required to allow net metering. There was a bill submitted which would have set a federal standard of 1% net metering but I don't think it was ever addressed.
I would think that environmentalists would be encouraging people to try and influence our policy makers to increase such thing as net metering in order to advance further solar application, rather than be involved in fear mongering against such a clean energy as nuclear.
I support all forms of alternative energy as long as they are economically viable, solar in my opinion has the greatest potential but without the net metering restrictions being lessened you will not get people to install solar on their homes, and in some areas they can't because the utilities don't have to allow grid tied systems.
"I hope you lose - there are better alternatives - much better."
Neither you or Sam have provided current viable alternative energy producers to petroleum, all of your suggestions are years if not decades away from marketability.
"Solar is about to hit mass production in a big way. So sell your stock in those nuclear plants - avoid the rush!"
Well you are right about the rush but, please explain to me again how I am going to use my P.V. system when the sun goes down or my wind turbine when the wind dies.
A backup is needed and as much as I know you hate to hear it, nuclear is that backup at least until new technology is developed.
As the example of this lighthouse shows, this clean and safe technology is available and it economic makes sense to it now.
Dan: "solar energy (has) a 20 hour storage limit."
Well, that would be enough to get us through the night, wouldn't it. There are ways to extend this period (e.g. capacitors, lithion ion batteries, hydrogen, etc), but for practical purposes, twenty hours of storage capacity will suffice.
Dan: "..get us through the impending energy crisis.."
I've provided plenty of links on the potential of renewables, such as solar and wind power, Dan, all these are scientific studies and you haven't shown anything convincing in return. For the potential of geothermal energy, have a look at the MIT study at:
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
Dan: "..try and influence our policy makers to increase such thing as net metering in order to advance further solar application,.."
The problem is not with renewables, Dan, nor with environmentalists. The problem is that most politicians don't want to listen. Why? Can we draw any other conclusion than that these politicians who are in the grip of groups with vested interests, specifically fossil fuel and nuclear?
Dan: "..explain to me again how I am going to use my P.V. system when the sun goes down or my wind turbine when the wind dies. A backup is needed and as much as I know you hate to hear it, nuclear is that backup at least until new technology is developed."
I have explained it many times, Dan. You can store your surplus solar energy in a battery or you can turn surplus solar energy into hydrogen. If you don't have batteries or hydrogen facilities, you could sell your surplus energy to the grid at top rates, and buy back cheap energy at night. As you'll agree, smart metering is part of the puzzle and I'm glad to see you support this.
In conclusion, the technology is readily available to build smart and distributed energy networks. They will provide the cheapest, safest and cleanest energy that is renewable and doesn't make us dependent on imports from abroad. They will create plenty of jobs and we won't have to send the military around the world. By contrast, nuclear power plants and their waste are not safe, they take ten years to build and they would keep us in the grip of those who got us into this mess.
"As the example of this lighthouse shows, this clean and safe technology is available and it economic makes sense to it now"
What does it cost to power that light house Sam? Do you know?
"Well, that would be enough to get us through the night, wouldn't it."
What do you do on the 5th day of cloud cover of the 20th? And you can't build a battery bank big enough to power a city for 20 days of little or no sun, that's the problem with your "solutions" the can only overcome the minor problems they can't address the real needs of a society.
"I have explained it many times, Dan. You can store your surplus solar energy in a battery or you can turn surplus solar energy into hydrogen. If you don't have batteries or hydrogen facilities, you could sell your surplus energy to the grid at top rates, and buy back cheap energy at night. As you'll agree, smart metering is part of the puzzle and I'm glad to see you support this."
As I said above you can not reasonably build a battery bank big enough to accommodate more than a few days of no sunlight.
Hydrogen will not an option for quiet a while.
As I have said many times your solutions have not been developed yet, we need solutions today You are not providing any substantial solutions that can be implemented today.
But you are suggesting the restriction of existing technologies in the hopes of faster movement towards your solutions which will have harmful effects on our society and in reality slow the progress towards the solution you desire.
"The problem is not with renewables, Dan, nor with environmentalists. The problem is that most politicians don't want to listen. Why? Can we draw any other conclusion than that these politicians who are in the grip of groups with vested interests, specifically fossil fuel and nuclear?"
I won't disagree with your statement but it is a problem that has to be dealt with, it won't go away just by wishing and these politicians are willing to fund a very clean, safe and responsible energy source (nuclear) which will help our society by providing solutions to our problems today or in the near future rather than having to wait decades for your solutions.
No. I've never said that, and neither does Lovins. If you ever read his work you'd know that. I have said that hydrogen is what we should be moving toward and should ultimately end up with. But a "hydrogen economy" is 20 to 40 years away - at today's pace. That could be speeded up, but many things come before hydrogen - just not nuclear. Here, educate yourself:
Winning the Oil Endgame
Dan: "The only technology available to store wind and solar energy is through chemical reaction and the developer admits to a 20 hour storage limit."
Where do you get such nonsense? Hydrogen is produced and stored in large quantities now. Much of it is used in refining oil. Hydrogen storage is not a problem. Hydrogen Enables Storage of Excess Wind Power in Spain and (Hydrogen) Stationary and Bulk Storage Products. And there is less of a problem if hydrogen is generated locally (distributed generation). Hydrogen storage for transportation had been a problem, but no longer - Gaseous and Liquid Hydrogen Storage and Our Innovative Solution for Hydrogen Storage.
Dan: "The primary goal of environmentalists is to create hardships on society in order to advance their ideals."
Like I said, you don't read what I write. I don't know how many articles I've linked relative to the profitability of these technologies, to the parallels with expansion of information technology and the internet (including entry into the renewables industry by former IT personnel), to distributed generation - including net zero metering. If you would leave your backward ideology for a minute to see what's being done, you might be surprised.
Dan: "How high will petroleum products rise in price if what you suggest (remove subsidies from energy products) be done is done? You think that won't cause any hardships? Either you don't understand or you are not concerned with the impact such a thing would have on our society."
I don't know if you are blind, uninformed, or mentally deficient. Look around you, Dan. If you don't see hardships from oil dependency now, then I can't help you. Oil is approaching $100/barrel and that price is going up. There is talk about recession and people are losing their homes. We are fighting wars in the mideast "to protect our vital national security interests in the region". And you want to blame environmentalists? Get real.
Dan: "I think the existing subsidies for renewables are pitiful, I certainly don't think we should revoke existing subsidies just because You, Lovins and a few environmentalists want us to in order to advance your agendas."
Actually, I also think subsidies/tax breaks for renewables should be expanded. My statement about ending energy subsidies is to make a point - which you never seem to get. Renewables are going to do well, unlike nuclear. Incentives for renewables make sense in order to speed up deployment - deployment that is already in process, without relying on $Billions in federal loan guarantees. I am more confident in renewables than you are in nuclear - that's all.
Dan: "Our state has some of the lowest credits for owner installed solar energy products of any in the entire United States."
