Originally blogged here.
PINEDALE, WYO. — As reported by the L.A. Times, Federal land managers are recommending companies be allowed to drill almost 4,400 new natural gas wells in western Wyoming, where energy development already is blamed for a spike in air and water pollution. Shell, Ultra Resources and Questar want to relax drilling restrictions meant to protect wildlife "so they can tap into an estimated 20-25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That's equivalent to about a year's supply for the entire country."
Personally, I find it outrageous that the administration is willing to drill in the wilderness for such a small amount of natural gas- why aren't we hearing about solutions that help the country, not just the oil and gas companies? Wind power would seemingly be ideal for the large ranches in Wyoming.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Wind power is great but I don't know how much wind you get in Wyoming. I would doubt that it could replace the natural gas.
I don't have a problem with them drilling if they are held to the strictest standards for environmental quality. They estimate a certain quantity of gas before the drilling and when the well is activated they have no idea how long it will produce. It may be a year and it may turn out to be ten years. But we do need the natural gas, that is for sure.
The wind power, solar, hydrogen and other alternative energy sources are great and we need to develop them but there will continue to be a place for oil for many years to come, if we start promoting alternatives right now.
The mistake come when drilling is done and because of that, no further real effort is made to develop alternatives. Both need to be done simultaneously. I would doubt the drilling would be any more disruptive than the zillions of tourists that go through Yellowstone every year.
Natural gas and gasoline will continue to be a mainstay in our energy system for many years into the future, even if an all out effort is made to switch over to alternatives.
James, what makes you think they are going to hold to high ethical standards? The President is authorizing that the environmental protection of Wyoming, put in place by legislation, be ignored. It has already been determined that acceptable environmental standards mean no drilling in Wyoming. The White House is overruling the law, from my reading of the situation.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any particular shortage of natural gas at the moment. Obtaining this tiny amount of natural gas will have no obvious effect on gasoline prices or oil prices, and will be largely irrelevant except to the habitat that is destroyed.
Wyoming has lots of wind. The Wind River Mountain range is even located there, if I'm not mistaken.
I simply see no point in drilling for natural gas in Wyoming. This small amount that is the expected yield isn't going to make any useful difference to any of us.
The group: We Comment Back
I think Wyoming would be a good place to build some nuclear energy plants too......
I think that guy James really needs to get out more or go back to school! The drilling going on is on flat dry desert like ground. its 30 miles from the "wilderness." I think expanding drilling here is a WONDERFUL idea. And also useful or not, everyone uses natural gas on a daily basis. I dont hear or see anyone boy-cotting it. It is windy in wyoming? Your point? do you all REALLY think you can save this planet? in the past 2 years suddenly everyone is "trying to save the planet" and "lets go green." please, if you cared you would have been doing something DECADES ago. I think all of you need to come to pinedale and join the rainbows up in the mountains and say prayers for peace and love.
AMERICA NEEDS THE JOBS FROM DRILLING!!!!
It is up to the state and federal governments to see that high standards are met. The oil companies have assured everyone that it can be done. Now make them prove it.
I still believe that it is in the nation's best interests to drill. It's as simple as that. I know we disagree here and that's OK also. I'm not gung ho like unknown unknown who is not thinking about it, but I do favor access to the natural resources that we possess and that will be eventually used.
I don't necessarily believe that the amount of gas is as minuscule as you think. And I don't know of legislation that says no drilling in Wyoming. If there is it is bad legislation in my opinion. I believe you are actually referring to regulation rather than legislation.
I do not believe that wind is ever going to replace natural gas. My home is heated by natural gas. How would wind run my furnace? Natural gas is very clean and very efficient and the infrastructure is already in place. Not so with wind. Who is putting it in place? And when will that event occur? Until it is in place and determined to be a viable replacement for fossil fuel, we need to drill.
To which James were you referring? And why are you hiding behind total anonymity? All Gather has some anonymity but "unknown unknown" with no profile at all? Don't you believe in what you write?
Regarding the drilling and the anonymous comments, "Shell, Ultra Resources and Questar want to relax drilling restrictions meant to protect wildlife. " The high plains are still a wildlife habitat, even if they aren't in Yellowstone, Grand Teton or Wind River country, and this drilling would break current environmental regulations, which is why the regulations have to be relaxed for the drilling to go ahead.
I wish that I could share James C.'s trust in the gas companies and the Federal government, but, as I many many have written about extensively, the Bush administration has frequently and intentionally broken Federal law on environmental issues. The most obvious case in in the Pacific Northwest, where certain pesticides now know to be extremely toxic to salmon were supposed to be relabeled and have the use patterns altered to protect fish (and people who eat them). However, the Bush administration has refused to honor a Federal Court order to enforce the changes. The result is that environmental groups are having to sue the Federal government to get the Federal Government to obey and enforce its own laws, and abide by Federal court decisions. It is not a pretty picture, and the environment is being severely damaged. Based on this and other widely reported evidence, I do not trust the President or any of his oil and gas friends to care one iota about the environment.
If you would like to see documentation of these claims of mine, it can be found here:
President Bush does more Environmental Damage
7 Decisions on Species Revised- from the Washington Post
Advocates Sue to Enforce Pesticide Order - TIME and Washington Post
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................
James: "Wind power is great but I don't know how much wind you get in Wyoming. I would doubt that it could replace the natural gas."
