Of course you are right that fuel cells aren’t simply magic…the energy has to come from somewhere. However, they would give us considerably more flexibility in our energy options and would also give us much easier ways to control the pollution from energy production since it is easier to control when it is produced in fewer places than from every single vehicle.
But, yes, fuel cell vehicles in and of themselves don’t solve the problem. We have to switch to friendlier forms of energy production and have to learn to conserve resources (by using our vehicles less, using other more efficient forms of transportation more, using more energy-efficient vehicles, …) New energy technology alone will probably not completely solve the problem (and it certainly will not solve related problems due to cars such as traffic congestion, sprawl, and general degradation of our social environment).
Electricity is available from solar cells which represent an infinitely renewable power source. Yes, they cost more per watt than gas fired generators but there is no alternative in the long run. Current research into extremely cheap, self-assembling layers for organic solar cells is making leaps and bounds. These could be built into the exterior walls of buildings and rooftops to create a distributed power generation grid. The ever-elusive possibility of fusion generated power needs further development too. We are obliged to direct a larger portion of our national budget towards the investigation of alternate energy resources. At some time in the near future the cheap ride that is oil will be over forever.
There are also space based solar arrays for power generation to be considered. We immediately need to start converting our automobiles to hydrogen gas consumption. The pollution load from petrochemical propulsion is not sustainable and more than justifies a shift from dependency upon it. We have no choice in this matter and to delay is merely to forestall the inevitable. It is far better for us to address this now while there is still a little wiggle room than to have our backs to the wall when the change is made.
Almost any other technology is going to be more expensive than oil based fuels. It is why oil has reigned supreme for so long. The party is over and we now must find an alternative. If we are able to disentangle ourselves from politically counterproductive ties in the Middle East, then the time has come to do so. This outcome alone makes it more than a little important to pursue. The reduced ecological side effects only reinforce the imperative nature of this technological paradigm shift.
Excellent article Stoid. Here is a very telling excerpt;
“Nothing we initiate now can substantially postpone the world production peak [in 2004-2008]: No Caspian Sea exploration, no drilling in the South China Sea, no SUV replacement, no renewable energy projects can bring results quickly enough to avoid a bidding war for the remaining oil. And we can only hope that the war is waged with cash instead of far worse weapons.”
(bolding mine)
This is yet another example of why I am so concerned about current disregard for the importance of this situation. It is the height of folly to assume that our economy will be able to maintain sustained growth without converting over to another energy source. I will also advocate here a bridge of nuclear power if (as mentioned in the article), we can assure safe operation of the reactors. France has run a safe and highly effective nuclear power generation program for decades and we can too. But long term pollution and difficulty in disposing of nuclear material makes it a poor choice to focus upon as any true salvation in this crisis. Solar electricity coupled with hydrogen production is the one avenue that holds ultimate promise for clean power both now and in the future.
Actually, I think our case is even stronger than this. Really, it is not correct to say that other technologies are necessarily more expensive. That is only correct to say in a context where oil is subsidized as strongly as it currently is (both through very direct subsidization of oil exploration, etc. and, more importantly, through externalizing its environmental costs…and, of course, now we must add the international political costs).
Whether or not many other technologies are really already cheaper in a fairer accounting system is something I am not sure about but my guess is that at least some of them are. Those who claim that oil is reigning supreme in a “free market” have a definition of the term “free market” which is essentially meaningless from any clearheaded economic point of view [as is often the case with arguments predicated on the “free market”].
An additional thought: Regardless of how the accounting comes out regarding other sources of energy vs. oil when the oil is not subsidized, what is abundantly clear is that we would be using considerably less oil simply by being less wasteful [e.g., no fucking Ford Excursions] if we didn’t have an economic system that is essentially paying “welfare” to [i.e. subsidizing] people who waste energy.
Okay, I agree we should get off the oil teat and hydrogen is in many ways a better fuel than petroleum, but we can’t simply do as Anthracite says and slap a dollar tax on a gallon of gas. Well, you could, but only if wanted to see America erupt into civil war and the economy take a massive nosedive. Gas around here (in the land of the good ole boys) is roughly a $1.25/gal. If that price were to shoot up to $2.25/gal tomorrow, you can bet the red necks would be stealing gas from the stations before they burned them down. Then there’s the fact that a dollar tax would cut down on fuel consumption (costs more to drive places, so people cut back on their driving, this cuts into the economy), so the yields from the tax wouldn’t be as great as suggested. And let’s not forget that in many places, there is no mass-transit whatsoever, so you’ve got people forced to drive and own cars if they want to get anywhere (car pooling would no doubt increase, but it wouldn’t solve all the problems). Then there’s the matter of getting people out of their gas guzzling cars and into fuel cell vehicles (not to mention setting up the distribution channels for fuel, training the repair techs, and all the other things that go along with the change over), which isn’t going to be easy since a lot of people aren’t going to have the money (thanks to the gas tax) to buy a new car. There’ll be other problems with this method as well, but they won’t manifest themselves until the switch actually occurs.