Mississippi has no credits - zero - nada. But I'm planning (saving) for a solar system. Financial forcasters predict a $5K residential solar system within a decade. But I will install one when it dips below $10K. This year I have to replace my heating/ac unit, and I'm replacing that with the most efficient system my heating/ac service man knows of. That will be about $9K. I'm not wealthy. You can do things that are really important to you.
Dan: "Beyond that if a person wants to install a grid tied P.V. system on their home they have to be allowed by the local utility....I would think that environmentalists would be encouraging people to try and influence our policy makers to increase such thing as net metering in order to advance further solar application."
They have been - along with renewable industry leaders. Net zero metering has been high on environmental priorities for a long time. Sounds like the utilities are the problem - not environmentalists.
Dan: "...rather than be involved in fear mongering against such a clean energy as nuclear."
Well, you go ahead an lobby for nuclear energy there in Hawaii. Keep the waste there too, if and when you actually get a plant built.
Dan: "I support all forms of alternative energy as long as they are economically viable...."
You fail to comprehend that they are becoming more economically viable. In some regions, wind is competitive with natural gas. Solar is not far away. Why do you think so much investment is pouring into renewables (and not into nuclear)?
Dan: "...solar in my opinion has the greatest potential...."
Prices are coming down. Nanosolar
Dan: "...but without the net metering restrictions being lessened you will not get people to install solar on their homes, and in some areas they can't because the utilities don't have to allow grid tied systems."
So maybe you should contact your elected representatives and tell them about net zero metering. Environmentalists, as I've said above, have been trying to get this done at the federal level for years.
The Need for a Federal Net Metering Law
Actually, unless it has changed, this article show that Hawaii has a net zero metering law on the books.
Nanosolar
Sam: "I have explained it many times, Dan. You can store your surplus solar energy in a battery or you can turn surplus solar energy into hydrogen."
Storage is not the issue. The issue is moving existing technologies to mass production so that the economy of scale will bring prices down. Deployment is the issue, not technology. Obviously, however, as deployment/mass production take place, technology improves - that has been the case with the PC/Internet expansion, and there is no reason to think it will be any different with renewables/hydrogen - especially as our energy infrastructure relies on distributed generation.
Sam: "If you don't have batteries or hydrogen facilities, you could sell your surplus energy to the grid at top rates, and buy back cheap energy at night. As you'll agree, smart metering is part of the puzzle and I'm glad to see you support this."
Yes! Dan does get net zero metering right, and as you correctly indicate here, it is another factor that weighs against the ridiculous arguement against wind and solar - that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.
There may be a future for nuclear yet, But it is not now... at least not in Hawaii...
This seems to be more about a scramble for subsidy and investor monies than about the potential for Hydrogen as described by Sam in his piece about the Light House and Real Time application of Hydrogen Technology...
Steve has (and I believe Sam has has well) described their reasons for not supporting Nuclear as an Option to 'Alternative' Energy...
But this was about the application of Hydrogen, now...
To me, the issue of cost, in 'today' dollars or in 'hardships' to society are a twist and stretch on reality. They seem designed to fuzz and obscure the discussion, not focus it. It seems more an effort to slug out the "Money Race" than on the Practicality of either or other solutions...
For instance, Calling out the horizon for Hydrogen as 20 years off (despite the information relayed by Sam of the operating Light House in Britain) is disingenuous given that there is no verification for that statement and that (as Sam pointed out somewhere above) Nuclear expansion would be up to ten years off if the Permitting process and subsequent construction efforts began immediately (I believe that Business Week Magazine put the date as 2015 or so for the first ones to start coming online...)
So is this a genuine discussion about Cost of this or that or "hardships" to society (???not entirely sure what the thinking behind that is???) ... or... is this about the race for Subsidies and Investment ???
I'm sure Dan will be disappointed.
David: "This seems to be more about a scramble for subsidy and investor monies than about the potential for Hydrogen...."
I'm not sure it's that, at least from the standpoint of renewables. Renewables, however, are drawing far more investments than nuclear. Lovins had this to say about it:
In 2006, micropower
surpassed nuclear power's total global output and added roughly 34 GW of global
net capacity, 15 GW of it from wind power. Why is micropower winning? Well, as
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 2007 wind review (PDF) found, the
median price of power provided by new U.S. wind farms added during 1999-2006
was 3.4 cents per kWh in 2004 dollars, while the cheapest cost less than 2 cents.
If you take the higher median price, "firm" that variable wind power to make it
fully dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not, and take away its 0.86 cent
Production Tax Credit (far less than nuclear's subsidies), it still costs less than
half of what Keystone found new nuclear plants would cost. Wall Street
understands this arithmetic.
In 2006, distributed renewable power sources worldwide got $56 billion of private
risk capital; nuclear projects got zero. As Peter Bradford rightly notes, recent
industry efforts to entice the U.S. Treasury to give it $50 billion are a desperate
response to private capitalists' unwillingness to finance plants they consider too
costly and too risky.
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
David: "Nuclear expansion would be up to ten years off if the Permitting process and subsequent construction efforts began immediately...."
Exactly right! Proponents complain that the delay is due to regulations, but would we really want a deregulated nuclear industry? I don't think we need any Enrons in the nuclear energy arena.
Even so, as you point out, nuclear energy is no more of an immediate option than hydrogen (consider that 100 plants would have to be built in this country alone, and from 1K to 2K worldwide to have any siginificant impact on climate change - and that could take decades).
"Where do you get such nonsense? Hydrogen is produced and stored in large quantities now."
And exactly what does it cost to create hydrogen from petroleum products?
We already know that to create hydrogen through electrolysis (solar & wind) it takes a lot more energy than it does to create hydrogen from petroleum.
"If you don't see hardships from oil dependency now, then I can't help you."
Again Steve, how high will petroleum products rise if what you suggest be done is done?
The hardships brought about by $100.00 oil will seem minor when compared to the hardships that will come about by removing subsidies from petroleum products.
"You fail to comprehend that they are becoming more economically viable."
There still needs to be a viable backup energy source of which right now there is only one reasonable, economical and safe power source to replace petroleum and that is nuclear.
"So maybe you should contact your elected representatives and tell them about net zero metering."
Well I don't know what you mean by including the word "zero" but concerning net metering in general I have done so several times.
"Hawaii has a net zero metering law on the books."
Yes it does but the limits restricts net metering to about 2000 house holds on the island of Oahu so the other islands would be substantially less.
"it is another factor that weighs against the ridiculous arguement against wind and solar - that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine."
Steve you admit that your hydrogen economy is decades away yet you would restrict the sole energy source capable of getting us through to that hydrogen economy.
Just like $100.00 oil has brought a surge of investment into the renewable energy field it has also increased interest in the nuclear energy field, we will build more nuclear power plants because we need economical energy to replace fossil fuels.
In fact what we need to be doing is to be building as many nuclear power plants as we can and saving the natural gas, oil and coal for use as vehicle fuels to tie us over until viable alternatives are developed.
BTW with the standardization of the construction process a nuclear power plant can be constructed in about 5 years.
"Mississippi has no credits - zero - nada"
Does Mississippi have net metering? If so keep saving your money and check out this site, www.pacificsunlight.net you may get to spend your savings for something else.
