Quote/"Fueling the Future" By Kristen Roth synopsis: With an oil crisis looming, scientists are urgently searching for new energy sources. PM evaluates five leading contenders for a share in the post-petroleum world./Unquote

I wouldn't soft peddle the effect on the landscape. They are intrusive, to say the least. Which is not to say I'm agin' em, but it's deffinately a detractor that we'll have to swallow.

There's plans to put a wind farm from Port Bruce to Port Burwell, Ontario. That's a stretch of road that I particularly like, and one place I'd look to buy if I move out of London. Not now though. Again, I'm not against the wind farm, but it will change the landscape for the negative.

I have this information third or fourth hand, but friends who own a farm near Dundalk, Ontario have gotten wind (so to speak) of the deal being offered by the power company that is to begin installing wind generators there.

Annecdotally, the farmers there are being offered a one shot, $10,000 payment for allowing a windmill on their land.

There's no percentage, or free hydro in the offer.

Myself, I wouldn't agree to that. I'd want the ten grand, and either a small percentage of the value of hydro generated, and/or some combination of reduced hydro bills.

Unfortunately, in farm country the company will have no shortage of takers for the one shot, $10,000 payment.

And after the ten grand is gone (in a wink), there will be the wind mill to look at-- and listen to-- forever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Are the windmills in Holland the old fashioned kind? The ones now being built in North America ain't pretty by a long shot.

Hydro Quebec Wind Generators photos here:
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/energy/sources/sources-wind.jsp

---

Except no one is proposing to build a nuclear reactor here...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
Compare those windmills to a nuclear reactor near your home. Now which one seems prettier?

Except no one is proposing to build a nuclear reactor here...

I'd *love* to have windmills here, btw. I doubt they'll be in our line of vision, because our community lives right near the water, and the best locations for the windmills are said to be a few miles away inland. We already have a monster microwave tower on the island south of us. All we can see is the top half; the rest is obscured by trees.

---

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I haven't heard any proposal to build wind generators offshore, here. Perhaps - who knows?
I've explored this territory quite a bit, and just outside the village here I've experienced the wind strongest up a steep hill. But, as the photo in my next post will show, we get quite a bit of wind from the south blowing over the Gulf, resulting in waves blowing over the wharf. Actually, if you return to my first post above, wave energy is being explored today, as well.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

---

"The reason hybrid cars are flying off dealers' lots is not because they make such a galvanizing financial brief. It's because people of goodwill, conservative and liberal, are growing weary of the moral calculus of gasoline. What people are learning is that private choices have public consequences. Sure, I'll make my money back, but the more important thing is the 643 gallons of liquid crack I will save. Now that's conservative."

One word they use is "microgeneration", which, if you google it, leads to several interesting places, including a report that University of Alberta is working on small wind generators. Here's the U of A report.

I've been thinking for years that at least every farm on the prairies should have a windmill, but one relative I mentioned it to said he had checked and the cost was prohibitive. But these smaller ones might work.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing this link. I'd like to share the mini-windmill link with friends here. I'll read the other link later.

edited to add: I found this interesting, from the news/press releases link on the mini-windmills:

Newturbines in the wind

British Gas has announced plans to offer mini wind tur­bines to allow home-owners the chance to generate their own electricity.

The Windsave rooftop mounted turbine produces around Ikw of elec­tricity — enough to run a TV and DVD player, computer, fridge/freezer and several lights — and is designed to supplement the property's existing supply. British Gas engineers will supply and install all the equipment needed at a cost of £1,500.

The turbine, which can operate in wind speeds of just 3mph, is plugged directly into a control box that matches the generated power to the mains frequency but there is no storage facility. British Gas says it will pilot the scheme later this year in Scotland and the South West, and if successful, it will be rolled out across the country.

Planning permission is not thought to be needed for most users, but may be an issue in some areas. Go to: windsave.com
Miles Brignall
(The Guardian 28/05/05)

Amazing! I hope this technology is exported to Canada. Maybe a homegrown version is out there?

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by StockwellDay:
With the right photographer, those windmills would look quite pretty. Maybe you just hate grey.

---

I suspect this will become extremely important as time marches on. Here on the Quebec coast, a small hydro dam was built at Roberson Lake not that many years ago, and is powering up *immediate local communities*, although it doesn't reach us. The potential for power from windmills here I think may be huge. I don't know what's taking so long; may be the cost of the initial investment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
Laugh all you want, Alberta is one of the few provinces/states that is agressively building wind farms. Anyone know where the most windfarms exist in North America? Last time I checked in 2004 it was Texas.

---

You do realize that this is a more a phenomenom of the availability of investment dollars and less a product of a coherent green energy policy, don't you? There are probably more golf courses in Texas and Alberta than elsewhere in North America, for exactly the same reason. More capital for such investments.