"Wyoming is recognized as one of the premium wind sites in the United States.... In-State Wind Energy Potential: 277,200 MW capacity after land use and environmental exclusions//545 kWh billion per year in electric energy
I don't know how much natural gas there is in Wyoming, but it seems to me that wind energy is certainly plentiful enough.
James: "I don't have a problem with them drilling if they are held to the strictest standards for environmental quality."
That's a big "IF" there, James.
James: "The mistake come when drilling is done and because of that, no further real effort is made to develop alternatives."
And that's really the point, James. Established industries do everything they can to suppress development and deployment of alternatives. There is a long history of that.
For example...
James C: "I do not believe that wind is ever going to replace natural gas. My home is heated by natural gas. How would wind run my furnace?"
It might not replace natural gas for you, but wind energy produces electricity. There is such a thing as electric heating systems. Also, hydrogen fuel cells can "co-generate" heat and electricity. Wind is a very efficient source for hydrogen. There are a number of ways that wind energy could be used for residential power.
There is enough wind energy potential in the 2 Dakota states alone to produce enough hydrogen (500 million tons) to power our entire transportation demand, given efficient vehicles. Source: Winning the Oil Endgame
When discussing wind/gas relationships I didn't quote any source because I don't know which is greater. And I could site sources on other things but it still comes down to opinion regardless of how many sources one cites. Also, keep in mind the tremendous lack of infrastructure to support hydrogen for transportation. It will take time, a lot of it, to achieve the needed level of infrastructure. We need fuel in the meantime.
I know I'm not going to change your mind and appreciate the reasoning behind your stance. I feel that to not access these resources will simply mean that they will be accessed at a later date and at considerable higher cost. Many people heat with natural gas. Electricity is generated with natural gas. Smelters operate with natural gas. If it is accessed, it will be used.
My trust in this administration to adhere to any environmental commitment is out of the question. However, there will be a new administration in January. And no administration in the history of our nation has been as flagrant, arrogant, and as far outside the law as is this administration. It is only reasonable to assume that the new administration will do a better job of complying with court orders.
I am a very practical person and while I agree with most of what you say, I fail to see the logistics achieving what is needed without damaging seriously, many of our citizens. Electricity is the most expensive way there is to heat a house and Idaho has the lowest rates in the nation. My house, with electric heat, would run over $300 per month and this kind of excessive cost can break many of our citizens.
Finally, there is the "bully factor" on the part of the oil companies. If we do not allow drilling, they will punish us severely. Surely you do not question that. I loath giving in to bullying but feel that, from a practical standpoint, this is one time when it is necessary. We need all energy sources available to help remove our dependency on Mideast oil.
I can assure you that we do not disagree on principle but do on the logical course of action.
James C., one thing that is worthwhile understanding is that Europe is already way ahead of us in building infrastructure for wind, solar, and geothermal power. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to install much of the renewable infrastructure. Just imagine what the dollar will be worth vs. the Euro when Europe is running on renewable energy and not a slave to natural carbon fuels like oil/gasoline.
Also, how can it possibly make sense to have a moratorium on installing solar energy facilities on Federal land? We don't need to drill to put up solar power stations (not they they are without environmental impact, but it is tiny in comparison top drilling).
I think that one of the most telling stories is that of Norway. This is a country that has a huge excess of oil and natural gas, and exports them, but they are putting in large wind power installations. Why? Because that is what makes sense economically and environmentally. It does no good to be an oil exporter if all of Europe goes to electric cars, like Holland is doing; Germany and Spain have major solar installations already providing significant power. So, this business about dependence on foreign oil is a red herring. Countries that have their own natural resources aren't depending on natural gas and oil and coal for the future, except the US. We should not be doing so.
As for the lack of infrastructure, it is only going to be lacking as long as we avoid building it. Why not now?
As for the wrath of the oil companies, lets make sure that windfall tax codes give their obscene profits back to us. They can still have super-sized profits. Furthermore, if we are running on wind and solar, who cares what the oil companies do? (Chemical producers, for one, but that is another issue.)
I'm with you one hundred percent on the idea of lets do it now! It will take substantial time if we start tomorrow. It should have been done back in the Regan administration and then by each president since. Therefore, tomorrow is really years too late!
I also don't understand the moratorium on installing solar. I admit, I've not heard a discussion and explanation of the why on this so perhaps I'm wrong, but I see it, right off the top, exactly as do you.
I don't care if they pass a windfall tax or not, the oil companies will pay exactly what they want as no one can understand and analyze their financial condition other than another oil man. Let's face it, we are not equipped to control the oil companies on such things. The can and will punish us if we don't give in to them.
If we are going to have major wind energy ten years from now we need to start on the logistics and infrastructure immediately. You and I are in full agreement on this!
If there is no gasoline sold at all, the oil companies will still be in business because of the many things that are made from petroleum, and will still have their gross profits. Not only are tires made from oil, the roads we drive on are usually made from oil!
I don't care of Europe is ahead of us, what is important is what are we doing to provide our citizens with what is needed. When it comes to energy, the US and Europe are not comparable because of the difference in the nations involved. People in Europe don't normally need a personal car. In our wildly spread society, a car is a must for most people, no way around it at this time. Good public transportation would help but you can't run public transportation where there are only a handful of people to utilize it.