A better way to do it would be to convert one sector of the transportation field over first, like the trucking industry. And instead of slapping a dollar a gallon tax on diesel fuel, give tax breaks to the companies for buying fuel cell rigs and to stations for installing hydrogen refueling stations. Make it so screamingly cheaper to use hydrogen (like no taxes on it, and subsidise the fuel costs so that it works out to like 4 cents a gallon), that trucking companies will be killing themselves to make the switch. Once that’s done, you can look at converting over cars using a similar method.
Then, of course, you have to figure out what to do with all the old gas and diesel burning vehicles that no one wants. But don’t forget that back in the fifties they were saying the world was going to run out of oil by the 1990’s. Didn’t happen, so the projections that we’ll run out of oil in forty years might be wrong as well.
It seems like a reasonable article overall, but I have questions about two things.
No qualifications are given for the author, and I never heard of him before, and
This quote, which bothers me in a couple of ways, as it seems oversimplified.
If the furnace did not combust at the temperature that is did, you would not have complete combustion (barring some sort of catalytic or exotic combustion processes), and you would produce scads of CO. It also sounds like he is advocating something for nothing - instead of just heating your house, why not heat your house, and generate electricity? Well…yeah. Affordable, reliable, efficient home cogeneration is a ways away from being a reality - I rather think home fuel cells will come before that happens, in fact. Heating a house by a modern gas furnace is pretty darned efficient, and it’s the wrong place to be looking to save energy.
His ideas about the 2008 bubble are by no means widely accepted, and the idea that Petroconsultants is a cabalistic entity keeping all this information locked away (with reference to the CIA being their client…hmmm) sounds somewhat fishy.
Premium gas was higher than $2.25 a gallon here in Kansas the last Summer crunch, and people were not resorting to criminal acts.
The price of gas in Europe would still be nearly twice as much as the US, even after a $1.00 a gallon tax.
That’s why I said first year. Yes, it would go down. And that would yield a benefit all on its own. Say the tax cuts our gas usage in half. So, we’d double our supplies, and still get $65 Billion a year for research.
Someone mentioned “robbing Peter to pay Paul” - those tax breaks for those companies just mean higher taxes for everyone else. There is no free ride here - you are just putting your taxes on a different part of the economy. Same tax effect, with less reduction in consumption. Besides the fact that hydrogen technology for cars seems to be more doable than for commercial trucks. One could limit trucks to 50 mph - which would yield an enormous savings in fuel over them going 70 mph+ (in addition to the safety benefits).
They will phase themselves out, in the same way that polluting cars do - they break down, and die.
People are a little jaded about the future of energy because spokespeople for the Left and for Environmental Organizations have been screaming shrilly since the 1960’s that the end of oil was “just 10 years from now”, and it has been absolutely untrue. An energy forecaster at work has a collection of “major reports” by National Geographic, Time, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, etc. from the 1960’s and 1970’s that tell of dire warnings - one NY Times article from about 1971 (IIRC) says we will have no more oil by 1983, and will be driving in newfangled coal-dust powered cars by that time (cool!!!). Obviously, they were…incorrect. But, we are running out. The best information I have available says we can still expect cheap gasoline until 2020 or so. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act now, and act with a purpose, to look to the long term - to develop a 50-year, 100-year, and 200-year energy plan. Sound like the stuff of fantasy? It doesn’t have to be.
And I’m certainly no Left-winger, as my many posts here have shown (This lesbian always thought Reagan was too damn liberal.) I am a scientist, an energy specialist, and I believe that we need to act with a National Purpose of the sort not seen since the Second World War to secure our energy future for the next 200 years. And by reducing our dependence on oil, we reduce our dependence on foreign nations, and thus increase our National Security.
I’ll attest to that…It’s nice to be on the same side for a change!