Say, 10 farmers lay down 2k each as downpayments on 2 big windmills, then pay for their power from the windmills (and pay them off). Build new ones as the money increases, or reduce power costs over time as the debt shrinks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

You do realize that this is a more a phenomenom of the availability of investment dollars and less a product of a coherent green energy policy, don't you? There are probably more golf courses in Texas and Alberta than elsewhere in North America, for exactly the same reason. More capital for such investments.

Looking at various maps, it's also because of Alberta's wind regime. There's a veritable feast of wind blowing off the eastern Rockies, according to the Canadian Wind Energy Atlas.

---

the geothermal involves a heat pump and moving heat from the ground into your house for heating and from the house to the ground for cooling

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

Have you looked at the budget for repaing and renovating the Nuclear Crap that they plan to fix up.... Like a used car used nukes don't seem safe. at 2 or 3 billion bucks a pop we could buy a lot of windmills, and have them paid for long before the Nukes are close to ready......

---

Yes, thank you. I (heart) nuclear energy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
You do realize that this is a more a phenomenom of the availability of investment dollars and less a product of a coherent green energy policy, don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Yes, thank you. I (heart) nuclear energy.

For your info, Ichy, I'm a proponent of distributed power systems: There's no good reason why every home and building in Canada can't have a solar panel or two on the roof, generating power during favourable conditions. Or a smallish windmill. Or both. In five years, there'll be no economic reason why each home shouldn't have a Ballard (or competitor's) hydrogen fuel cell powerplant in the basement, picking up the slack when solar panels and/or windmills aren't generating. But I'm not going to hold my breath on distributed power actually happening. Especially not with the privatization of the various provincial power corporations.

---

As I understood from reading (quite a while ago) the news reports of the American families who brought lawsuits limiting the windmills that were offshore from their very expensive estates, no one had consulted residents on the New England coast prior to installing the windmills. Once they were installed, property values went down, because the windmills were the first thing you saw when you looked out the windows. Poor planning I'd say. Given the thousands of miles of coast available, does it make sense to build windmills in front of someone's line of view? Hardly a way to get support behind such a project.

Wind power makes so much sense that no one really needs to make the case for it. It's at competitive prices now, and it beats the tar out of nuclear power plants and scraping the top off every mountain in West Virginia. Just put a windmill on top of the mountain instead. The only known drawback to this is that one of the early wind farms in California, near Palm Springs, was built in a bird flyway. Killed a lot of birds. Since bird flyways can be mapped, no one needs to make that mistake again. Otherwise, we're looking at completely clean energy, infinitely renewable, and it can only get cheaper.

quote:

---

The Windsave rooftop mounted turbine produces around Ikw of elec­tricity — enough to run a TV and DVD player, computer, fridge/freezer and several lights — and is designed to supplement the property's existing supply. British Gas engineers will supply and install all the equipment needed at a cost of £1,500.

---

Um, I'm not sure how they're getting all this work out of 1kW.

A typical computer/monitor uses 400W, a typical lightbulb uses 100W, a typical fridge uses 1kW, a freezer 1kW.

I'll grant that in a typical situation, not all of these items would be used at once. However, even though a fridge may be on only part of the time, it's cycle is unpredictable. As well, its power requirement on startup is roughly three times its operating power requirement.

quote:

---

I suspect appliances in the UK may be engineered differently, needing less power. Maybe our UK correspondents can weigh in here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

Compare those windmills to a nuclear reactor near your home. Now which one seems prettier?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

I think that the Germans are working on installing them off shore because the wind is stronger over water....The Europeans are way far ahead of us, on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
An interesting quote on hybrid vehicles:

"The reason hybrid cars are flying off dealers' lots is not because they make such a galvanizing financial brief. It's because people of goodwill, conservative and liberal, are growing weary of the moral calculus of gasoline. What people are learning is that private choices have public consequences. Sure, I'll make my money back, but the more important thing is the 643 gallons of liquid crack I will save. Now that's conservative."

from: http://tinyurl.com/atn8r

---

quote:

---

...Basic costs, beginning with a portable PV unit with a 50-watt solar panel, low-power inverter and battery, are about $700 and can operate three high-efficiency lights, a small TV and a water pump. A more powerful PV system that produces 600 watts and operates several lights, a TV, stereo, microwave oven and water pump - but not at the same time - costs about $8,000. New production techniques and applications combined with lowering prices for photovoltaics should increase the acceptance of this environmentally friendly technology...

---

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000472

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven: The only economical "large scale" alternative is nuclear energy.

---

Too bad you haven't watched the last episode of the Nature of Things which aired just a few days ago.

Have a look at this:
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_earthenergy.html

quote:

---

North America is blessed with a wealth of renewable resources. There’s enough solar energy in the southwest to power the entire continent. If we harvested the wind in the mid-west we’d never have a blackout again. Our water resources are abundant and there’s even geothermal energy in the Rockies. It’s all clean, renewable energy. All we have to do is harness it.