David,
"For instance, Calling out the horizon for Hydrogen as 20 years off (despite the information relayed by Sam of the operating Light House in Britain) is disingenuous given that there is no verification for that statement"
We've been using fuel cells in space for, what? 50 years now? Just because a technology is in use does not validate its economic viability.
No one has yet posted the cost of operating said lighthouse.
And the verification for that statement comes from "experts" in differing fields that I have posted in prior articles that say a viable hydrogen economy is decades away.
Steve,
"I'm sure Dan will be disappointed."
Yes! considering we get 90% of our power from fossil fuel, on the big island however we can generate all the energy we need from geothermal.
It's more - not "a lot" more. Again, I refer you to
Twenty Hydrogen Myths (Myth #9, p.20)
Dan: "The hardships brought about by $100.00 oil will seem minor when compared to the hardships that will come about by removing subsidies from petroleum products."
Not paying the real costs of petroleum products has created the illusion of cheap gas. Apparently, we haven't learned in the past 40 years through 3 or 4 oil shocks. Now you want to complain about hardships? If there's one thing we've proven as a society, which is typical of all addiction problems, is that we refuse to deal with these things until it hurts more not to deal with them than it does to deal with them. The pain will spur change. If you're worried, you can start stockpiling non-perishable food.
Dan: "There still needs to be a viable backup energy source of which right now there is only one reasonable, economical and safe power source to replace petroleum and that is nuclear."
I strongly disagree. Nuclear is an expensive distraction. We need to move as quickly as possible to renewables, with hydrogen as a storage/carrier. I have also challenged your notion that nuclear is safe and economical. It is neither.
Dan: "Steve you admit that your hydrogen economy is decades away...."
I said it is decades away at the current pace. That can be sped along with the right incentives/policies. I also said other options - especially efficiency technologies - are more accessible in the short-term.
Dan: "Just like $100.00 oil has brought a surge of investment into the renewable energy field it has also increased interest in the nuclear energy field...."
Well, I see it differently. Investments are pouring into renewables, but not nuclear. Nuclear lobbyists are trying to get government to guarantee loans in order to attract investments. That is a big difference, which suggests that while there may be alot of talk about nuclear, there isn't much real interest.
Dan: "...we need to be doing is to be building as many nuclear power plants as we can and saving the natural gas, oil and coal for use as vehicle fuels to tie us over until viable alternatives are developed."
Again, you act like nuclear is something that will be available very soon. Not so, as I said above.
Dan: "...a nuclear power plant can be constructed in about 5 years."
Sounds like marketing or lobbying to me.
David: "Does Mississippi have net metering? If so keep saving your money and check out this site, www.pacificsunlight.net...."
Unfortunately, Mississippi has no net metering. I've seen this website before, and it does look like a real interesting financing strategy. NOVA recently showed a program, Saved by the Sun, which describes a similar plan - I think it was directed more at business.
Dan: "...on the big island however we can generate all the energy we need from geothermal."
Iceland also is on course to produce all of its energy from geothermal. Their plan is to be an exporter of hydrogen, described in this PBS video from 2005.
Hydrogen Hopes Part 2 - Fire and Ice.
Earlier, Dan, you asked me what has changed over the past few years. In regard to hydrogen cars, what has been changing quite rapidly is better lithium ion batteries and lightweight materials used in all parts of the cars. And of course, many people who were previously ignorant or in denial are starting to realize the facts, due to greater exposure in the media and discussions about global warming, Big Oil, the nuclear delusion, etc. Many are rushing to cash in on electric cars. I get numerous requests each day from people asking me to set up communities without roads.
A city without good sunshine will choose to focus more on alternatives such as wind or geothermal energy, while a city without wind will use more solar technology. Interconected grids can help each other out. If there is a high demand despite higher prices (e.g. when there's little wind or sunshine over prolonged periods), then it will pay to store more energy in the form of hydrogen at times when there's plenty of sunshine and/or wind. It seems likely that, as prices rise, large industries will minimize their use of electricity, postponing production until electricity prices come down.
This way, things will work themselves out. Market mechanisms are best in sorting such things out, balancing supply and demand better than government control and intervention does. Market mechanisms will smooth out peaks and vallyes, which will also help avoiding blackouts that are so often caused by sudden jumps in demand. Better load balancing is another beneficial effect of smart and distributed networks.
Many are currently considering using fuel cells and stored hydrogen for backup power (e.g. for hospitals), as this has many benefits, such as less moving parts (and thus more reliable), safer and - as cost of oil is going through the roof - cheaper. Another example of a situation in which hydrogen is chosen on its merits, today and it will increasingly be the preferred choice in future.
Exactly! Great article, as usual! Why Dan, stating as he does that "...on the big island...we can generate all the energy we need from geothermal," would be interested in nuclear energy at all is beyond me. Hydrogen via geothermal could be a leading industry in Hawaii, as well as Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho - they could be exporting hydrogen, just as Iceland is planning to do.
That may be true, but even cities in Canada are opting for solar, disproving the myth that solar won't work in the northern geographical areas. For example,
Ontario Approves a Pair of 10 MW Solar Projects
"Iceland also is on course to produce all of its energy from geothermal. Their plan is to be an exporter of hydrogen, described in this PBS video from 2005."
If a country with a relatively small population and surplus energy production wishes to produce hydrogen I think it is a great idea, it benefits their country if they can produce hydrogen economically, heck maybe we here on the big island could do the same. But for us (the U.S.A.) it is not reasonable to be building hydrogen production plants utilizing alternatives in the inefficient electrolysis system to make hydrogen.
"It's more - not "a lot" more."
Well I guess that depends on what your definition of "a lot" is.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38553.pdf
Gas reformation $1.15 per kg (the standard of Hydrogen generation today)
Nuclear $1.48
Coal $2.50
Wind $3.10 (electrolysis)
C.P.V. $3.18 (electrolysis)
P.V. plate $7.40 (electrolysis)
"Not paying the real costs of petroleum products has created the illusion of cheap gas."
It doesn't matter the illusion, people need to get to work, they need to heat their homes, society has been willing to pay for that illusion through taxes in order to get cheap fuel.
Lets just call it "the rich paying for cheap fuel for the poor", so they can drive to work and make a living to feed their families, so seniors living on a fixed income can heat their homes in winter.
"I strongly disagree. Nuclear is an expensive distraction." but then you offer NO near term solution.
"I said it is decades away at the current pace. That can be sped along with the right incentives/policies."
So you would either restrict subsidies on fossil fuels to be transferred to alternatives and cause great hardship on lower income earners or you would leave the existing subsides in place and dramatically increase the subsidies on the alternatives which would slow our economy and still impact the lower wage earner.
"Again, you act like nuclear is something that will be available very soon. Not so, as I said above."
The study I quoted in a previous article produced by an independent committee indicated that only one nuclear power plant took 10 years, the average is 5-8 years but with construction standardization 5 years should be the norm.
Here let me give you a comparison to go by.
