House Resources Chair (Pombo) Says Hydrogen provision is BS...

[MazeRat7]

There link is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/energy.bill.pambo/index.html

He then goes on the state one of the prevailing myths...notably we don't have the technology infrastructure to utilize it in the short term.

I would suggest we get the facts into this misinformed souls hands...

here:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf

MZr7

[MazeRat7]

1. Hello DU anybody home ?????

The chair of the house resources committee today was caught "live" saying that use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel was bullshit and perpetuating one of the many oil lobby myths about the viability of using Hydrogen in the 'short term".

Now considering the number of post I have seen recently bitching about gas prices and who's feet we should hold to the fire, I would assume that a call to action (eg. an effort to debunk these myths) would be something that would garner some support. Am I wrong ?

Do I need to post/host several debate threads about using Hydrogen as an alternative fuel "before" trying to enlist support ? Maybe I need to first attempt education to see if others understand the technical arguments and are in agreement ? I am asking here ? I just can't believe this post is going to fade into the archives without any substantive comment.


MZr7

[babylonsister]

2. I'll bet you'll get more of a response if you

change your subject line. Something like, House chair claims alt. fuel not viable??? Somethin' catchier?

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Educate me. I don't know enough about hydrogen as a real alternative

I'd be happy to write or email if I knew what the hell I was talking about.

[MazeRat7]

4. So your vote is some DU "education threads".... Just asking ?

[Dragonfli]

5. I would try education

I personally can't imagine a down side to a fuel source that does not create pollution (assuming the hydrogen is not produced using non-green methods). I would love to get involved in a transition from fossil fuels to hydrogen as would many of my friends, but I find that very few people I know personally know very much about the issue.

I include myself among the ignorant, but thanks to your PDF link, I have been able to learn much more than I had previously known. I would like to thank you for that and assure you that it is a very important topic of discussion. My advise is to keep bringing this up up and educate as well as listen. If there are down sides it is important to learn what they are in the hopes of finding solutions to problems that may hinder such an obvious transition.

I just recently found this site and agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of the project. http://www.apolloalliance.org/

Let me know what you think of their efforts

[Clarkie1]

6. Thanks for the links. This guy is my representative.

This district has been identified as the best chance in California to defeat a Republican representative in 06'.

He has got to go!

[Joebert]

7. The Hydrogen economy is a bunch of crap.

Hydrogen would be a wonderful thing to use in our cars.

(I am going to generalize a little, but not much. Please nuke me if I forget something important)

What do we need to get to that point?

- Hydrogen cars
- Hydrogen "gas stations"
- Hydrogen production

Who is making hydrogen cars? GM. Someday. But they're so tied up with that, they may go out of business before they do it while Toyota, Honda and Ford get hybrids out there *now*

What's wrong with building Hydrogen stations?
1: New infrastructure reqired.
2: New storage methods.
3: New space for this, since we have a long rampdown period. Hydrogen cars will take a while to be driving up to the station, so you have to sell gas to all the other cars.

How do the Hydrogen stations get the Hydrogen?
1: Trucked in, required special trucks that can safely store and carry hydrogen.
2: Created onsite.

How do you make hydrogen?

1: Electrify water, but this uses far more energy than hydrogen creates in the engine, so this is inefficient.
2: Get real creative with other materials like petroleum, which we could just use for gas.


Where's this all lead? Who is to say that Exxon can't do this right now, and won't sell it for $8.00 a gallon?

In my opinion, this is a way to prop up some companies, and delay fixing the problem itself.

If we stay with gasoline/ethanol/biodiesel, but force manufacturers to get 100 mpg, then who cares if it's $3.00 a gallon? But based on demand, it should drop in a big way.

The infrastructure is already there to deliver gasoline from refinery to station to car. The gas trucks still work, the gas stations have storage capabilities.

The Chinese aren't going to hydrogen any time soon, nor is Europe. If we get highly efficient, and clean burning vehicles that use ethanol/biofuels, then gas will get cheaper, we won't run out, and we don't have to waste time on something that may not pan out.