---

And please stop touting an energy option for which the technology for the necessary disposal of the junk left behind does not exist and which *is* killing people. (C.f. rates of leukemia among uranium miners vs the general population; eventual "long term" disposal and porous rocks will increase cancer rates) There also is a connection with nuclear arms because of the leftover plutonium.

This technology has killed people from its very beginning and not only in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also in Islands in the Pacific Ocean, among Alaskan natives and in the southwestern USA (many but not all natives). (See Barker, Holly, Bravo for the Marshallese). In passing, most of the victims were non-white and many were deliberately used like lab rats. Chernobyl and Three Miles Island were not the only accidents.

quote:

---

...The biggest explosion of radioactive material in the United States occurred July 16, 1979, at 5 a.m. on the Navajo Nation, less than 12 hours after President Carter had proposed plans to use more nuclear power and fossil fuels. On that morning, more than 1,100 tons of uranium mining wastes -- tailings -- gushed through a packed-mud dam near Church Rock, N.M. With the tailings, 100 million gallons of radioactive water gushed through the dam before the crack was repaired...

---

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/UraniumInNavLand.html

I fail to understand how anybody could advocate such inherently dangerous technology when the solutions to the energy "crisis" are so easily obtained by channeling investments into different directions.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[QB]
Myself, I wouldn't agree to that. I'd want the ten grand, and either a small percentage of the value of hydro generated, and/or some combination of reduced hydro bills.

---

In California (and perhaps other states too) utilities have to buy any electricity you don't need from your own wind generator. The meter turns backwards, so the technology is not very complicated to implement this.

I have never heard of any province having such a law.

Does anybody else know whether this exists in any province?

On the coasts it could be done like in Denmark, build them offshore:

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

I get the Cornish Newspapers and I understand they are building a wave hub to make electricity from the motion of the waves off the coast of Cornwall UK.....

---

Just imagine the power the Bay of Fundy would yield! I think it's the highest tide in the world. (One of them anyway)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
This is a website I found quite a while ago that is a company in the UK building small plugin windmills. Link right here.

One word they use is "microgeneration", which, if you google it, leads to several interesting places, including a report that University of Alberta is working on small wind generators. Here's the U of A report.

I've been thinking for years that at least every farm on the prairies should have a windmill, but one relative I mentioned it to said he had checked and the cost was prohibitive. But these smaller ones might work.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

---

30 years ago I had a series of radio programs on CINQ-FM about energy and the environment and had a lot of books on the subject then. Something that relates very much to microgenerators of this type are small hydro plants (to be installed on farms etc) which will yield a nice amount of power with a drop as small as 3 feet.

I do not remember the cost though.

Unfortunately I didn't find anything as pretty as the one I remember so vividly with only a three feet drop. You hardly notice anything.

But the following are pretty small too.

http://crydee.sai.msu.ru/photo/japan/pic/g23.jpg

More than three feet and not in a small creek but much higher output and not an eyesore either:

quote:

---

Power production capability (in-service dates): 12 Mw total
Units 1,2, 3 and 4 (1954); Unit 5 (1955)
The five units produce 2.4 Mw each.

Fuel Sources: Falling water that flows through each turbine, which turns a generator to produce electricity. A 1,900-foot-long, 14-foot-high dam, situated on the upper portion of St. Anthony Falls, creates a 450-acre reservoir that provides fuel for the plant. The dam and falls create 49 feet of “head,” or the height from the water surface to the turbines. The amount of electricity generated is determined by the amount of head and volume of water flow.

---

For the history and a picture:

http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_1875_4797_4014-16651-0_0_0-0,00.html

Or have a look at this (it can be enlarged):

http://www.nek.bg/images/NEK-SmallVEC_eng.jpg

These damn links gave me a hard time

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The Europeans are also "way far ahead of us" using nuclear power, too. France is 50%-60% powered by nuclear energy.

---

The Germans have committed themseves to phase it out completely in about 20 years. (Remains to be seen what the conservatives are going to do.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/791597.stm

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
VanLuke - you've got some great points and clearly you've done your research. Of all the alternatives, I'd have to agree that wind is the best option (quickest payback, lowest environmental impact and relatively cheap).
However (you knew that was coming!) the immensity of the undertaking to adopt wide scale usage would pretty much require that we started now with the determination similar to what was witnessed with the Apollo program, especially when you consider that oil underlies transportation and it's tough to get a windmill on top of a car.
The debate is worthwhile to determine which one, or several alternatives would be most suitable. But where the heck is the political leadership on this one? It irks me. Actually, make that it really, really pisses me off!

---

Transportation is the *big* problem but I believe that hydrogen will eventually be a feasible alternative. Shell already has a foot in a number of market places. Check them out. (I just recently clicked on a link at the NYT I think and they are involved in Europe, California and Japan with respect to hydrogen.) Of course the oil interests want to sell all their oil first and don't expect the politicians who bid the corporations' interests to do much more than yap.