When Boeing first commissioned their 737 next generation airplane it took about a month to produce the first wing spars (the main interior support for the wing) a year into production we were producing spars at about one every 1 ½ days. (there was even a brief period of time when we were producing at a spar every 3/4 days).
When the construction process is standardized production is drastically increased.
Nuclear power plants can be built in 5 years given the proper conditions , ie. The absence of radical environmentalist protests and lawsuits.
Sam,
"lithium ion batteries"
Toyota has delayed the inclusion of lithium ion batteries in their Prius due to their tendency to explode on impact.
"A city without good sunshine will choose to focus more on alternatives such as wind or geothermal energy, while a city without wind will use more solar technology. Interconected grids can help each other out."
Sam I couldn't help but laugh when I read that statement, because we are not talking about "choices" it is about NEED!
The pacific N.W, ( Seattle, Puget sound area) which is subjected to many days of cloud cover every year doesn't have a great deal of wind power available to them, so they could rely on the recently developed geothermal prospects being developed in Idaho, except that the Portland area a couple of hundred miles south of Seattle is also an area with many days of cloud cover every year (and a lack of any substantial wind power available) they also would be in need of the geothermal energy being produced in Idaho.
So see Sam it's not quite as simple as you would have it be.
"This way, things will work themselves out. Market mechanisms are best in sorting such things out, balancing supply and demand better than government control and intervention does. Market mechanisms will smooth out peaks and vallyes, which will also help avoiding blackouts that are so often caused by sudden jumps in demand. Better load balancing is another beneficial effect of smart and distributed networks."
Well Sam this certainly sounds good, you being such a good word smith and all, but what exactly are those technologies that will "will smooth out peaks and valleys" in the next 5 years?
But You and Steve just keep dancing around the fact that you have no near term solutions.
Only the desire to force people to accept your agenda because you know best.
The point is that Nuclear Power plants have had over 50 years of application within the structure of active society and its economy and energy use... It just hasn't lived up to its expectations...
That's just stretching and twisting... it's just tenuous...
That is an Excellent example of exactly what I was talking about in my last comment...
You seem to be putting such efforts into the stretches and twists and obfuscations... I just wonder at the reasons...
The relative cost (and attendant "hardships" as you put it) are quite low compared to many real issues this nation and the world has to and will have to pay in the future if such efforts are NOT undertaken... The relative cost of of Developing this Effort is small compared to the cost of the War in Iraq under all headings on that Reckoning Sheet I mentioned...
The Cost you ask about is Meaningless unless you are placing it In Context... Surely you understand that Concept... The number is indeed Useful... But not for the purpose you are raising that question for... It is the Trick of distraction... Of out of Contextedness...
I will not Attack the Nuclear idea or hope... many good people had and have a genuine desire to see it work for genuine reasons... it just has its issues and it has not been able to overcome those issues... It has its own 'costs' that should be looked at in context as well...
No doubt. Hope that's the route Hawaii takes.
Dan: "Well I guess that depends on what your definition of 'a lot' is."
All tables like this have assumptions. Unless you know what the assumptions are, it doesn't mean much. Lovins has different figures based on different assumptions.
"...mass-produced (~1 million units) miniature electrolyzers, each serving a few to a few dozen cars, could produce hydrogen competitive with taxed U.S. gasoline even using 3¢/kWh offpeak electricity, so household-to-neighborhood scale could become a successful electrolysis niche market if enough units are made." (Link provided above)
Dan: "It doesn't matter the illusion, people need to get to work,...."
Pursuing such illusions is what has got us into this mess. Continuing to pursue such illusions isn't going to change anything, except for the worse. You remind me of alcoholics/addicts, who, when I recommended hospitalization for treatment, objected because they couldn't afford to miss work. What they failed to realize was that if they continued in the same vein, they weren't going to have a job to go to. Likewise, you seem blind to the "big picture".
Dan: "Nuclear power plants can be built in 5 years given the proper conditions , ie. The absence of radical environmentalist protests and lawsuits."
Good try, Dan. Blame those environmentalists. The obstacles to 5 year nuclear plants are regulations, and I don't think you're going to convince anyone that a deregulated nuclear industry is a good thing.
I'll respond to the rest later. Time for Weather Channel's "Forcast Earth", with Dr. Heidi Cullen.
As discussed in the article Wild Green Yonder, we will be using a combination of electricity stored in lithium ion batteries (for the cars to start and the planes to take off) and hydrogen (for longer distances).
The cost of hydrogen will be cheaper than electricity, since hydrogen can be produced at off-peak hours from surplus wind and solar power. Read the following to get an idea of the true cost of alternatives:
In 2006, ethanol subsidies reached $8 billion dollars, and within 10 years those subsidies could reach $25 billion per year. GM claims that similar subssidies were needed (of about $10 to $15 billion) to jump start the hydrogen highway. [source]
To compare these subsidies with oil subsidies, the excellent book ZOOM quotes "The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, calculates that America spent $30 billion to $60 billion a year safeguarding Middle Eastern oil supplies during the 1990s, even though its imports from the region totaled only about $10 billion a year during that period."
http://www.amazon.com/ZOOM-Global-Race-Fuel-Future/dp/044658004X
Others claim such an amount is only skimming the surface.
"A more comprehensive study of oil's security subsidies added the costs of maintaining the taxpayer-funded Strategic Petroleum Reserve (a stockpile of crude oil kept as insurance against Middle East turmoil) and other oil-protection services (such as the Coast Guard clearing shipping lanes for, and providing navigational support to, oil tankers), and reckoned that the energy security subsidy for Big Oil is really $78 billion to $158 billion a year. Add in $2 trillion for the Iraq and Afghan Wars." [source]
And of course, in regard to fossil fuel one must also add the cost of mitigating global warming (if this were possible in the first place) and compensating the victims.
As discussed earlier under the article The Nuclear Delusion, safety concerns alone make nuclear prohibitively expensive, which is why the nuclear industry is asking for $50 Billion in Federal Loan Guarantees for New Nuclear Plants
People are quickly starting to realize these things, Dan, and as electrions heat up, we will be seeing more of these hidden subsidies exposed.
This is old news that no longer has value, but sadly it's still fished up from time to time by those who seek to spread myths. Back in 2006, Matsushita quickly responded to the safety issue:
Matsushita Says It Will Ship A Safe Lithium-Ion Battery
http://www.crn.com/hardware/196700391
Sony had some problems with some batteries, but takes great efforts to point out that its Lithium-Ion batteries are safe, as you can read in their background paper at:
http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-24/h3.html
In fact, Toyota has been selling cars with lithium-ion batteries since 2003, as reported in Autobloggreen.com
"As discussed in the article Wild Green Yonder"
As usual you are talking about the future with no near term solutions.
"safety concerns alone make nuclear prohibitively expensive,"
As usual you are fear mongering again the safety issue of nuclear power has been addressed, tested and proven safe.
"The Cato Institute"
I like the work of the Cato institute but much of those costs are likely to be their whether it is to protect oil or not.
"And of course, in regard to fossil fuel one must also add the cost of mitigating global warming"
That is of course is if you are of the opinion that global warming can be mitigated in the first place.
