Posts Tagged by Hydrogen
Energy Videos for Newcomers
| October 13, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
I’ve been preparing to make a few videos for newcomers to the subject of clean energy that answer basic questions on renewable energy, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and the energy-related challenges we face. I’ll be recording a series of short talks, aided by graphics, that point out that all our energy sources go back to the Big Bang, and come forward through time to us as follows:
Solar power is nuclear, of course, as all that hydrogen that became our sun billions of years ago undergoes fusion and emits enormous amounts of energy. That which we accumulated over hundreds of millions of years as fossil fuels (ancient biomass) we extract and burn as oil, coal, and natural gas. That which we receive right now, or in the very recent past, we have the potential to harvest as renewables: photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, new biomass, run-of-river hydro, ocean current, and wave. Read More
Some Dubious Advice from the AltCarExpo
| October 1, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
I always look forward to the AltCarExpo in Santa Monica each year. It’s rather like one of the major auto shows, but without all the flashing lights, loud noises, “booth-babes” – and, more to the point, all the gas- and diesel-powered cars and trucks. Though generally dominated by electric vehicles, the Expo contemplates all the alternative fuels: hydrogen, CNG, propane, and half a dozen others; it’s more than worth a visit if you’re in the area.
A local radio station, Pasadena’s NPR affiliate KPPC, did a live remote from the Expo, on which a few of my friends in this space were interviewed, taking calls from folks all over Southern California. Here was one that I found most interesting:
Caller: I notice that there are a dozen-or-so alternative fuels. Isn’t it unrealistic to replace one fuel type with dozens? Won’t there eventually be a winner?
Answer Summary: I hope not. We need to have all these – and more – represented in the mix.
No offense, but this is totally misguided. Read More
[The Vector] Nanotechnology – A Disappointment? (Part Two)
| December 17, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Energy Storage |
(continued from an earlier article)
Down in the Quantum World
Nano particles are less than 100 nanomicrons in width, meaning that a human hair is approximately 80,000nm wide. Down at the molecular level, materials behave differently to the way they behave in larger volumes. Because so little is known about material behaviour at nano level at the International Forum on Chemical Safety at Dakar in 2008, 71 governments and 12 international organizations recommended the application of the Precautionary Principle to it. The principle states that anyone proposing a new initiative in a risky area must prove their initiative is safe before they carry it out.
Yet, according to the Friends of the Earth report, regulatory systems in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan and other countries treat all particles the same; that is, they do not recognise that nanoparticles of familiar substances may have novel properties and novel risks. Carbon nanotubes for use in electronics, energy applications and vehicle parts may be associated with the cancer mesothelioma, for example. Although many nanomaterials now in commercial use pose greater toxicity risks than the same materials in larger particle form, if a substance has been approved in bulk form, it remains legal to sell it in nano form. Read More
Nanotechnology – A Sandwich Without the Beef? (Part One)
| December 13, 2010 | Posted by Aedan-Kernan under Energy Storage |
The ability of nanotechnologies to deliver cost-effective renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions has come under attack in a recently released report by the environmental campaigning organisation Friends of the Earth.
The nano technology industry has over-promised and under-delivered, according to the report. The performance of nano-based renewables has been considerably less than predicted. Efficiency of solar energy conversion by nano solar panels is still about 10% behind that achieved by silicon panels, while the energy and environmental costs of the nanotechnology industry are far higher than expected.
Hydrogen – Back Like a Rash
| October 6, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
To my utter astonishment, we in the US and Europe are begieged with renewed interest in hydrogen. I urge readers to arrive at their own understanding of the merits of hydrogen as a carrier of energy. But for those who may be unwilling to go through the process and are looking for a readers’ digest version, here are three simple data points (as usual: the science, the business, and the politics) that clarify what I think everyone ought to know about hydrogen.
The science: Hydrogen in its pure form is rare, because it combines so readily with other substances, releasing energy in the process. It can be burned (combining it with oxygen to form water) or used in a fuel cell, (i.e., pulling the electron off and moving it through a separate electrical path from its proton, again, ultimately combining with oxygen). But energy is required to create this pure hydrogen such that we can then harvest useful work from these processes. And the mechanisms by which hydrogen is generated (e.g., electrolysis) and then the energy is gathered from burning or fuel cells are three times less efficient than the standard mechanisms by which electrical energy is generated, stored in batteries, and then converted back into useful work through electric motors.
The business: It is true that civilization will face issues in building out the electrical grid to provide ultimately a complete network of convenient and safe charging stations for electric vehicles. But the electrical grid has a 130-year headstart on whatever delivery mechanism is proposed to serve up hydrogen over the enormity (3.5+ million squares miles) of a place like the United States. In addition to being far more efficient, electrical energy is already available in the vast majority of homes and work places.
The politics: In my opinion, the idea that we should take an inefficient carrier of energy and use to to create “hydrogen highways” could only have come from someone who really doesn’t want alternative fuels ever to see the light of day, and is disguising this malice in a not-too-clever way. And those of you who have seen “Who Killed The Electric Car” will recognize that this is hardly an original idea.
Not too long ago, it appeared that the powers of reason and decency had made their case effectively, and this distraction had been shelved; in fact, Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s DoE defunded hydrogen at the federal level earlier this year. But it’s back with a vengeance. For example, California, while teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, is subsidizing the hydrogen highway with public funds.
And ask yourself why this is happening, and who will be delivering this hydrogen (assuming it ever happens). ExxonMobil and Chevron. Hey, guys: You make $10 billion in profit each quarter. If you really want this to happen, do you mind paying for it yourselves? How dare you ask the taxpayers to pay for this folly, when you and only you will profit from it — on the off chance that it ever happens?
There you have it, the 1-2-3 of hydrogen energy. If only it were that easy to make it go away.