However, and this is very important, you got to get away from what is the best. There is no such thing as it will always vary with the location. Remember too, what you don't need doesn't need to be generated. So the beginning everywhere should always be conservation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
I think it's a vast exaggeration to compare this to the Apollo program.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

Well, I'd have to respectully disagree. The deployment of the automobile, excluding the costs of roads and infrastructure, would have to be the biggest expenditure in the world's biggest economies with the possible exclusion of housing. Overhauling that would be a monumental task, and the transportation industry isn't local due to the way our food supply and other goods are moved about. The 1500 mile ceaser salad comes to mind.
I guess it all comes down to the timeline that exists (if declining oil supply is indeed a reality), and opinions tend to vary wildly. However, based on the current geopolitical situation one could argue that some of the current political powers think the timeline is rather short. Certainly debatable, but there seems to be quite a bit of circumstantial evidence as well as plenty of more direct material.
I really, really want a reason for optimism on the entire issue. I just don't see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
[QB]

Well, I'd have to respectully disagree. ]

---

So how did you arrive at $135 billion US (2005 dollars)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

That would permit the installation of 113 gigawatt (Correct me if I'm wrong) of wind generators!

Do you still respectfully disagree?

I arrived at this figure by converting the 135 billion US to about $170 billion Can and dividing it by $1500, which the Gov of Canada claims is the cost per kilowatt.

http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.asp?CaId=6&PgId=232

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:

So how did you arrive at $135 billion US (2005 dollars)?

That would permit the installation of 113 terawatt (I think 113,333 MW is 113 terawatt; correct me if I'm wrong)!

Do you still respectfully disagree?

I arrived at this figure by converting the 135 billion US to about $170 billion Can and dividing it by $1500, which the Gov of Canada claims is the cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

---

Yup, as generation is only one part of the equation. In fact, since oil is both it doesn't require any generating stations.
However, we'd need extraction, storage, distribution and vehicles for whatever energy storage system is chosen. Hydrogen, for example, can't be transported in anything we have today. Nor can one simply retrofit the filling stations and vehicles. Nor can we cheaply retrofit the vehicles, both commercial and non-commercial. And there are numerous other considerations. A whole lot of math
I compare it to the Apollo program but that may be grandly understating it. Not because it is impossible or even beyond reach, but I don't see anyone within industry willing to step up and invest the massive amounts of capital required. And since our governments have privatized it all and have no desire to take on any large scale public works projects, I just don't see where that kind of investment would come from.

Edited to add: Really, I don't disagree on the generation alternatives, which is where most of the focus is. It's the storage, particularly as it relates to the transportation industry that concerns me. Generation has been around since fire, and we've adapted (with a heck of a lot of very large bumps). But non-animal powered transportation is very new. The result was a complete restructuring of our communities based solely on one resource.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: ToadProphet ]

Look at the installed capacity

The money you are talking about would permit to double it.

Google hydrogen and you will see that there are many ways of producing it, including bacteria.

Above all, tell us that you just picked that number out of thin air since nobody really knows how much it would cost.

edited to add

Find some figures for the existing projects in California, Belgium, Japan and the Netherlands and then we'll have something concrete.

I don't see why it would be prohibitively expensive to build the storage facitlities. Is it that much more dangerous than propane?

"I compare it to the Apollo program but that may be grandly understating it"

Now you even up the ante! So how the hell did Shell do it?

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electric.html#IntlCapacity

Look at the installed capacity.

The money you are talking about would permit to double it.

Google hydrogen and you will see that there are many ways of producing it, including bacteria.

Above all, tell us that you just picked that number out of thin air since nobody really knows how much it would cost.

---

Btw I edited my previous post while you posted this one.

Look at the partners of Shell, inc Hydro Quebec btw

http://tinyurl.com/ab5cr

Look at this example at teh same site:

quote:

---

Vandenborre Hydrogen Systems is a producer of electrolyser-based hydrogen home refueling products.A home hydrogen refueling unit consists of a small-scale electrolyser powered by mains electricity that converts water from the domestic supply into a slow stream of hydrogen. The only local emission is oxygen. The technology offers the prospect of drivers parking in their front drives or parking spaces at the end of the day and connecting their vehicles to home refueling units for a steady refill overnight. Under the agreement Shell Hydrogen will conduct market analysis of the potential of home hydrogen refueling, while Vandenborre Technologies will develop and manufacture home refueling units. The companies expect to introduce a first prototype for field-testing in 2004, in a European market.

---

Everything is still evolving. How can you know the cost? Have the execs at Shell gone nuts?

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Edited to add: Really, I don't disagree on the generation alternatives, which is where most of the focus is. It's the storage, particularly as it relates to the transportation industry that concerns me. Generation has been around since fire, and we've adapted (with a heck of a lot of very large bumps). But non-animal powered transportation is very new. The result was a complete restructuring of our communities based solely on one resource.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: ToadProphet ]

---

I got to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
[QB]

Huh? Ante up what exactly? B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

? Sorry, but you are grossly underestimating our dependence on fossil fuels for transportation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
You are the one making claims about costs.