Steve,
"All tables like this have assumptions. Unless you know what the assumptions are, it doesn't mean much. Lovins has different figures based on different assumptions."
No Steve, people have assumptions, tables like these have their basis in facts, people like you speak of assumptions so you don't have to accept the facts.
""...mass-produced (~1 million units) miniature electrolyzers,"
If mass production will work to bring down the costs "miniature electrolyzers" it will work for nuclear power.
"Good try, Dan. Blame those environmentalists."
Well Steve I always say, whatever works.
Environmentalists were responsible for no new oil refineries in the past 30 some years, they are responsible for the recent devastating fires in California. They are responsible for death and hardship across the planet.
But of course the environmentalists consider all of this to be O.K. because it is all in the name of the greater good.
"Pursuing such illusions is what has got us into this mess."
Considering what you suggest as "treatment" the same old thing is much better.
"This is old news that no longer has value,"
So is Toyota now producing it's hybrids with the new "safe" battery?
Just because people claim to need something doesn't mean that they should get it. That's not how markets work. Such sudden concerns about perceived needs of the poor is typically voiced by rich industrialists seeking to perpetuate the privileges and subsidies that currently distort markets. They may spend a lot of money spreading myths and lobbying with politicians, but the facts speak for themselves.
We have no choice but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Dan, there is little or no scientific doubt about that. The nuclear alternative is unsafe, prohibitively expensive and would perpetuate the grip of the military-industrial complex. Instead, what we NEED is more distributed and smart networks that get their power from clean, safe and renewable alternatives.
This means that some people will have to get used to pay more to get energy shipped to their area, so they either pay up or reduce their travel. That is how market mechanisms work. Other people who live in areas where there is plenty of sunshine will get cheaper electricity. If you must subsidize people who cannot afford higher prices, then the last thing you should do is to hand out more privileges and subsidies to Big Oil. Instead, it makes much more sense to give the money to poor people directly, e.g. in the form of vouchers.
Read the story, Dan.
I posted an article from this last February in which Toyoty said they wouldn't be putting lithium ion batteries in their hybrids ontil the 2009 model.
But as I read your linked article I see they have been selling cars with these batteries on request only.
Hydrogen has been around for ages, and so have solar and wind power, electric motors and batteries. Technology has improved in many areas, but the basics have been plain to see for everyone who cared to look, and so have the many subsidies of Big Oil and the nuclear industry.
Well, even if you believe that only part of the cost was to secure oil supply, then this still constitutes a huge subsidy. And why wasn't similar money spent to save the people slaughtered in Rwanda, and more recently in Dafur? Is it perhaps because these places do not have oil?
They are keeping silent about the whole thing because everyone is waiting what politicians will do. It's obvious to me that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuel and nuclear and instead start using renewables, but the big car manufacturers are not likely to move as long as these subsidies remain in place. All this can change in a matter of months, as the political scene changes; just wait and see how quickly Toyota and others will roll out their production lines of electric cars!
Big batteries are already being installed, because the power grids know it makes sense.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19584/
What doesn't make sense is for them to make this technology part of their monopoly. Instead, it makes much more sense for people to put Lithium ion batteries in their cars and use them for the dual function of driving their cars most economically and participating in load balancing the power grid at the same time. That will put market mechanisms at work and stimulate innovation and efficiencies, rather than to perpetuate wasteful monopolies. The technology is available now and we should question politicians why they stop us from using it.
Show me your investors in nuclear without securing their investments with tax dollars. Then you might have a point. Of course, that doesn't answer any of the other objections agains nuclear - like waste and safety.
Dan: "When Boeing first commissioned their 737 next generation airplane...."
You mean the 787, I think, the one made with carbon fiber composites. That's the point, Dan. Efficiencies like carbon fiber composites, together with emerging renewable sources, make nuclear not only unwise, but unnecessary.
Dan: "But You and Steve just keep dancing around the fact that you have no near term solutions."
I don't know how many times I have referred you to Lovins', Winning the Oil Endgame. It is an energy strategy, laid out over the near and long terms. Just because you apparently are not interested in reading it, doesn't mean it has not been suggested to you.
Dan: "...people have assumptions, tables like these have their basis in facts, people like you speak of assumptions so you don't have to accept the facts."
Remind me never, ever to ask you for financial advice! I don't think even you have ever said anything so - uh - ill advised(?) before. Thanks, though (I guess). It puts your other comments in some kind of context.
Dan: "Well Steve I always say, whatever works. Environmentalists were responsible for no new oil refineries in the past 30 some years, they are responsible for the recent devastating fires in California. They are responsible for death and hardship across the planet. But of course the environmentalists consider all of this to be O.K. because it is all in the name of the greater good."
Negative branding environmentalists has worked to some extent, I guess. These issues are more complicated than simple sound-bytes, and are too far afield for this thread. Write an article about it, and I'll be glad to discuss each of these points further.
Yeah, well..., I guess that's the point.
Sam: "...even if you believe that only part of the cost was to secure oil supply, then this still constitutes a huge subsidy."
There are alot of hidden costs for oil. $100/barrel is only for starters. We are going to go into the 4th administration (at least) of having military involvement in the mideast "to protect our vital national interests in the region." Global warming is implicated in increasing storms, droughts, floods and wildfires - what's the $$$ amount on those events? Insurance companies aren't real happy about it, when they aren't trying to weasel out of their commitments. What are the health effects of pollution from fossils? Environmental clean-up when "polluter pays" laws are no longer enforced? The hidden costs go on and on.
How long would fossils last if we had to pay their real costs, instead of the highly subsidized price? The costs of renewables look very modest by comparison.
Sam: " That will put market mechanisms at work and stimulate innovation and efficiencies, rather than to perpetuate wasteful monopolies."
It doesn't sound like Dan is interested in a truly free market. He wants to guarantee investments in nuclear energy with my tax money. I guess he prefers a nuclear monopoly, whereby the same centralized energy rackets can control a vital sector of the economy - and he calls himself a conservative.
Sam: "The technology is available now and we should question politicians why they stop us from using it."
The jury is still out on the democrats in congress, but the news yesterday was not good.
"And why wasn't similar money spent to save the people slaughtered in Rwanda,"
Wasn't that where the U.N. stood around and watched?
"They are keeping silent about the whole thing because everyone is waiting what politicians will do."
More likely it's a liability thing, if they put them in all their hybrids and they started blowing up in accidents well Toyota would be liable.
"Big batteries are already being installed,"
Be sure and read the last paragraph of that article, and some of the comments posted in reply.
It's still years away from economic feasibility and there are some safety concerns.
Your Idea to use electric vehicles as a balancing act for the grid interesting but decades away before enough vehicles are produced to have much of an impact.
We need solutions now or in the near future.
Steve,
"You mean the 787"
Nope the 737 was redesigned in 1998, same look, modern technology.
"I don't know how many times I have referred you to Lovins'"
I just figured since you are one of the faithful and if Lovins had any near term solutions you would have posted them by now and since you haven't, he doesn't.