Right here in the Boise area we need a fast, light rail system to serve between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise with a spur to Eagle. Each morning and evening the freeway turns into a very long parking lot with one person in each vehicle. This screams for public transportation and the Mayors of the cities want it but that would mean taxes, the dirty word.
What infrastructure are you referring to? Hydrogen can be produced on-site. That means no pipelines, no ocean tankers, no tanker trucks. Every gas station in the U.S. could be incented to have a hydrogen pump. How long would that take? I remember just a few years ago, Exxon completely leveled every one of their gas stations and mini-marts, and then rebuilt them. That couldn't have taken more than a couple of years. So what massive infrastructure are you referring to, and what's the basis of saying it will take alot of time?
James C: "...it still comes down to opinion regardless of how many sources one cites."
Surely you're not part of the "perception is everything" persuasion. There are facts, such as the substantial amount of wind potential in WY, which I cited above. Opinions differ in quality as well. There are opinions and then there are informed opinions. Belief, I suppose, is opinion with no basis.
James C: "My trust in this administration to adhere to any environmental commitment is out of the question. However, there will be a new administration in January."
It's not all about this adminstration. Extracting all fossil fuels is environmentally damaging, regardless of the politics. It is the nature of the industry. That said, I don't have any illusions that fossils will not continue to be mined and drilled/pumped for decades to come. But as you indicate above, expansions of these industries (along with nuclear) has the effect of suppressing growth of renewables. We are feeling the stress of a tighter energy market now because we failed to respond well in the wake of previous crises. It doesn not seem to me that we can continue to ignore these crises without incurring future economic catastrophy. Expanding "more of the same" energy sources, which have no long-term value" is a set up for further economic pain.
For example, Reversing Winds: America's Rediscovery of Manufacturing
Even with spotty renewals of the production tax credit for renewables, wind energy manufacturing has gained a foothold in the U.S. But the inconsistent, relatively short term nature of these tax credits (something that fossils/nuclear industries don't have to contend with) makes it difficult for U.S. businesses to fully commit to renewables.
The infrastructure includes someone to build all those pumps to extract hydrogen. And just how do those work and what energy do they require? I've never even heard of them so I'm very curious.
The stations will not create their own hydrogen. Companies like the oil companies will produce it in mass and distribute it. To do it on site would require a pump for every vehicle they are filling. The, you must have a reasonable fleet of vehicles capable of running on hydrogen to provide a market for whoever produces it. That wind energy requires the building, locating and installing of all those wind generators. That, if the energy you state is there, would be a massive number of generators. The placing of those generators will require not only permitting but the purchase or leasing of all the necessary locations and fighting the battle with those who don't want them there. This is a time consuming process. And some environmental groups are sure to sue over the placing of wind turbines.
The companies producing wind generators should be able to make it without special tax incentives. Just as all other forms of energy. I'd have no objection to giving some break to renewables but if the market is there they will work anyway.
It''s not going to happen quickly, things just don't work that way in this world.
I haven't the foggiest idea as to what the "perception is everything" means or refers to so I guess I can't respond in an intelligent manner to that. What I was referencing was the fact that one person can produce fifty sources, you tube, etc., with all kinds of claims and statistics supporting the argument they propose. Someone else can get fifty sites with contradictory "proofs" and in the end, one must make an opinion on the basic logic and what common sense dictates to the person making the decision.
What you read on Gather is 100% opinion. What each person bases their opinion on may vary greatly although two people can have the exact same "facts" and still come to diametrically differing conclusions to support their opinion. There is nothing wrong with this, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some follow more of what I would feel to be good logic than others. Most of what you write is very good and quite logical. I only digress in my opinion when it comes to the rosy scenario you describe for making this change over.
You are a dreamer and visionary. That is needed in this country! But the practicality of the real world is not what you see when you look at a situation. But that must be considered by those who would actively implement all the great ideas you originate. I can admire the visionary and still understand the practicality and the the law of inertia as it applies to anything which might be in any way political, and this is definitely political! And for what it is worth, perception has nothing to do with it, I still deal in reality, not perceptions.
One thing I've learned is that if it were a really simple process, it would already be done!
Please give me more information on the on site systems for producing hydrogen. I assume that it is extracted from water, but what kind of system is used that can be practical in mass usage?
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article and thread!
Hydrogen can be obtained in many ways, using mixtures of water and carbon monoxide, using the products of biomass combustion, from electrolysis of water, as a byproduct of petroleum refining, etc. Hydrogen is already produced on a huge scale world wide for use by industry. Gas separation technology, including selective membranes and other methods, can help the process. I'm sure Steve will have some links for you. I use hydrogen gas every day in my research lab. There is a large distribution system in place now. It wouldn't have to be created from scratch., and there are methods of generating hydrogen on site, from electrolysis of water, for example, so is doesn't have to be transported in every case.
Virtually every nation has national health care also. Do you think those restrictions and punitive taxes are going to go away just because some of us think it would be the thing to do? I don't have the money to lobby for the things in which I believe, do you? Those for whom the structure was created certainly have the resources and will use them.
I've seen a lot of compressed gasses in various industrial uses but hydrogen is one I've never seen. That lead me to believe that the infrastructure is not that great. For lab experiments I have no doubt of its availability. But is the supply there in sufficient availability to induce manufacturers to re-tool and start mass production of hydrogen cars?