Btw I edited my previous post while you posted this one.

Look at the partners of Shell, inc Hydro Quebec btw

http://tinyurl.com/ab5cr

Look at this example at teh same site:

Everything is still evolving. How can you know the cost? Have the execs at Shell gone nuts?

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

---

Seriously, you want me to estimate the cost to convert to a large scale hydrogen economy when the primary mechanisms haven't been worked out? And you really believe that the scale of it wouldn't be comparable, if not dwarf that of the Apollo project? My initial statement was:

However the immensity of the undertaking to adopt wide scale usage would pretty much require that we started now with the determination similar to what was witnessed with the Apollo program.

This includes all aspects - political motivation and costs just being two elements. Considering Jimmy Carter was the last national leader in the US or Canada to talk about it seriously and he was practically laughed out of office, I think cost may be one of the lesser challenges.

As for Shell investment demonstrating that this wouldn't be a massive project - well, companies invest in all sorts of things, the vast majority never make it to market. In fact, the overall investment and market receptiveness to hydrogen has been underwhelming despite major subsidies from government.
I looked at the link, btw. What am I looking for? Shell partners? I worked in R&D for a large tech company before - we had a variety of large partnership arrangements on some of the most ludicrous things you'd ever see. Not to say that hydrogen is ludicrous, but I'm not sure what your link shows. We also used to work on things that we hoped would to receive subsidies from any variety of sources from for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, Shell invests $1.8 billion annually in oil discovery. Shell Hydrogen invests $18 million in R&D. I'm sorry, but I can't take that relative investment as a serious sign that they are committed to a hydrogen economy.

Even the Canadian government, who doles out a large amount of those subsidies, admits:

Fuel cells are not expected to reach the marketplace for many years, as the technology has a number of significant market entry barriers. For example:

* Powerplant systems are more expensive and less compact, as the vehicle drive systems must be converted to electric drives.
* Fuel storage is a major problem, because the fuel used is either hydrogen or a liquid fuel, such as gasoline or methanol, which must be re-formed into hydrogen.
* Supplying adequate amounts of fuel and developing a new network of fuelling depots both pose problems.
* There is no significant net energy benefit compared to some of the advanced diesel and diesel hybrid systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

I understand there are people who plug in their Prius's so that they can get more mileage out of the fuel they use. Rail roads can be converted to deisel electric have you looked at Lake freighters an electric motor with a diesel generator and solar assistance would make them far more economical. So we may end up with electric cars for in town and buses or trains between them. I think the Nuclear stuff should be beside the Parliament Buildings......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

Hey!!! Those buildings are right around the corner from me!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

you can move, they can't!!!!

---

I believe however that if you are seriously interested in the subject you will find much in it that is stimulating. I've been interested in this subject and have researched it off and on for over 3 decades and I've put a lot of work into this post. This has given me pleasure and I wish to share the result of my work today. However, I will not get into arguments about the content with anybody. First of all, I do not claim to possess the "truth" and secondly I got better things to do.

What fascinates me about energy and the environment is that it ties into many, many things. Architecture (type of housing), urban planning (big box stores; malls), methods of transportation, the type of foods we consume and how they are produced are just some elements which determine energy use and the impact this has on the environment. In turn this has an effect not only on public health but it seems perhaps our very survival as a species, or at the very least our civilisation.

I have always like the term "appropriate technology" much better than "alternative technology (or energy) because the best solutions depend a lot on where one is. Thus for instance air conditioning in Toronto could be done to a large extent by taking advantage of the cold lake water and this is beginning to happen.

http://www.enwave.com/enwave/view.asp?/dlwc/energy

Generating electricity from wind, for instance, is a good solution in some locations, a lousy one in others. Building a house in the country is a different ball game from urban construction. Even technologies which are relatively soft on the environment may not always be the best thing to do. Just ask the Cree of northern Quebec what they think of Hydro Quebec poisining their food (fish), or causing huge cariboo herds to drown. Humans will always have an impact on the environment and there are always trade-offs. Sometimes catastrophies happened because of people's decisions. (A fascinating book in that regard is Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress, the basis of last year's Massey Lecture.)

Presently we are not only heading for the depletion of oil sometime in the future (try flying an airplane with hydrogen) but also catastrophic climate change is in the making. Only an idiot, or criminals like the present gang in the White House, would deny this. (If it is against babble policy to call a head of state that I protest because it is the truth.) 2003 was the hottest summer on record in Europe, the glaciers are melting, hurricanes are not only more numerous but also more intense (of course the nay sayers deny that, or come up with some reasons they invent). A lot more could be added to this but I'll leave it at that.