"Negative branding environmentalists has worked to some extent"
Especially when they are true.
"It doesn't sound like Dan is interested in a truly free market."
Not concerning something as vital to our society as energy.
"He wants to guarantee investments in nuclear energy with my tax money."
Not a single dime of your money will be used to fund nuclear energy, unless the environmentalists succeed in stopping construction midstream.
"The jury is still out on the democrats in congress,"
So Steve and Sam, did either of you contact your reps concerning this issue?
Both my wife an I did.
"How long would fossils last if we had to pay their real costs, instead of the highly subsidized price?"
If you are going to demonize fossil fuels by using the total cost argument, in order to be honest (something I know you and Sam won't be on this issue) you have to include the benefits to our society, the advances made, the lives saved, the money made, the healing of the sick and curing of disease, the feeding of the starving through the strengthening of food crops.
"and he calls himself a conservative."
That would be a Compassionate Conservative Steve. ;-)
Interesting. You should look up the 787, made of ultralight carbon fiber composites.
Dan: "I just figured since you are one of the faithful and if Lovins had any near term solutions you would have posted them by now and since you haven't, he doesn't."
I just figured out that you're too lazy to read. Lovin's book is full of solutions, short and long term. For example, Boeing's former CEO now heads up Ford. Perhaps Ford is beginning to understand that efficiency is a good thing. "Lightweighting", as it's called, can double efficiency. Plug-in hybrids double it again. When you ask about short-term solutions, these are two. There are many others. Read his book if you want to know more.
Dan: "Not concerning something as vital to our society as energy."
You mean something as vital to special interests. A distributed energy system is much more in society's interest than the centralized, soviet style energy monopoly you're proposing. You know, Dan, there's not much difference between state communism and corporate communism. Unfortunately, "conservatism" in this country has morphed into the latter in recent years - it's called "neo-conversatism," but whatever name you call it, it doesn't work. The evidence is all around.
Dan: "Not a single dime of your money will be used to fund nuclear energy, unless the environmentalists succeed in stopping construction midstream."
OOOOHHHH - those wicked, scheming, evil, bad old, boogeyman environmentalists again! Scarey folks, they are! Whatever.... Go sign the petition. Then you won't be hedging your bet with my tax money.
Dan: "So Steve...did either of you contact your reps concerning this issue?"
Of course. My senators (Lott and Cochran), and my representative (Wicker) are sick of hearing from me, I'm sure.
Dan: "If you are going to demonize fossil fuels...."
No demonizing is necessary. They are what they are - and to continue to use them is suicide. I don't have kids, Dan - do you and your wife?
BTW, thanks for the suggestion, though. I think I'm going to send off an extra contribution to the Sierra Club.
Numbers are Meaningless without Context...
As I was explaining to my seven year old daughter the other day for her math homework... a number is just a symbol unless you know where it belongs in the universe ... what are the numbers around it... What are it's neighbors on the number line? ... and in Comparing numbers? ... What is it exactly you are comparing?
For your numbers you provided above... You would have to add the words: "EVERY THING ELSE BEING EQUAL ... " (not necessarily in caps, but I did that for you because you don't seem to 'get it.' OR you can provide all the background and oh what's that word ... Context ... yeah that's it ... that goes into each set of numbers ... for them to be MEANINGFUL... other wise they are just symbols that look like they are saying something...
It's the trick of human neuro pathways... It's not your fault really ... you see humans are used to expecting something when they see something that they have seen before... like a series of numbers lined up next to each other ... so obviously there is a comparison going on... but the impulse to check what the meaning of each set of numbers is not always employed so the comparison is not always meaningful the way it seems like it is... just because all those numbers are all lined up next to each other...
For instance, sure XXX technology will generate x amount of energy for $x.xx per YYY input ...
But...
What is the cost on real estate of a nuclear power plant being built near by (regardless of its safety record either way, it's perception will drive down real estate values in the area) ... ??? Is that factored in? So how many plants need to be built? and how much real estate will that effect? how much money does that add up to?
So... How many construction companies KNOW how to build a nuclear power plant? How many are ready to start today or next year? What does that do to the Cost of the Plants? What does that do to the Time schedule of getting XXX many Plants online?
So... Nuclear plants are strictly 'On Grid' energy sources (Except for those cool nuclear subs and aircraft carriers... which, despite my desire to have at least one of each, I think they are out of my range money wise)... What will the transportable energy be?
Those Batteries that you keep poo pooing (yes I like that word too...) Maybe bio-deasle or woodchip fuel or "Switch Grass errrrryup" or Corn ethanol ....
So what are the costs of those fuels on those economies/markets??? What Subsidy Costs will be necessary to ensure NO LACK OF HARDSHIP on "Society" so that "SOCIETY" can purchase their gas for their transport vehicles??? (We wouldn't want to place a hardship on society while doing the wise and right and helpful thing now would we... well... not MERICAN society at least aye???)
So... since nuclear power plants are an obvious target for World wide terrorists, what are the costs of indefinite heightened security for those plants (including the stationing of say surface to air interceptor missiles like the Patriot system... only ones that actually work considering the risk of a direct airborne strike on a nuclear plant)...
What are the costs of shipping spent fuel to places that nobody wants to exist? (nuclear fuel that is...) is that included in the (today) cost assessment... ???
Do you GET IT yet Dan? Take your F*&!@$ Comparative Cost Dribble and shove it up your A$$
Your mumbo Jumbo (not the jet, your words) have been MEANINGLESS ...
You have shown that you jut don't get CONTEXT... Despite all your efforts to post this or that...
:)
Peace...
How much good would, say 8 Billion Dollars be going toward Hydrogen Technology research and Development? or any energy source for that matter?
How much impact does that much money have on the nation wide 'hardship' factor?
Is, say, 8 billion dollars something that is ok to be thrown away on a new Spy Satellite system that never gets built? Boeing spent around that much on a government paid program that got scrapped after producing not one launched satellite (they won the contract despite never having made a spy satellite before). They over ran the initial 5 billion dollar cost, asked for several billion more and got it, and then still never finished the program... (i'm sure they have to refund at least some of that money, yes? say one or two bil ... rest was un-recoverable latte costs built into the contract... ;) ).
How does 8 billion Dollars fit into the Context idea in relation to energy technology developement?
( you have to admit this whole "war on terror" has been good for certain $ector$ of society... no? )
"Interesting. You should look up the 787, made of ultralight carbon fiber composites."
I've been aware of the 787 for several years now. Boeing has been using carbon fiber in it's planes for years but this is a big step for the commercial side.
David,
I believe you are one of those unfortunate individuals who are super smart but extremely lacking in the common sense area.
The numbers I quoted were compiled in reports that gave context, a comparison between the differing energy types. But since my facts are not what you want to hear you get all pissy about it and throw a tantrum.
As I said before if you people are going to use the "total cost" argument then I guess I can too. Only I'm going to take it in the other direction, how much better off would the world be if fossil fuels had not ever been used?
Let's see our world would be practically treeless because everyone would need trees to cook and heat their homes. Horse and buggy transportation, bicycles at best. The list is endless.
