Well, the evil Republicans who want to rape the Earth finally released their long-term vision for energy for the U.S.
This is evil Republican administration that is supposed to be entwined in a vast conspiracy with oil companies.
So what’s their big plan? Hydrogen. The Department of Energy just release the ‘National Hydrogen Roadmap’, a plan for moving the entire country to an energy system based on hydrogen.
The end effect of this would be far greater CO2 reduction than even the most hyperactive supporters of Kyoto could have dreamed of, coupled with an elimination of the reliance on oil for energy.
So how about it? Do the environmentalists reading this think it’s a good idea? If not, why?
And for those who think the Bush Administration is mired in a conspiracy with big oil, how do you explain their plan to ‘leapfrog’ the oil economy and move to something entirely different?
I think it is a good idea to start considering new power sources. Strange that the plan comes from the people that you would think would oppose it. Perhaps they have information suggesting that Oil is not going to be a viable source shortly, and are making plans to secure their financial future?
Hydrogen is pretty dangerous though, IIRC. It has to be kept at really low temperatures, which is a drain on the power that burning it allows. Most plans that I saw relied upon water sources for obtaining the hydrogen, which required energy to seperate the molocules. As far as I know, the energy released, considering the energy required to produce it, was minimal. The question is, how much money are they willing to spend into blue skies research like this?
I know that. But clearly, a hydrogen economy would reduce reliance on oil, because cars absolutely require oil to operate, whereas hydrogen can be created with oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro energy.
The coolest plan I’ve seen for generating the hydrogen would put a big ring of about 175 CANDU nuclear reactors near Yucca mountain in Nevada. CANDU reactors can burn spent fuel from other reactors, which coincidentally will be shipped to Nevada anyways. And putting the reactors there eliminates the problem of shipping nuclear waste around the country, and being away from everything out in the desert is both safer in case of a leak, and also makes it easier to protect them from terrorists.
So you create an ‘energy factory’ in the middle of the country, made the hydrogen there, and pump it around the country in pipelines.
CANDU reactors have big advantages in this role. For one thing, they use heavy water as a moderator, which coincidentally happens to be the byproduct of hydrogen production through electrolysis. So the fuel cycle becomes cheaper. Also, a CANDU is impossible to melt down, because it uses the moderator itself as its coolant. If the coolant leaks away, the reactor shuts down. It has to. Finally, the CANDU reactor’s waste is only more radioactive than the original ore it came from for about 400 years, making even more suited for burial.
I find it interesting though that the most anti-big oil program in my memory comes out of the Bush administration, which the left has been trying to paint as being completely in the pocket of oil companies.
Well, thats swell, Sam, and I mean that. How much money are we talking about here, for research and development. Of course, anything less than several hundreds of millions is chump change. Might lead one to think this is largely window dressing.
And, of course, the Administration is solidly behind conservation efforts, truly on the case. Like the way they rushed to put mileage requirements on SUV’s. Oh, wait a tick. Guess not. Turns out its a much better idea to drill in the arctic wildlife preserves than to force the American consumer to face a lack of choice in thier toys. Did you see the toy car that Trent Lott trotted out to show Americans what the Democrats had in mind. Looked like a Yugo made by Hasbro. Seems they wanted a 5 mile per gallon increase in fuel efficiency, those fascists!
Really, Sam, you have run up some real balderdash up the flagpole around here, but this…this is chucklesome. Yeah, bet those oil guys are really shaking in thier boots now, huh.
Nonetheless, hydrogen research is a damned good idea. But show me the money.
Well, Sam, I certainly applaud this move although I think your statements that it is “the most anti-big oil program in my memory” is just a trifle overstated. Could you at least provide any links to the oil industry expressing their unhappiness to this? I don’t think the industry opposes subsidization of alternative energy sources (particularly those a far ways off) nearly as much as it opposes attempts to get rid of their own subsidies or to make the market more accurately reflect all the costs of their products.
I am also sort of surprised to have a conservative like you advocating that the most (in fact, it seems only) efficient way to run an economy is to start government programs that subsidize research and development of new energy sources. I would sort of expect that you would prefer to “let the market decide” a little more by actually implementing policies that allow the market to better reflect the full costs of our fossil fuel usage. [I personally think some subsidization of research and development of new sources can be justified and should be done but I don’t think everything should be done on that end. For one thing, then you just end up with a situation of underpricing energy in general and continuing to encourage its wasteful inefficient use.]
In response to the other folks who asked where the hydrogen would come from: I agree with Sam that the point of hydrogen is to serve as an energy storage medium that allows us more flexibility in terms of our energy generation. Of course, as long as some sources of energy generation are directly or indirectly subsidized as fossil fuels are, they’ll continue to be overused. (Epimetheus: In specific answer to your concerns about hydrogen storage, I believe there are some promising technolgies for storing hydrogen by forming various metal hydrides. Also, I believe that the problems with storing hydrogen even in its pure form are perhaps not as severe as you think.]
Let me state my philosophy this way: If government must be involved in these areas, the proper role is to help direct the nation’s taxed resources into promising areas of long-term research. I said nothing about whether government is the most efficient, or the only way to run an economy. But clearly, the people want to use their government to make changes in the way the energy infrastructure is set up. Given that the people want it, I think the Bush administration has come up with an excellent program.
IF the government must be involved, I would rather see the government be involved in strategic long-term initiatives and basic R&D than to see them try to over-ride the desires of the marketplace through regulation.