Your comments about the various sources of hydrogen are very interesting. I was totally unaware of some.
Frankly, I love the idea of hydrogen vehicles! And I believe we will eventually have them. However, for the time being we are using oil, whether anyone likes it or not. And we need to think in terms of what is practical at this time. What may be in mass production in ten years is not relevant to current needs.
You know full well that this is a political matter and that politics are very hard for the common person to influence. It is also slow and cumbersome. We have to live with that, regardless of what other countries might do.
See here for the basics of fuel cells: http://fuelcellsworks.com/JustthebasicsonHydrogen.html
From http://www.querycat.com/faq/a8c8d888b56b95aecf29d1faa041fd6d
Does it matter how we get the hydrogen? (Frequently Asked Questions)
Yes. It is important that the energy source we use to get the hydrogen does not produce harmful byproducts. If we used coal, petroleum, or nuclear to produce hydrogen, we would not be reducing emissions. This process is called "black hydrogen." In fact, President Bush has plans to build 1300 nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen. This would defeat the purpose of producing hydrogen; hydrogen is a viable energy source because it has zero emissions and no toxic byproducts.
From Air Products, a major commercial producer of hydrogen (using largely conventional and highly-entrenched technology): About 45 billion kilograms (50 million tons) (of hydrogen) is produced every year—enough hydrogen to fuel 250 million fuel cell cars. Some of this hydrogen is being used to fuel vehicles.
http://www.airproducts.com/products/merchantgases/hydrogenenergyfuelcells/frequentlyaskedquestions.htm
You've never heard of electrolysis? Compared to the vast expense of "protecting our vital national interests in the mideast," I would think that incenting the mass production of electrolyzers would be relatively inexpensive. You must have heard of electrolysis.
James: "The stations will not create their own hydrogen. Companies like the oil companies will produce it in mass and distribute it."
It seems to me that's a decision we (as a society) have yet to make. A distributed energy system has many advantages. But even if BP or Shell owns the stations, they will still find it less expensive to produce hydrogen on-site, rather than incur needless expense through the kind of delivery system that's needed for gas.
James C: "you must have a reasonable fleet of vehicles capable of running on hydrogen to provide a market for whoever produces it."
That's why Honda has decided to lease it's fuel cell model in California, where there are hydrogen stations. In 2005, PBS "Scientific American" aired a program, which featured a hydrogen hybrid Ford. The researcher said that if hydrogen were an available fuel, due to the conventional nature of the technology used in the car, hydrogen cars would be on the road in a short period of time. Most automakers have hydrogen models, so why do you think that they wouldn't produce them?
James C: "The companies producing wind generators should be able to make it without special tax incentives."
Renewables are expanding despite a tax/incentive structure that favors fossil/nuclear energy. If you agree that those industries should repay all the incentives and subsidies they have enjoyed for decades, then I'll accept your point. That said, Amory Lovins would agree with you on this one. He favors getting rid of all tax breaks and subsidies for all energy sectors. Already, he says, "micropower" is out-distancing fossils and nuclear in the rest of the world - he U.S., he says, is lagging behind.
James C: "What you read on Gather is 100% opinion."
Well, at least I provide information that backs my opinions. There are such things as facts, such as the Honda Clarity and solar hydrogen stations. I don't make these things up.
SMUD Solar Array To Power Its Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles
The Zero-Emission Sedan of the Future. A Reality Today.
James C: "...the practicality of the real world is not what you see when you look at a situation. But that must be considered by those who would actively implement all the great ideas you originate. I can admire the visionary and still understand the practicality and the the law of inertia as it applies to anything which might be in any way political, and this is definitely political!"
I agree it's political. Practical? What's practical? Continuing to lose American lives and wealth in order to protect the current energy system? Giving $billions to the nuclear industry to build 100 new plants in the U.S., when we don't know what to do with the waste we've already generated? Spending $billions to develop "clean coal" (as if there were such a thing) technology and deep sea oil drilling? What's practical about our current energy situation? If you haven't noticed, oil is getting increasingly expensive, and that affects everything else. I've been saying it forever - "visionary" that I am. One thing that's very clear - practically speaking, what we're doing now ain't working - it ain't working for national security, the environment, public health, the economy, etc., etc., etc.
I'm sure Bill Gates (or Henry Ford, for that matter) didn't adhere to James C's "practicality". If that "truism" were actually "true", we'd all still live in caves. James C is more accurate when he states, "this is definitely political!" It is. We, as a society, make choices. Our choices haven't been very good ones lately, and it remains to be seen if we will make better ones in the future. James C says alot that he's grounded in reality, but I contend that we decide what our reality will be. The status quo isn't reality so much as our capacity for deciding our fate is.
Watch this February, 2005 "Scientific American" program, which aired on PBS - especially the second segment. It may demonstrate to you what was already available 3 years ago.
James C., as I mentioned above: we have available 50 millions tons of hydrogen per year, enough for 250 million fuel cell cars vehicles, according to an old, very well-established chemical/gas manufacturing company. That's a lot of hydrogen capacity, but the capacity could be increased dramatically with already existing and commercially-used technology for on-site hydrogen production.
It sounds from the links you provided that one place is going to run seven hydrogen powered vehicles on hydrogen produced by solar power. That is great! It clearly should show what can be done once the infrastructure is in place.