So it's obvious to anybody who gives a damn about their grandchildren and the rest of humanity that things have to change or we may very well be on the road to extinction as some respected writers (including Chomski) think. Much, but by no means everything, depends on what type of energy we will use - hopefully in the not so distant future. (Food production is another worrisome area.)

There are many promising technologies, many of which have been around for ages. If the desire is to reduce energy use without lowering the quality of life (indeed it often increases it) transportation is a big factor and poses many problems.

I have misgivings about powering cars with food in a world where many people still starve to death but given the lopsided distribution of resources in this world, maybe it is something to be considered. I don't think used cooking oil is going to power a lot of machines but even that has its place:

FRENCH FRIES FUEL THE FUTURE
http://www.alumni.ubc.ca/files/pdf/trek/issues/04fall/10_French_Fries_Future.pdf
Or see the aticle in the Vancouver Courier about this UBC project:
http://www.eya.ca/biodiesel/index.php?id=686
Googling it gives lots of hits:
http://tinyurl.com/dhp64

Move Over, Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/contents.asp
Check out their amazing number of good links.

Hydrogen powered cars are touted by many as "the solution" in that field. It is obviously an evolving technology and lots of problems have to be solved. Nevertheless, much has already been achieved. Shell and its partners are heavily involved in this emerging technology. (Of course Shell wants to sell its oil too and I do not see it as some benevolent institution.)

I'm not really a great fan of a transportation "system" based mainly on the private automobile and have spent a good amount of energy to fight against this stupidity. (In cites especially but also in high traffic corridors. Of course in a capitalist system that's not going to change.) If you think I'm nuts consider Moshe Safdie's The City After the Automobile. You can watch a video of a young Evan Solomon interviewing Safdie and his ideas in that respect here:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-68-1427-9353/arts_entertainment/moshe_safdie/clip7

Since this idiotic system (also consider Ivan Illich's Energy And Equity to see why I call it idiotic) is not likely to change any time soon and a private car with zero emissions is much preferable to the stinking things on the road now (for a lifelong cyclist in any case) lets think about hydrogen powered cars as a possible alternative.

To counter the nay sayers I did some research and work for them. Here it is:

http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/new_york_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/washington_station_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/washington_tech_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/washington_car2_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/washington_car_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/japan_station_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/japan_station_bus_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/iceland_night_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/iceland_bus_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/amsterdam_bus_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/luxembourg_station_large.jpg
http://www.shell.com/static/hydrogen-en/downloads/pictures/luxembourg_buses_large.jpg

quote:

---

Electricity generated from the world's sustainable energy resources can be used to separate large volumes of hydrogen efficiently from ordinary water.

This proton-carrying hydrogen can be safely delivered wherever power is needed - just as batteries deliver electrons today.

---

http://tinyurl.com/cgyt7

Shell believes:

quote:

---

'real-option' financial analysis shows that there will be real, long-term benefits for both investors and consumers.

---

http://tinyurl.com/8d3zn

quote:

---

We are now working in specialist partnerships to resolve technical issues. We are creating metal-hydride-based storage tanks - comparable with the weight of a full gasoline tank (about 100 kg), that can release 5 kg of hydrogen to power an average car for 800 km. We are developing heat- and mass- transfer technology to allow 5 kg of hydrogen to be transferred into an average passenger vehicle within no more than two minutes. Together with manufacturers we are working to provide a hydrogen-economy retail infrastructure capable of serving millions of future users. In advancing fuel cell technology towards commercialisation we are investing with strong partners.

---

http://tinyurl.com/dgypa

Shell's partners:

http://tinyurl.com/7r4ah

quote:

---

...The company is presently developing a large capacity, high pressure system. Initial capacities will be 15-60 m3/hr. and the output pressure adequate to fill 5000 psi (345 bar) compressed hydrogen tanks....

---

http://www.herahydrogen.com/en/products.html

quote:

---

..There are a number of alternative ways of delivering hydrogen for on-board use in road vehicles.

Compressed hydrogen is currently being used in road trials for both cars and buses - where ample storage capacity can be made available....

---

http://tinyurl.com/amvmc

quote:

---

California - Hydrogen-powered vehicles in real driving conditions close

Shell Hydrogen is a key member of the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP), with some 20 partners from the automotive and energy industries, fuel cell developers and government. ...

---

http://tinyurl.com/9jyy3

Frequently Asked Questions about hydrogen (in 8 sections) including this:

quote:

---

...Hydrogen has been safely produced, stored, transported, and used in large amounts in industry by following standard practices that have been established in the past 50 years....

---

http://tinyurl.com/dt92c

Links to over 20 other sites dealing with the subject, some of them really good. (You didn't think I'd do all the work for you, did you? )

http://tinyurl.com/bjjjt

Of course Shell and its partners aren't the only capitalists lining up. There's even an investment newsletter about the subject:
"The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Investor's Newsletter" is updated and published weekly
http://www.h2fc.com/about.html

Also see:

Worldwatch Paper #157: Hydrogen Futures: Toward a Sustainable Energy System
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/157/
Also check out their many sources regarding alternative sources of energy here:
http://www.worldwatch.org/features/renewables/

quote:

---

...To date, more than 3.5 million passengers have driven or ridden in about 130 Ballard-powered vehicles on the road today....