If we HAVE to go to hydrogen, then I would much rather see incentives to the car companies releasing 100mpg gasoline cars as we wait for it to be done right the first time.

And finally, if GM is the only company actively pushing this, what does that say about the very forward looking Toyota, Honda, and the more recently awake Ford? Will the Korean manufactures go to hydrogen? The Chinese?

[msongs]

8. you are exactly RIGHT BECAUSE.....

hydrogen type cars are an end user, the so called hydrogen systems are fueled by energy generated BY SOME OTHER SOURCE which at this time is most likely to be either petroleum and/OR coal, or possibly nuclear, or in the least likely cases hydroelectric/wind/solar.

the current hydrogen based plans are NOT much of a relief.

it is a sell job to masturbate the public into thinking hyrdorgen is some kinda new energy messiah.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[MazeRat7]

9. Apparently you did not read my attached link about hydrogen myths...

Almost every point you site is basically a "myth" not based in todays facts....

Please read the attachment of "20 Myths about Hydrogen" then lets discuss those you disagree with.... I am sure overtime you will see this in a different light.

Hydrogen is not a panicia... but it is an important step in the right direction...

More to come....(vis a via education) Thanks everybody!!!!

MZr7

[Joebert]

10. We have to READ the articles?

:-)

Ok, I'll go take a look. My info comes from a variety of sources, and if I'm out of date, I'm sorry.

I just finished reading Wired's account the other day, and have done a lot of other reading on it.

I still stand by the fact that before we go fullbore into this type of system, we should at least be getting more efficient cars out there to get on the market while we wait for the Hydrogen stuff.

Off to read...

[Joebert]

11. In the future, please warn people they're linking directly to a PDF n/t

[MazeRat7]

19. Ok I'll bite... Why PDF's as opposed to images, mp3, etc ?

[Joebert]

21. PDFs have much higher requirements.

A PDF file for a dialup user will halt their system.

An image will most likely be a png or jpg, both precompressed for transmitting quickly.

PDFs can be very large, and you have to wait for the browser to respond to hit the back button. By simply putting (This link is to a PDF), that lets people know to be careful, or to just right click and save it.

Just a courtesy thing is all. :-)

[MazeRat7]

23. ok no prob... but also ....

If you put your mouse over the link and look at the "status bar" of your browser, it will tell you what kind of file you are linking too.

FYI: Just in case there are links out there without disclaimers as you suggest....*grin..

MZr7

[Joebert]

25. All these rules. Read the article, look before you click.

You guys are no fun at all.

:-)

[MazeRat7]

26. *LOL... yeah I know... sucks doesnt it... *grin. Welcome to DU !!!

[Joebert]

12. Updated per info provided and unread... :-)

Hydrogen stations aren't a problem.
Hydrogen production isn't that big a deal.
Hydrogen transportation isn't a problem.

I still believe that this will only benefit a few companies, and won't see realization any time soon.


I see this as a long term, someday type of idea. There is a lot that is being pushed to the side in the hopes this gets here soon.

It could be that you're looking LONG term, and I'm just looking short/medium term.

You may have a lot more faith in the system than I do.

[MazeRat7]

14. A little of both...

BTW.. thanks for taking the time to read the material... Like I said, its not a panecia...
I concede the point about corporate involvement, my thoughts are which corporations so profit.... The "Haves" or the "Have Nots".... Who is going to be more willing to deal in the short term ?

These gas producers have been locked out of big $$$ for a long time while knowing what their product is capable of... What about the automotive aftermarket parts industry ? Does it not seem possible that investment or production of fuel cells, automotive converters, home converters (off-grid electricity), etc might change some minds..

On last point, Dennis Weavers Drive across America green energy effort... there was a guy that participated in that with my make of truck (A Toyota). He converted the truck to run on hydrogen for a few hindered dollars then drove it across Americas on 5 cylinders of gas.....