The hydrogen cars to be leased are going for $600 a month which makes them less than totally viable. But it is a start! I would very much like to see hydrogen replace fossil fuel as rapidly as possible. But possible does involve the many things I mentioned previously including the political. This is a worthy project and I would like to see our government behind it far more than they currently are.
Steve, you said "You've never heard of electrolysis? " and no, I haven't heard about it being used in the production of hydrogen. That's exactly why I asked for more information. To me, electrolysis is a destructive process from which underground tanks, marine vessels, and radiators, must protect themselves. I am not a scientist or researcher and I'm certainly not aware of all processes for producing hydrogen. I believe that you, Steve, are some kind of lab technician, what is it that you do? If I've got the wrong person, forgive me!
James, you mention 50 million tons of hydrogen per year, what do we lack to be able to produce that? And what technology is involved? Sounds like a lot of hydrogen but where are we on producing fuel cells? Are they in mass production?
You've got to have a sufficient market for this to induce manufacturers to build the cars, the fuel cells, the wind generators and whatever is required to get this 250 million vehicles on the road. You're describing a technology still in the prototyping stage, it sounds like.
Frankly, we are not discussing the price of gasoline but what we are going to do in the future. We know that we cannot depend on gasoline in the long term. We also know that in the short term that is exactly what we will depend upon. The price of that gasoline is controlled totally be a few oil companies. Strikes me strange, the federal government broke up the biggest oil companies many years ago. Now they are standing by while the big ones eat the little ones, to the detriment of the consumer! Right now you can talk about supply, although that really has zip to do with the price of gasoline. The supply is plentiful at the present time.
You can talk about speculation and that probably has more to do with it. However, most of the factor is the law of supply and demand as modified by the oil companies. They have the supply tied up and will demand whatever they want for their products.
Steve, your links were interesting. We know that when these videos are produced they do so in the most optimistic and positive manner possible. I would too, if I were producing them. They do not take the real world into consideration as it would distract from their rosy scenarios. We've go a ways to go before this is viable.
If we could have 50% of the nations passenger cars operating on hydrogen in ten years I would consider it fantastic progress and strongly doubt it can be done. And that's just personal cars, not trucks, trains, ships or what have you. And even that may well be unobtainable. Probably not a reasonable or practical goal, what do you think?
I do think you are missing the boat on nuclear. It is going to be used and its environmental characteristics are excellent. This may well be another case where an industry has already controlled much but be that as it may, they will be built and utilized.
I agree with you that "clean coal" is a contradiction in terms. I have little interest in that process.
Steve, you mention Ford and Gates, but fail to note they were neither one going up against a developed technology that owned the market, had tremendous infrastructure and had the best lobbyists in the business! This is where reality rears its ugly head.
That is partially why I say let them drill and get it over with. The resources accessed will never go to waste, as I mentioned about the other uses for petroleum.
Finally, never underestimate the effect of the tree huggers on the deploying of any new technology. They will find something about wind generators, solar cells or the use of these products, environmentally unsatisfactory and the lawsuits will begin! To the extent they serve keeping things done properly I have no objection. They will not stop there!
I will do my part in advancing alternative energy technology by voting for those persons most likely to support these technologies. When prices are where I can pay for them, I'll purchase alternative technology vehicles. In the meantime, I drive vehicles which get good mileage, though not in the class with the Prius, and ride a motorcycle a lot. The next move is by industry to support the changing technology and by politicians to make it possible. Do either of you disagree?
Just to be clear, you said that you thought hydrogen production was small, so I provided you with the facts as quoted by one of the world's largest hydrogen producers (or maybe the largest): 50 million tons is the current actual annual commercial production of hydrogen. The url was cut off, so here it is in tiny form: http://tinyurl.com/5nla43 . I can't be bothered to put hyperlinks in this darned gather comment form all the time, it is too much work. This url, if you paste it in your browser, takes you to a site indicating that 4% of that total 50 million tons is made by electrolysis. The rest of the hydrogen currently comes from methane, coal and oil, for the most part. However, if the hydrogen produced by electrolysis were uneconomical, the amount would be 0 %- as a commodity hydrogen is traded worldwide and is readily available everywhere. Nobody would pay more than they need to for hydrogen today, so electrolytically-generated hydrogen must be feasible for the sites that use it (that could more of an advantage for electrolysis if there disadvantages to using carbon-based sources of hydrogen were to crop up, like, say, global warming, air pollution, ground water pollution, acid rain, habitat destruction, black lung disease, etc. ...).
Best wishes!
That's the point of most of my comments. Things are possible; it is a political issue - not a technological one; government, which we determine by who we elect, should be doing more to promote the rapid deployment of these technologies.
James C: "I believe that you, Steve, are some kind of lab technician, what is it that you do?"
No. I read intently the work of Amory Lovins after seeing him interviewed by Charlie Rose a couple of years ago. I think I linked that interview above. I also think I linked Lovins' excellent articles on hydrogen, "Twenty Hydrogen Myths", and "A Strategy for the Hydrogen Transition". Lovins is probably the most forward thinking expert on energy in the U.S. today. When Rose asks him why he has begun to pick up traction (he consults with Wal-Mart and the Pentagon), his response is something to the effect that when you have a track record of being right, people begin to listen. I think he should be the next Secretary of Energy.