---

Costs of making the transition to a transportation "system" based on hydrogen are far from astronomical.

quote:

---

The cost of developing a Europe-wide automotive hydrogen infrastructure by the year 2020 could be less than previously expected, at about €3.5 billion. This is the conclusion of a new economic feasibility study commissioned by industrial gas company Linde AG and presented at the recent International Hydrogen Day held in Berlin. ...Based on Germany, the infrastructure to supply 1.9m cars with hydrogen would cost €870m, or €457 per car, the study finds...

---

http://www.re-focus.net/fuelcell/news/apr05/apr2005_4.html

To "produce" hydrogen can be done in many ways and it remains to be seen which is the most advantageous. However, this too depends on the location. Googling "hydrogen production" yields 79 pages. So I'll just give you a link to the search results:

http://tinyurl.com/d2a26

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
[QB]

Seriously, you want me to estimate the cost to convert to a large scale hydrogen economy when the primary mechanisms haven't been worked out? ]

---

It was you who spoke of cost figures and it's only fair enough to ask you for specifics.

I only glanced at the Environment Canada site quickly (shall read it later).

The statement is quite wrong as they *are* in use.

Just where do you take an 18 million dollar figure from?

Jimmy Carter was "laughed out of office" because of the Iran hostage crisis and the triumph of reaction with the name Roanld Reagan who maintained that trees also pollute.
And you did increase the cost figure later saying it would cost more than Apollo.

The Europeans are idots too, I guess. Look at their cost estimates.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
[i]Lots!

---

edited to add:

However I'd be seriously interested what you expect to happen in terms of transportation.

The price of oil is probably going to go down again (it usually does) but I don't think we're going to see 14 dollars a barrel again. Some "financial analysts" expect 100 dollars a barrel (they could just be pushing their own interest).

So what are your speculations about what's going to happen in transportation?

It's a sincere question with no ulterior motives.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
Thanks.
We cross posted.
There's really no point in arguing since neither one of us *knows*

---

If Environment Canada is correct in their assessment, why are there so many filling stations in existence already?

Might it not be happening?

http://www.h2cars.de/overview/index.html

P.S. Not to argue just to share this map and I DO want to read your ideas about what's going to happen.

Are people just going to buy smaller cars?

Take public transport more in cities?

What are people in the suburbs going to do when gas will be 2 dollars a liter? (Could happen faster than we might think. On big hurricane wiping out a couple of refineries and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico might be enough. The insurgents in Iraq making a big bang. Saudi rebels blowing a big oil field up.etc)

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
...and I just edited my post again.

---

That's alright, it's just one (although difficult) question

quote:

---

However I'd be seriously interested what you expect to happen in terms of transportation.

The price of oil is probably going to go down again (it usually does) but I don't think we're going to see 14 dollars a barrel again. Some "financial analysts" expect 100 dollars a barrel (they could just be pushing their own interest).

So what are your speculations about what's going to happen in transportation?

It's a sincere question with no ulterior motives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
it will soon become cheaper to take a bus to Toronto from my home than a car. And then trains will again be competitive. So the high price of fuel will eventually lead to a focus on more mass transit.

---

We have all these roads connecting us, taking up a huge amount of space. Why not use these corridors to generate the energy to power the traffic through those corridors. We could suspend solarcells like a roof over the road that supply electricity to aconducting grit below the roof. Our spiffed up bumper cars would get the power from that grit to power their electric motor. Since we have usually hydro lines running beside the road we could interconnect them to smooth out the power supply. If that is not enough we could span energy producing banners (they always seem to flap up and down with some wind) across the road. As a side benefit the solar roof would keep the roads dry and snow free. No more snow plowing, road salt, gas stations, muffler replacements, winter tires and hydro-planing. The cars would have a small battery to allow them to operate from the electric grit for a few kilometers.

thank you for your thoughtful answer and the nice comments you made about me.

I'm not sure if I'm really optimistic.

However, I try to see *possible* alternatives. Possible in a technological sense, in any case. My graduate work was done in economic history and economic development so I'm quite aware that what's possible technologically might be impossible for social reasons.

I used to have a beautiful collection of books about energy and as I tried to show above it's the focal point for so many things, having implications for many aspects of human life. That's why it has always fascinated me.

One jewel I remember (and can't find anywhere) is Design For A Small Planet. It had stories of about a dozen (IIRC) houses with beautiful colour pictures including an old tenement building in Manhattan where poor people earned their equity in the co-op that took over the run down structure largely through their own labour. (They had some grants too I believe) They put a wind generator on top of the roof, which was largely for symbolic reasons since it didn't produce very much. The building was less than a mile IIRC from the headquarters of ConEd, which in those days was regulated and had a monopoly. ConED actually took the co-op to court to force them to dismantle the wind generator and won. The wind genrator had to be taken down.