As for that American Prospect article that Stoid linked to, boy that one is scary. I would be curious to find out how accepted this view is (and those of Hubbert). I must admit that these days even I thought that the arguments against oil consumption were more environmental than any near-term danger of starting to run low. Maybe I was too optimistic? At any rate, even if that article is just crying-wolf (at least in terms of its timeline), I think the other arguments for reducing our oil addiction are just as compelling.
Zenster, assuming your plan were possible (maybe it is, maybe it isn’t), do we continue to support Israel?
We cannot just ditch Israel. But, as long as we keep supporting Israel, we will continue to be the Great Satan, and continue to be faced with terrorism.
I do agree that we need to be less dependent on Arab oil. Drilling in Alaska is a good start, but there are some environmentalists who find the caribou to be more important.
Anyway, if we stop buying the Arab Oil, i’m sure China would get some great discounts, which might actually bring them into the 21st century. That would be bad.
I think a better idea would be to turn all of that “foreign” oil into “domestic” oil by taking over each and every oil-producing country in the middle east… but that’s just my opinion
People seem to be missing one of the critical points that I have been making in this thread.
Current internal combustion vechicle engines can be made to run just fine on hydrogen gas. From what I saw on “Element One”, the engine conversion is similar to a natural gas switch over. This would allow us to continue using our current mechanical technology. If would give Detroit the undeserved breathing room it will need for its retooling and cushion the blow for the rest of the public.
If feasible, this is something that needs to be done right away. We no longer have the luxury of thinking the supply of oil is endless. As pointed out by Anthracite, it would also serve the needs of our nation’s security. Most of all, we need to eliminate any leverage whatsoever that the Middle Eastern countries have over us. Their governments have very unwisely centered their economies on oil and need a quiet lesson in the robustness of a diversified industrial base. In their attempts to expand productivity they would also have to be exposed to a greater variety of outside influences as new machines and methods are imported. This might assist in breaking down some of their xenophobia and rejection of Western ideas.
Yeah, but I bet the price didn’t go up $1.00 over night. Consumers tend to be willing to allow big corporations to screw 'em over, but once the government gets into the act with higher taxes, things tend to get ugly. And yeah, I know gas would still be cheaper than Europe’s prices with the dollar tax, but let’s not forget that Europe’s taxes are alot higher in general (their government also provides more social servies than ours does as well), and that this situation didn’t occur magically overnight. Their economies run at a higher level of taxation than ours does, and while ours would adjust and adapt, if implemented tomorrow a dollar a gallon tax could very well put a bullet into whatever hopes we have of the economy recovering soon.
Tax cuts always hurt someone, supposedly. I’ve heard Republicans claim that Reagan’s tax cuts actually caused an increase in federal revenues. Don’t know, haven’t seen the stats to back it up, but giving tax breaks to those on the hydrogen side of the economy would encourage corporations to spend money on building the necessary infrastructure to create and support hydrogen powered vehicles (thus fueling economic growth and increasing tax revenues in other areas). It would also accelerate the conversion process. In Arizona, for awhile, the state was giving rebates for anyone who bought an alternately fueled vehicle, they had to cut the program because it was too popular and demand was greater than expected!
Commercial trucks, actually are a more viable candidate for hydrogen power than consumer vehicles, sort of. Its relatively easy to convert a diesel engine over to hydrogen power, whereas a gas powered vehicle needs major modifications. Admittedly, a converted diesel engine still uses oil (lubrication) and I don’t know how it compares with fuel cell technology, but the process is a bit less painful than a total redesign, which is what fuel cell technology calls for on the consumer vehicle side in most cases.
Yeah, but where do you put the bodies when they start “dying” at a vastly accelerated pace? Remember back during one of the oil shocks when people were switching to the fuel efficient Japanese cars? Car dealers suddenly found themselves stuck with gas guzzling cars that they couldn’t get anyone to take off their hands? Any switch to a hydrogen economy is going to drop that into our laps again. How severe a problem this is, depends upon the nature and speed of the changeover. The more rapid it is, the more severe and problematic its going to be.
I quite agree, but I don’t think that we should rush into this in such a manner that poor people (like myself) suddenly find ourselves in dire straights because of it. Remember, you can do the right thing, but if you do it in the wrong way, you’ll wind up hurting the very people you were trying to help.