James C: "You've got to have a sufficient market for this to induce manufacturers to build the cars, the fuel cells, the wind generators and whatever is required to get this 250 million vehicles on the road."
You've got to have the right incentives. That's the whole political issue. The wrong incentives places us in the very difficult situation(s), in which we find ourselves today.
James C: "We know that we cannot depend on gasoline in the long term. We also know that in the short term that is exactly what we will depend upon. The price of that gasoline is controlled totally be a few oil companies."
I don't disagree with that. I think I said as much, when I said that the high gas prices we are presently paying is not for available gas. They're for future gas, because we are paying for the infrastructure the oil companies will use to recover oil from increasingly remote and difficult places. The problem is that we don't get a "vote" about that, except that we do vote for politicians, who might effectively give us an alternative. I'm not talking about tomorrow, but over a period of a decade to a few decades. In the short run, there are no solutions. High prices are here and we will have to cope with them the best we can. We are paying the price for not making wiser decisions when we had he chance. Keep listening to the fossil/nuclear folks, and we will continue to reap sorry consequences.
James C: "I do think you are missing the boat on nuclear. It is going to be used and its environmental characteristics are excellent."
I will never vote for someone, who promotes nuclear energy - period. I have certainly not "missed the boat" on nuclear energy. But I think you apparently have swallowed the industry promotion. The fact is that even with federally guaranteed loans, private investors do not appear to be taking the bait. Lovins says that just on economic considerations, nuclear is a dying industry - so he doesn't even see a need to debate the safety and security issues.
James C: "I agree with you that "clean coal" is a contradiction in terms. I have little interest in that process."
"Clean coal" is preferable to nuclear, IMO. Actually, carbon from coal can be used to grow algae. It is not my preference, since the procurement of coal is still an environmental nightmare. But coal, used to produce algae, is something I would consider compromise on. I'd never compromise on nuclear. Never!!!
James C: "...you mention Ford and Gates, but fail to note they were neither one going up against a developed technology that owned the market, had tremendous infrastructure and had the best lobbyists in the business! This is where reality rears its ugly head."
That's the "reality" you refer to? Well, I'm not cynical. And I'm not sure you're not confusing the two, reality and cynicism. I think we do have a political vote. In this election, democratic candidates are going to give renewables a better chance than republican ones. We make our choices, which, IMO, means we shape our own reality. We are not passive victims, unless we choose that.
James: "That is partially why I say let them drill and get it over with."
I repeat: We are not passive victims, unless we choose that.
James C: "never underestimate the effect of the tree huggers on the deploying of any new technology. They will find something about wind generators, solar cells or the use of these products, environmentally unsatisfactory and the lawsuits will begin!"
Environmentalists are split on some of these things. I think environmentalists, who oppose solar and wind are wrong - pure and simple. But most environmentalists are not opposed to these technologies/industries. That said, massive projects in deserts are not really necessary. Germany is lining the autobahn with solar panels. We have tens of thousands of miles of highway we could line with solar panels, not to mention roofs and parking lots.
James C: "I will do my part in advancing alternative energy technology by voting for those persons most likely to support these technologies."
That would be democratic candidates (generally speaking) in this election.
James C: "When prices are where I can pay for them...Do either of you disagree?"
No disagreement with that. I do the same. I buy products I can afford, though I admit that I have stretched many times more than my wife wants us to, paying more than most would. I don't really consider my own personal financial "payback" to be that much of a consideration. But I think it's important in the sense of living the values that I subscribe to. So if you are doing those things in your last paragraph, then we are "practically" on the same page.
Yep. There is a very healthy amount of hydrogen being produced presently, perhaps half of which is used in the refining of oil. Ironic, isn't it?
James B: "The rest of the hydrogen currently comes from methane, coal and oil, for the most part."
I think most hydrogen production today is from reforming natural gas. Lovins actually sayst that reforming natural gas is the preferable method for the short term, with electrolysis coming on as wind and solar gain increasing market share.
James B: "...electrolytically-generated hydrogen must be feasible for the sites that use it (that could more of an advantage for electrolysis if there disadvantages to using carbon-based sources of hydrogen were to crop up, like, say, global warming, air pollution, ground water pollution, acid rain, habitat destruction, black lung disease, etc. ...)."
But you include those pesky "externalizations", which industry, lobbyists, marketeers, etc., are so adept at keeping out of the public discussion. As I think you have indicated before, if we had to pay the real cost of fossils/nuclear energy (instead of the subsidized price), we would have long since been using renewables.
Man..., it's getting late. Later.
Really, please look at the Air Products link/a>. It has a pie chart that shows the detailed breakdown of hydrogen production. I paraphrased the pie chart, but I didn't misrepresent it. The are a big company and I wouldn't necessarily believe everything they say, but they are good at what they do.
Yes, Steve, it is ironic that the hydrogen goes into gasoline production (via refining oil)! I'd like a day without irony once in a while, but no such luck.
I am totally with Steve B. only the nuclear issue. As I have said elsewhere, I believe that any American who supports nuclear power is a complete hypocrite, because nobody, and I mean NOBODY, will allow nuclear waste to be transported through or stored in their own back yards. That means they want someone with less political clout, like Indian Reservations or developing countries (is there much difference?) to suffer the toxic legacy of nuclear power. It is a bit like the Supreme Court overturning the ban on handguns in Washington, DC, but forbidding handguns or any weapons in their own court. If the conservative members had any real guts, they would demand that everyone who appeared before them wore a sidearm. Nevertheless, we can defeat this hypocrisy, especially if we act.