I am a believer in markets, and therefore I think that trying to use the hammer of government to change them before they are ready to change is a bad idea, and will likely backfire. You can’t eliminate the laws of supply and demand just because you want to. For example, the Kyoto treaty’s long-term effect is likely to push industry out of the countries that observe the treaty and into countries that don’t. And countries that already have industry but don’t observe the treaty, like China, will wind up benefitting and growing. The net result will be either no change at all, a very small change, or perhaps even a negative effect of stimulating industry in places where there is even less environmental regulation than there is now.
Another example: I think the proper purpose of NASA is to do basic R&D. NASA did a really good job back when it was NACA and focused on basic stuff. But NASA went seriously wrong when it decided to become a space shipping company with a really big truck. Let private industry do what it does best. If there are gaps that government needs to address in research, I’m not opposed.
I happen to think that hydrogen has a lot of promise. I’ve talked about it before on the board, long before Bush made his energy policies known. But I also know there are some formidable technical and infrastructure hurdles to overcome, plus a huge political hurdle in getting the public to accept the construction of a huge number of nuclear power plants (I don’t know how else you could do it with anything remotely close to today’s technology. Certainly solar and wind can help, but they won’t provide more than a small fraction of the power needed).
So that’s my position - leave the markets alone to do what they do best. Let the people, through their taxes and elected officials, pay for basic research to move society in the direction they want to go. If the research works out, and hydrogen becomes a viable energy source, then it will enter the marketplace all on its own. So let the government research it, and then give the information away.
You could even talk me into some non-coercive incentives like tax credits or R&D grants. For example, I heartily support the tax credits available for purchasing hybrid vehicles, as long as those tax credits roughly reflect the savings of externalities created by hybrid technology. To me, that’s a better way of doing things than to tax non-hybrid vehicles or to pass a law forcing people to drive hybrids.
The idea that metal hydrides constitute a “promising technology for storing hydrogen” has been around for almost as long as the idea that “clean nonpolluting fusion power will be achieved within 30 years”. Hydride storage is still very pricey and the alloys degrade when they encounter impurities in the hydrogen feed.
Sam’s “evil Republicans who want to rape the Earth” are probably just interested in this probable dead-end for the PR value of continuing one of Clinton’s programs. :rolleyes: Or maybe a few of them actually have a lick of sense in their tiny grey elephantine skulls ?
But, why do you believe in markets even when it is understood from any basic economics textbook that markets only respond correctly when the costs of a buyers and sellers choice is internalized into the price of the product? That seems to be more like believing in markets in a religious sense than a scientific one.
[I can understand (even if I don’t necessarily buy) the counterargument that any government attempts to correct these externalities will result in greater problems in the market than exist now, but for heavens sake, you at least have to try to make that argument. I don’t think you can simply say “I believe in the market” as any sort of coherent political/economic philosophy.]
Screw “the market”! The market indulges the stupidity of people in ways we know are awesomely stupid. The SUV is a spectacular case in point. At a time when we are confronted almost daily with the clear necessity of reducing our dependence on oil, Big Car has a field day indulging our stupid consumerist desires for Big Bad Cars.
Our leaders know this, they read it every day, yet when General Motors comes bleating and pleading about thier profit margins, the assholes write them a special exemption (light truck, my ass!) so they can go ahead and do what we all know is stupid.
But gee whiz Sam I applaud the effort toward hydrogen, I really do, all of these things deserve investigation. But to put this forth as if it is proof that the Pubbies are environmentalists at heart is just bizarre. They are Mother Nature’s pimps, and if they can sell her ass for a nickel, they will. Every time.
I know you know, I was replying to Epimetheus. I agree with you. Sorry for the confusion.
A bit of a hijack… If there would be hydrogen-generating machines at every gas station, doesn’t that make hydrogen-powered cars incredibly more attractive to business, who would not have to pay for either hydrogen or gasoline to be transported, and could just rely on the power grid and the water system?
I’ve heard this objection answered to this effect: yes it’s true that it takes energy to extract pure hydrogen from water, and that this energy may be generated by burning fossil fuel. However, by burning the fossil fuel in a relatively small number of large-scale hydrogen processing operations, as opposed to millions of individual engines, we would achieve a very significant economy of scale.
I just meant that hydrogen alone won’t result in “far greater CO2 reduction than even the most hyperactive supporters of Kyoto could have dreamed of”, like in the OP. Hydrogen will clear the way for the replacement of the oil industry with more ecological alternatives.
Actually, I’m going to reword my hijack:
Is it more efficient to have central hydrogen-generating plants and to transport the hydrogen where it is needed, or to have small hydrogen-generating machines at gas stations which run off electricity and water, or for each family to own their own hydrogen-generating machine?
I think it would be most efficient to ship hydrogen around in the gas-bags of dirigibles. We could float them anywhere we’d like, and oh, the humanity!
Electricity can also come from Dams, and Nuclear Power, and Wind, and Solar, and Hydrothermal, and even Tidal sources.
It would be quite a large adjustment, but I’m sure if we found out we only had 10 years left of fossil fuels humanity would find a way to get it’s power.
overstated. Could you at least provide any links to the oil industry expressing their unhappiness to this? I don’t think the industry opposes subsidization of alternative energy sources (particularly those a far ways off) nearly as much as it opposes attempts to get rid of their own subsidies or to make the market more accurately reflect all the costs of their products.