OK, you have some good rebuttals. I’m a little curious about what you say here, however:
In what way is it easier to convert a Diesel engine to hydrogen, as opposed to an Otto-cycle engine? Assuming modern engines, they both have fuel injection, they both are four-cycle engines with mechanically actuated valves, the Diesel has glow plugs and the Otto cycle spark plugs…I don’t have my IC engines books handy, but I’m wondering if that Diesel 20:1 compression isn’t going to be a problem with hydrogen. The only thing I see that might be easier is that it is likely easier to put a hydrogen tank on a big rig, rather than a car. But in terms of the engine…why do you believe it is easier to convert a Diesel?
I agree we don’t ditch Israel. But Bin Laden has only very recently, opportunistically, taken up the plight of the palestinians. I honestly don’t think he cares all that much. Divested of a dependance on the particular balance of power between arab states, the US will be less heavy-handed in the area. (i.e., not serve as the enforcer upon Iraq). We will have no vested interest in propping up corrupt saudi regimes - which is what really ticked off ObL in the first place. These differences will go a long way in reducing the ways we attract animosity from the radicals there.
how are the reserves under ANWR going to help us long term? The reports I’ve read show those reserves falling off quickly after 10 years.
well, if you haven’t found me naive yet, you surely will now -
our current nemesis is stuck somewhere around the seventh century. Our former WWII enemies are now our friends, thanks, in no small part to our assistance in getting them back up into the 20th century. In general I believe that helping other countries prosper and advance, only makes the world a more secure place.
Yeah but this isn’t just about bin laden. The arab world cannot stand the fact that israel exists, and as long as the US supports israel (as we should), the arab world will hate us. I agree it would be in our best interests to become less dependent (in fact, completely independent from) Arab oil, but it won’t reduce terrorism.
**
Some say 5 weeks, some say 500 years. Let’s say there is at least 10 years of oil there. 10 years would be a helpful timeframe to convert to non-fossil fuel systems. No way we could do it cold turkey. Anyway, as long as the quantity of oil in ANWR is worth more than the cost of drilling for it, caribou should not stand in the way in my opinion.
Well, China has over a billion people. If they all become dependent on fossil fuel (e.g. replacing their donkeys with cars), the US and China will be in even more competition. Of course, I am presuming that the US can’t actually become independent from fossil fuels. Even if we invent cold fusion or something like that, we still need plastics and all the other end products of “oil.” If the US tomorrow says “you can drink your oil, we are never buying it from you [arabs] again,” the demand suddenly goes down, therefore the price goes down, therefore china will be buying cheap oil (probably on the condition that they will do so long-term if the arabs promise never to sell to the US again). China would become the middle-man and we’d be forced to be a fuckchimp of the Chinese. The arabs would still make their oil money, china would be in control of the oil, and we’d be screwed.
This page from OECDillustrates approaches taken by a number of countries to increase motoring related costs. Taxation on fuel is obviously a favourite . The UK’s approach was to use something termed the ‘Fuel Price Accelerator’, (to quote OEDC):
The annual road fuel duty accelerator forms part of the UK’s climate change programme. Under this long-term strategy, road fuel duties are increased annually by, on average, at least 6% above the level of inflation. This strategy is expected to result in lower emissions of carbon dioxide from road transport than would otherwise have been the case, saving 3 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2000.
That policy was successful for several years (pursued by Governments of both political persuasions) before finally coming a cropper (public fuel protests changed the policy) last year. However, by then the initial job had already been done.
Do you not think you are oversimplifying to a high degree (misreporting even) the situation when you say that the Arab world can’t stand Israel’s existence? Seems to me that Egypt and Israel have actually made quite some progress in recent years.
Is that an either-or fallacy when you say that either the US does not support Israel or the Arabs hate the US?
Anthracite, my source for diesel engines being easier to convert is the book Fuel From Water (at least I think that’s where I read it). Anyways, somewhere I read that diesel engines are easier to convert to hydrogen because of the high heat generated by burning hydrogen. Diesel engines are capable of taking higher heat than a gas engine. Hydrogen alo has a lower octane rating than gas and any engine converted to hydrogen has to run at higher compression ratios to compensate for this fact. Of course, I’ve been skimming the book as I’ve been writing this and haven’t been able to find the section that makes the claim diesels are easier to convert than gas engines. When I get time, I’ll do a better scan of the book and see if I can’t find a web based source for my statement.
I’m wondering about the power output of alternative type engines as well. Can they crank out the same pulling and pushing power? What of trains, planes, construction vehicles and marine vessels? Just thought I’d throw that one out there.