Writing and educating is part of taking action, but it can be tiring. Good night all, and have a good 4th of July holiday!
Not so! There is a fellow Gatherer, who said he would support waste being stored in his home state of Hawaii - Dan E, I think is his name, if I remember right. However, when I ask him if he's contacted the governor with his plan, I get no response.
I know you aren't trying to show me up by inserting a hyerlink in a competent manner :)! I also know I can do it properly, but there should be a darned link button on this comment window (which should be much larger). I can't type very accurately on my laptop and my eyesight is getting bad, so I make errors.
Most recently, some sand from one of the Mideast countries was contaminated and they wished to store that in Idaho, and it was fought by Idaho and apparently it has been decided to store it elsewhere. They are planning to build a nuclear electricity plant in Eastern Idaho as we speak.
Nuclear was set back many years because of the WPSS thing in Washington many years ago. That had nothing to do with the safety, efficiency or anything like that, it was strictly the financing, but it nearly killed the nuclear industry!
Mr. Lovins may think nuclear to be a dying industry but I'm convinced he is thinking like a true hydrogen apostle rather than a realistic citizen. Nuclear powers our submarines and it will eventually power many of our cities, whether we like it or not.
It is my understanding that Obama supports the use of nuclear for power generation. However, if you vote for him, he will probably do much more for alternative energies than any Republican. It would be foolish for persons who feel like we do, to vote for McCain because Obama supports nuclear. That would be the classic case of cutting of one's nose to spite one's face!
Nuclear is not, at this time, capable of powering our vehicles. Perhaps someday it will be able to but for now, submarines is a more practical application. Nuclear could be used to generate the electricity for extracting hydrogen, and in that manner, be used for transportation.
If I try to look into the future and see what is done, I see tremendous amounts of hydrogen being used for any application where heat needs to be generated or explosions captured. And I see a significant amount of nuclear power being generated for any of the available uses. It is kind of like a large stone rolling down hill, if you try to stop it you'll get crushed!
I know that you can present all kinds of evidence why we should not use nuclear but regardless of the shortcomings and hazards of the fuel, it is going to happen in the US just like it has done in many European nations. When we are storing waste from foreign countries on a regular basis, it strikes me as ridiculous that we are not using nuclear. We take the waste because we don't want it to fall into the wrong hands and that is a major source of irritation to me. I believe that any country using nuclear should have the waste stored on their land, not ours.
I will agree with you that Democratic candidates are the only ones who will come close to giving alternative energy even half a chance. We have an open senate seat in Idaho this year, to replace Larry Craig, and a good Democratic candidate will be going for the seat, but this is the most Republican state in the nation so success is doubtful. He'll get my vote, for sure. This matter of who we elect is the most crucial issue there is in the deployment of alternative energy, in my opinion. We certainly need sixty Democratic senators because of the cloture problem in the senate. Else, the Republicans can and will, effectively block any legislation put forth by progressive senators.
No problem that you're aware of, that is. And you cannot guarantee that there will continue to be no problem for the next several thousand years, can you?
James C: "...but strongly object when the waste from the entire nation and even foreign countries is scheduled to be stored here."
Why object? That's part of the top-down, authoritarian, centralized "infrastructure" that nuclear energy is. I'm sure you have something in common with the citizens of Nevada, who don't want to be the nation's nuclear waste toilet either.
Jame C: Mr. Lovins may think nuclear to be a dying industry but I'm convinced he is thinking like a true hydrogen apostle rather than a realistic citizen."
You're convinced - based on what? Without government support worldwide, nuclear is economically not viable. That means more "hidden costs" for your "realistic citizens", who will have to accept nuclear energy "whether we like it or not". BTW, in that statement, you make my point about nuclear being authoritarian, top-down, and centralized. That didn't work in the USSR, so why do you think it will work here? BTW2, solar and hydrogen power our space program.
James C: "It would be foolish for persons who feel like we do, to vote for McCain because Obama supports nuclear."
Your question is a good example why hypotheticals ridiculous. McCain supports nuclear energy far more aggressively than Obama, though you probably won't see that in any of his campaign ads. Obama has qualifiers around safety and security, but it is clear that he would favor renewables. I supported Clinton, because she was least likely to pursue nuclear energy - or at least that was my impression.
Now..., what I am convinced of is that the only possible logical reason for supporting nuclear energy is its military applications. That's why most, who support it (and I am not necessarily including you here) are hawks.
James C: "Nuclear could be used to generate the electricity for extracting hydrogen, and in that manner, be used for transportation."
Bad idea. Why use nuclear when wind energy from two states alone can provide all of our transportation needs?
James: "...submarines is a more practical application."
As I said, military application. BTW, Lovins consults with the military, who shows much interest in renewables. Why? Reducing our need for mideast oil means "negamissions", missions not necessary.
James C: "I know that you can present all kinds of evidence why we should not use nuclear but regardless of the shortcomings and hazards of the fuel, it is going to happen in the US..."
That, my friend, says it all. I wish republicans would use that as a campaign slogan, because that is their position. Also, Germany and Japan are moving away from nuclear energy. Japan recently had a major nuclear scare when one of its largest nuclear plants was damaged by an earthquake. The plant was unknowingly built above an earthquake fault. Yucca Mt. is also in an active seismic region. Yes, all kinds of evidence.