I am unfortunate in my level of irritation at seeing the idoiocy being used by way of argument... You are backing away from your original cost thing... You create a smarmy greesey shmeer of arguments that are tenuous and disingenuous...
The above list was compiled as a usful comparision within the context of its own report, but you are sneaking it in when the original question was different... That sort of stuff irritates me, yes...
You made that original question for one single reason... to shake your boogy man bones... and you have not a thing to back it up with... but you keep reaching here pulling there...
Go drink your Joe... a dream about storming the Beaches of Normandy again... That too was another age...
You miss the point, Dan. The US invaded Iraq at a cost that is estimated to exceed one trillion dollars. The purpose of this was (at least partly) to secure oil supply. That's a big subsidy, Dan, whatever way you feel about the Iraq situation.
Dan: "[RE: Big batteries] Be sure and read the last paragraph of that article and some of the comments posted in reply. It's still years away from economic feasibility and there are some safety concerns."
I'm not promoting these types of batteries, Dan. What I was pointing out is that power utilities are now considering such batteries, because it make sense to store energy, for load balancing purposes. As I said, I do NOT advocate power utilities to add battery storage to their monopoly grip over supply of electricity. Instead, I advocate more distributed and decentralized storage, out of control of such monopolies. In my various articles, I have described various ways to store energy, such as burning biowaste by means of pyrolysis to produce hydrogen, using surplus wind power to produce hydrogen by means of electrolysis, local storage by solar power plants and the Lithium-ion batteries in cars. What we need is smart metering, differential pricing based on demand/supply, more active competition policy and termination of subsidies to polluting practices.
Dan: "Your Idea to use electric vehicles as a balancing act for the grid interesting but decades away before enough vehicles are produced to have much of an impact. We need solutions now or in the near future."
As I said, Dan, this would put market mechanisms at work and stimulate innovation and efficiencies, rather than to perpetuate wasteful monopolies. The technology is available now and we should question politicians why they stop us from using it. The cost of securing oil supply is now passed on to taxpayers. Had the cost been incorporated in the price of gasoline, there would now be plenty of electric cars driving around, powered by lithium batteries, supplemented by hydrogen.
Dan: "[honest about fossil fuel's] benefits to our society, the advances made, the lives saved, the money made, the healing of the sick and curing of disease, the feeding of the starving through the strengthening of food crops".
Far more benefits would have been achieved, had the subsidies to dirty energy been terminated and alternative energy been given more chance.
from the Paper you quoted that cost comparison from:
"4.3 Cost Comparison
Other methods of producing hydrogen include gas
reformation and wind, nuclear, and PV plate electrolysis. As shown in Table 4, consumer costs for these technologies range from as little as $1.15/kg for gas reformation to $7.40/kg for PV plate electrolysis. While gas reformation is inexpensive and nuclear electrolysis is projected to be cheap, neither of these technologies utilizes renewable resources. Furthermore, a byproduct of gas reformation is CO2, which is the very pollutant a hydrogen economy seeks to eliminate. While production from renewable resources is more expensive, the environmental benefits out weigh the cost."
note the use of the word "Consumer" in the sentence "As shown in Table 4, consumer costs for these technologies range from as little as $1.15/kg for gas reformation to $7.40/kg for PV plate electrolysis."
Consumer Cost for THESE Technologies.... that does not involve the big picture...
What sort of sense bases a decision on that narrow of a veiw...
"Well, Joe, you're gonna get to pay less for your fuel now... (but were gonna tax ya 'Balls to the Walls' ... wink wink wink ...)
Note the last sentence of that paragraph from the paper you quoted your list from:
While production from renewable resources is more expensive, the environmental benefits out weigh the cost."
Ok ... the environmental benefits out weight the costs... If you're some sort of environmental kook that cares about that, maybe that is important... (or any living person that has the sense to know that the Environment IS our welfare might care about that as well) ... But What benefits other than the Environment ALSO outweigh the costs that were outside the Perspective of this report??? (You see just because it wasn't in this report doesn't mean it's not out there... The authors of this report had a specific thing in mind when writting it... so it is incumbent upon us to use our critical thinking to fill in and examine the OTHER places... no?) I named a few costs of nuclear above that fit that category. What about trade? What will we do when the rest of the world is using something else and we have limited trade partners for our energy and energy use products? That fits the sentence "well, Joe, you'll be paying less for your energy, but sorry, we'll have to lay you off becuase our global trade economy is in the tank... but smile... your fuel is cheap.... ;) " )
Also from that report:
"Furthermore, it has become evident that concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) systems have a number of unique attributes that could shortcut the development process, and increase the efficiency of hydrogen production to a point where economics will then drive the commercial development to mass scale.
Concentrating solar energy to produce electricity can occur at quite high solar conversion efficiencies. The highest efficiency for solar concentrator cells, as measured at NREL, is now above 37%. Solar Systems P/L of Australia has exhibited a 40% boost in hydrogen production by separating the solar infrared radiation incident on concentrator solar cells and using it as the heat source for a solid oxide electrolyzer cell operating above 1000 Celsius [9]. With today's solar cell technologies, it is therefore possible to achieve a 50% conversion efficiency of the solar energy to hydrogen through high temperature electrolysis."
This report was concentrating on the comparison of Solar - Hydrogen production.
COST ANALYSIS OF A CONCENTRATOR PHOTOVOLTAIC HYDROGEN PRODUCTION SYSTEM
by Thompson, McConnell and Mosleh
in
International Conference on Solar Concentrators for the Generation of Electricity or Hydrogen, 1-5 May 2005, Scottsdale, Arizona (NREL/CD-520-38172)
You have no Desire to use Context.... That just gets messy... aye? ;)
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/documents/FAQs_000.pdf
Also watch the July 2007 Discovery Channel's segment on EnviroMission
http://www.enviromission.com.au/
The question is, why does all that potential and the presence of so much expertise to implement geothermal, wind and solar power technology remain largely unused in the US?
"Well, Joe, you're gonna get to pay less for your fuel now... (but were gonna tax ya 'Balls to the Walls' ... wink wink wink ...)"
Hmm… that could be said considering just about anything…..right?
"so it is incumbent upon us to use our critical thinking to fill in and examine the OTHER places... No?"
Yes but we all look at the same facts and make different decisions we all use our own personal judgment in coming to our decisions. Some allow themselves to be influenced by fear some by compassion.
I for one don't allow the fear mongers to cloud my judgment I prefer to have compassion for people in mind when making these important decisions.
Also from that report:
Good I think we should utilize all forms of energy to help avert the coming energy crisis including nuclear, because even when hydrogen becomes a viable energy source some decades away our society will need even more clean energy.
Sam,
"The question is, why does all that potential and the presence of so much expertise to implement geothermal, wind and solar power technology remain largely unused in the US?"
Sam the answer is…….COST…… even though oil is becoming more and more expensive the fossil fuel we use most to produce electricity is coal which is still very inexpensive.
So how is it you look in your crystal ball and see 'facts' regarding nuclear and hydrogen?