Now that is cool.... or what ? Lets keep up the discussion.. and again thanks !!!!

MZr7

[Joebert]

15. Discussion good. Facts better.

I'm obviously a big fan of alternative energy and fuel sources.

I have been on a waiting list for an Escape Hybrid for 6 months, and waiting to get one for 2 years (since no dealers wanted my money).

I need the Escape due to the crap weather we can get here in Colorado, so I need some ground clearance, and the 4WD will be helpful. I was stranded in Philly for two days because Denver was snowed in, and all flights were cancelled. I've seen DIA do that two or three times now. I wouldn't be able to get out safely in my current car.

If I were made of money, I'd have an Insight as my daily driver until the weather turns poor.

As we get closer to the hydrogen vehicles, if the right one is coming out, I'll be in line early.

The GM fuel-cell "skateboard" idea is so good, I can't wait to see if they can pull it off. It makes good sense, and will save big on costs once they get it going.

In my opinion, the energy companies are very smart. They know that there are several technologies to come out. One of these days, Earth could get hit by a meteor covered in something that turns oil into dust. The energy companies would wait 3 days for their stock to tank, buy it all back, then say "Hey, look what we figured out..."

My original post came off way too negative, but mostly because I see so little support for just fixing the problems we have now. California can't improve emissions in their state because they get sued by the auto companies. The companies get the Feds involved because they think that California is trying to improve fuel efficiency. Emissions can be mandated by the states, but efficiency must come from the Feds.

So, we don't move ahead with plans for better cars now, while we wait for the next tech to come.

(My info on California pollution, is from PBS about a week ago)

[Zynx]

13. The only way to make hydrogen is with nuclear - and that's inefficent too

It frankly makes more sense to just use nuclear and electric cars, rather than using the electricity to crack hydrogen.

[MazeRat7]

16. Using electricity is the MOST expensive way to "Crack" Hydrogen...

Any hydrogen produced by the nuclear means would be 4-7x more expensive than energy produced by existing traditional methods...
Very little of todays market hydrogen is produced by electrolisys... the most accepted method today is natural gas reformation...

Again, please read the OP attachments about Hydrogen Myths.... Even after reading that basic document I still had to do more research before I was "convinced"....

Thanks,

MZr7

[Zynx]

17. Yeah, but using fossil fuels makes no sense due to thermodynamics laws

All non-nuclear/antimatter reactions are net energy LOSERS.

[MazeRat7]

18. Well Duh.. all energy production has "efficiency losses".... *grin

Its a matter of degree right ? If there weren't losses but gains, we would have that mythical perpetual motion machine that so many for so long have sought.....

MZr7

[Zynx]

20. Agree - so how does anything other than nuclear make any difference?

It requires more fossil fuel energy to make the hydrogen than we get out of the hydrogen.

[MazeRat7]

22. Conversion losses are unavoidable (See Myth #3 In my OP)

The question is degree...

Conversion of crude oil to gas will yield efficiencies of 73-91% - well head to retail pump.

Conversion of fossil fuel to electricity is only 29-35% efficient from coal to retail meter.

Hydrogen production is 72-85% efficient in Natural Gas Remormers and 70-75% efficient in electrolizers.

Keep in mind, hydrogen has a greater "end-use" efficiency than any of the traditional methods above.. It is that end-use efficiency that makes slightly higher conversion costs profitable to a typical corporation....


MZr7

[Clarkie1]

24. Here's my thinking about hydrogen-power.

I don't know much about the topic, except that I know there is no free lunch in physics.

It takes energy to make energy.

So splittling water to make hydrogen takes as much energy as the hydrogen itself would provide, no?

[MazeRat7]

27. Well if you use water and electricity perhpas...

there are many other sources of hydrogen other than water... Basically using electricity and water to get hydrogen is the most expensive, least viable method to obtain the fuel.

Again, please read the pdf (Hydrogen Myths) I linked to in my OP. It covers this exact question and others ask here tonight way better than I can in a board forum...

Thanks,

MZr7