James C: "I believe that any country using nuclear should have the waste stored on their land, not ours."
Well, why would you have a voice in it anyway? The "whether we like it or not" is part-and-parcel of the nuclear energy framework. Now - to have any significant effect on climate change, the U.S. would have to double its nuclear power plants, and worldwide, around 2000 would have to be built. That's alot of waste. Where's it going to be stored?
James C: "...this is the most Republican state in the nation so success is doubtful."
Roger Wicker, the republican congressman from my district, was appointed to take Trent Lott's senate seat, when Lott retired to become a lobbyist. Wicker's re-election is not a sure thing. He is being challenged by Ronnie Musgrove, a former democratic governor in Mississippi - also a heavily republican state. Most consider that seat to be a "toss-up" in November, so I am sending him money. I am also sending money to democratic candidates in other "toss-up" states, like MN and VA.
James C: "We certainly need sixty Democratic senators because of the cloture problem in the senate."
True enough. That is why I am sending money to democratic candidates in "toss up" states, including my own state. 60 seats is a very tall order, even in this political climate. But perhaps some of the surviving moderate senators will vote against cloture if democrats "expose" (I mean make alot of noise about) what the filibusters mean. Moderate republican senators, like Snow and Collins in Maine, could vote against cloture.
We at least agree that it is a political issue, and that democrats need to be the party in power (at least for now).
I would hope you lose your resignation in regard to nuclear energy. It is a bad idea that is not inevitable, though the industry tries to convince you otherwise. Renewables are easier, cheaper, cleaner, safer and sustainable. They can be deployed quicker and in a much less centralized manner (i.e., democratic).
u2? :)
Right before the oil price dip came the following from the NYT:
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 -- 8:48 AM ET
-----
Consumer Prices Surge 1.1% in June; Most Since '82
The figure reported by the Labor Department was well above
what economists had expected, as rising gasoline prices
strained an already struggling economy.
Read More (you'll probably need to register to see the article; registration is free).
Right after the minor dip in oil prices came the following announcement from the New York Times :
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 -- 4:16 PM ET
-----
Dow Gains More Than 270 Points
Propelled by another steep fall in crude oil prices and a
dividend increase by Wells Fargo that eased investors'
concerns about banks, the Dow Jones industrial average
finished the trading day on Wednesday with a gain of 276.74,
or 2.5 percent. Broader indexes also gained.
Read More
I'd be surprised if any rally in stocks is sustained (but I have no crystal ball and Wall Street doesn't run on logic).
Manufacturers, say of carpet fiber, are affected more directly if they use petroleum products in their processes.
Gasoline has to be refined from oil in a large refinery, the oil has to be transported to the refinery and then the gas has to be distributed around the country, and the tanker trucks driving gas around may have filled up their tanks with "old prices". So, a lot of factors buffer the consumer from immediate benefits of a one-day or brief change in oil prices. That is the way I understand it. Plus, oil companies get away with whatever they can, in the best traditions of capitalism. Others may wish to weigh in with more comments.
Thanks, James, this makes some sense, so according to this, we wouldn't see a price change unless the reduced crude price was constant or lower by the next haul, also factoring in, of course, the price gauging.
I am hearing words about Hydrogen powered cars and it excites me. I know some are on the road being tested now and how exciting - water used for fuel.
Electrolysis, as discussed above, uses electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen in two separate compartments. The hydrogen can then be burned (with the oxygen, actually) to generate heat, and water is the only byproduct of the combustion (no CO2, no NOx or SOx that cause acid rain and air pollution). Some of the claims about water as fuel that show up on the internet now seem like scams to me, but this part about electrolysis is very true (I've even done it myself in the lab).
I agree that there is a lot of exciting technology on the horizon. Some of it is very close, like the 60 mpg VW JettaBlue tdi, which is a relatively conventional, but well engineered turbo-diesel 4-door car that comes to the US in August, at a base price of $22,000. Even more exciting to me is the arrival of plug-in hybrids which used combined electric motors and gas (or diesel) engines and can be plugged into the wall socket to recharge them. The have been available in Europe for some time, and are available now in the US, but only as fairly expensive conversions done by small companies. That is about to change, with Toyota delivering a plug-in Prius to the US in 2010. By the way, Germany calls "green" things "blue" because of associations with their Green Party that people don't want to make.
Thanks for the feedback!
I just heard this on the news this morning, and thought I'd pass along the info in case you hadn't heard it too. The price of crude ended up dropping $16 a barrel last week. They said that for every dollar it drops the price at the pump drops 2.5 cents. This means that we'll see a 40 cent drop, and it probably is according to what we agreed above, because they said it would be contingent on the price remaining that way for the next 2-3 weeks, when it will take effect.
The analysis I've heard said that the price drop is due to the (nearly) worldwide recession, meaning that speculators are planning on lower oil use as we all get poorer, and as factories produce less because we aren't buying anything. This is not related in any way to the offshore or Wyoming drilling, according the economists I listened to.
"But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.
One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years."
Very specific plans are proposed, and none of them involved invading other countries or killing people or spending huge amounts of defense money while increasing the national debt (so they apparently had no appeal to the Republican politicians).