Why is it you brought up the original question of cost when there is so much more involved and so many perspectives on what the value and impact of those things are?
That is my Question, Dan... What was your Intent in asking that question?
That you are not a supporter of Hydrogen is clear (although you cited a quote from that paper that does indicate that ALL forms of energy should be employed, including Hydrogen and Nuclear, which is already being employed now,).
But why ask a Meaningless question to make the point that you are not a supporter of Hydrogen and not impressed with the Information that Sam presented? Either you do not get the concept that it is about MORE than just that cost thing you asked about ... OR ...
It was to purposefully direct the perception of Hydrogen as being much to costly to be Viable and doing so with purposefully Faulty Logic...
Your position against exploring Hydrogen is Clear, but you attempt to show support for that position by not accepting the CONNECTIVITY of all the parts involved... You pull this thing here or that thing there... There is no single Unified Theory, as it were, as to why Hydrogen is not viable ...
The information Sam presented here was Positive result on Employing Hydrogen by folks in Britain who are interested in its potential. Those are the basic steps toward showing Viability of a Technology...
The question about cost was certainly not 'out of bounds' and as I said way way above, it is an important consideration. You just continue to fail to grasp the concept of CONTEXT... and folks either do that out of ignorance (not in a negative sense there, honest ignorance) or they do it because context just gets sticky for their desired perspective...
What is this Crystal Ball you are looking in? You certainly have a lot of Faith in it ... and yourself ... I would, however, suggest that it is a bit foggy in there and you might zoom it out and pan it around some....
;)
Best...
How was it you described yourself a little bit back - "...a relatively uneducated conservative..."? Well, I don't know about "conservative" (looking at your articles, I wasn't surprised to see you defending the likes of addict limpbaugh, who also is not conservative), but I can certainly agree with "uneducated". The appeal to "common sense" is a dead giveaway.
David (to Dan): "Why is it you brought up the original question of cost when there is so much more involved and so many perspectives on what the value and impact of those things are?"
Just to split a semantic hair with you, David, what Dan keeps bringing up is the question of price - not cost. He doesn't seem to understand that they are two completely different things, which is why you keep trying to impress on him the necessity of considering context of pricing. Cost is the crucial issue - not price.
Sam: "The question is, why does all that potential and the presence of so much expertise to implement geothermal, wind and solar power technology remain largely unused in the US?"
The crucial question, indeed! Why are Pelosi and Reid abandoning incentives for renewables in the current energy bill? I've looked this morning, but I haven't found any update on that situation yet.
in which case it relates to the old question... "What does that have to do with the Price of Rice in China..." ;)
Peace...
"The appeal to "common sense" is a dead giveaway."
Ahh yes the common insult of the self proclaimed intellectual that has none of his own….common sense that is.
Be sure to go see my article on nuclear energy, and be sure to comment on it, go ahead and tear it up, I just figured I might as well join the rest of you point Ho's here on gather.
David,
What makes you think I am not for hydrogen? How many times do I have to post that I am for all alternatives as long as they are economically viable, and someday hydrogen will be economically viable. Just NOT today or in the near future.
"There is no single Unified Theory, as it were, as to why Hydrogen is not viable …"
Sure there is "It's to damn expensive!". If your Iceland and you're producing more energy than you need (and no way to sell it) converting all of that excess power into hydrogen and selling it is a good idea, but if your energy needs are growing it doesn't make sense to spend 1+ units of energy in to get 1 unit of energy out by converting it into hydrogen when you can use it in its original form and build nuclear power plants to provide backup for all of those alternative energies.
"The information Sam presented here was Positive result on Employing Hydrogen by folks in Britain who are interested in its potential. Those are the basic steps toward showing Viability of a Technology…"
Are any of you willing to post the cost of running that light house yet?
I found some info on it but I want to see how far you guys will carry this disingenuousness out.
BTW I have studies quoted in my article that take into consideration total cost of producing energy.
Define "common sense", Dan.
Dan: "I am for all alternatives as long as they are economically viable, and someday hydrogen will be economically viable. Just NOT today or in the near future."
Are you incapable of understanding the difference between cost and price? Oh, that's right, you consider wars and environmental degradation as acceptable costs, which are not included in the price of fossils.
Dan: "...if your energy needs are growing it doesn't make sense to spend 1+ units of energy in to get 1 unit of energy out by converting it into hydrogen...."
You keep getting confused re: the efficiency issue. Sam wrote a good article on Hydrogen Efficiency, and so did I.
Price is not cost. You are focused on price, not cost. Cost is the real issue. Price adjusts down with mass production. Your question isn't really the point. And you certainly don't apply the same standards to nuclear when you want my tax dollars to guarantee investments.
Hey, BTW, Dan, do you know how much private investment capital is going into nuclear energy these days?
You truly are clueless...
I've heard that living in Hawaii is "too damn expensive..." how is it that people do it? How come it is viable?
How much does milk cost in Hawaii? ... What!!! Are you F*!$#@ Nuts!!! Why would anyone do that!!! ??? How much is real estate per sq ft? even apartment rental? WHAT!!!! You've got to be out of your Mind!!! That's not Viable!!!!
Do you realize that Hawaii is the single furthest inhabited group of Islands in the entire world (the most remote from a major land mass). It is!!! Really!!! Go ahead and measure it on your globe... or go to a library... How can a Viable Civilization exist there? One that depends on resources from the main land?
Oh!! ?? What's that!!?? Have I taken that out of context?? But the Cost of Living is enormous... Go ahead... do that list thingy with the same items bought in Texas... Really!!!
Oh! But you have caught me!!! I DID take that out of Context didn't I??? It really is worth it to live in Hawaii... And I certainly am one who understand that...
I know you still will not 'Get It' Dan... I don't expect you to... The Serpent has Swallowed its tail here and it was a wee little Serpent that never really went any where much... Sad, Really, Dan... But some of them are that way I suppose...
You see, you really don't have to be an 'Intellectual' (what ever that is)... But it really should be incumbent upon folks to Think for themselves... digest, learn and understand...
(by the way... a close second might be the Island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean which is smack dab in the middle of that one ... but... Oh wait!!! That's right... The US Navy under Cooperation of the British Government Relocated the entire Population off their Islands back in the 70's So the Navy could build its shipping supply base there... (What? never heard of that? well read some of what I've written on it or google it) ...
Oh, But that surely must have been worth it though!!! for the safety of the western world... I wonder what the cost was??? (It certainly wasn't High in regards to what the Islanders were paid in compensation... The Brits and the Americans tricked them into leaving and just didn't bring them back... snicker snicker... The ones that were left were rounded up... their dogs were shot (not extra cost there in transporting dogs, aye? and it helped to ... "Convince" the children to Leave the Islands (not sure how much those bullets cost though)) ... Later on they were given a Pittance ... a Spittance really... so no need to worry about that cost to you... HEY LOOK !!! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT... SO HEY!!! NO EMOTIONAL COST TO YOU EITHER!!! now doesn't that work out nicely???)
See: What is Chagos...? http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976874965