I told this story to illustrate the point that while something may be technologically feasible, it might not get done because of social constraints. Ever heard the persistent stories about Westinghouse having locked up a patent for a light bulb which would never burn out? Or read the Snell Report done by the US Senate (the right wingers have done their best -but not good enough IMO- to discredit it) which shows how GM bought up lots of urban transit systems (including one in LA!) to shut them down. Feasability studies (and one small demonstration project) were done about a tidal power plant in the Bay of Fundy but that was it. Zoning laws could be different to get rid of malls and Walmarts. Don't kid yourself the higher prices small stores would have are paid to oil companies anyway by driving to the mall, in part anyway. How much food could be procuced with much pleasure in community gardens?

Lots of other examples could be added to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

On the whole, I tend more towards pessimism though.

I mentionned Chomsky above and in the Preface of one of his books I read a few months ago (can't remember which one it is but could find out by getting the last 2 I read from the library if you're interested) he talks about a well known biologist (whose name I can't remember either) who claims that there are mass extinctions every 100,000 years or so IIRC. The depressing thing is that we might be the next in line.

A book I just finished reading and mentioned above would give you much pleasure I believe. It's short; you can read it in a day. It's *maybe* more pessimnistic than optimistic (hard to tell) but it points to some possible ways out of the catastrophy brewing. It's written by Ronald Wright, one of my favourite writers (Stolen Continents is a must if you're interested in natives). His pen is so powerful, I even had to laugh at times when he writes about depressing things.

Check it out. I'm sure you'll like it.

Wright, Ronald, A Short History Of Progress

In my arguments about the possible transition to a hydrogen based transportation "system" (there's a reason for the quotes) I may have come across as optimistic. If that is so, it's because I'm looking at the huge corporate interests already involved.

There's another link I forgot in my long post above and if I find it I'll edit this post and put it here about car manufacturers involved in what may be the emerging hydrogen based way of some private and public (since there are a number of buses on the road)transport. It's not just Shell (I only happened to come across a link to their activities a few days ago in an ad in the NYT online ed; that's why there is such an emphasis on that company) or Ballard, Hydro Quebec but lots of other big money interests.

http://www.h2cars.de/overview/index_cars.html

Click on the different years and check out the car manufacturers. Clicking on the arrow pointing to a particular vehicle opens a large image of it and specs.Some of them have links to the manufacturer where there's more info. A really neat site!

The other link on the top leads to the neat map of service stations I already posted.

Don't get me wrong please. I'm no champion of corporations and there are only 2 I can think of that I actually like(ed):

1) The old Bell Telephone before Bell Canada Enterprises existed where the customer was always right, where you got a new phone installed in 3 days or less, where there were no teleboutiques for you to pick up your own phone, where all you had to do to get an adjustment on your bill was to deny you made that long distance phone call and the charge was taken off without argument, where the local phone rates were subsidised by long distance charges (good for the poor).

Of course we know that doesn't exist anymore.

2) Google because they "give" me lots of good free services I do not have to pay for unless I buy products from companies advertising through google. And I'm not sure where they will be going and if they'll just turn into another MS.

Phew, all that just to demonstrate that I do not see corporations as saviours of any kind!

One of the few accurate things in economics (by and large) is that firms try to maximise profits. So the optimism you perceived is just me playing a little bit as a would-be futurist trying to extrapolate present trends in an attempt to peek into the future.

Of course, it might not come to pass that way.

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

check out the HSUN 3000 with 0.4 l of gasoline equivalent fuel consumption at the link above.

It's no Hummer but at these gas prices it might be a blessing. (And when I typed 2 dollars I wanted to change it upwards right away. A major catastrophy and you might pay 3 bucks a liter) I realise though you couldn't drive that flimsy thing on the North Shore but looking at the "Smart Cars" that seem to proliferate in Vancouver I don't see why this one couldn't compete in the city.

Btw it inludes Canadian technology.

Or check out one of your favourites (it seemed to me anyway) a Hummer but powered by hydrogen. Custom built for Arnooold at the 2000 timeline

I can't resist.

Specs are at the link; the range isn't impressive so it's not a gas guzzler but a hydrogen guzzler.

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Alternative Energy Sources II

Moderators please note.

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
I am not sure if windmills are all that effective as an alternate. For one they are very dependent on the weather, which for many applications would mean a second alternative since electicity does not store easy. Also windmills are big, requiring a lot of material and equipment to produce them. The wind that powers them can also vary greatly, making the design of a windmill a compromise between cost, efficiency and safety. Ice rain would be another concern, as would be snow drift built up in its wake.

Mind you, they have a certain emotional appeal to me too but I wonder how rational that is. If it would lead to a reduction in our power consumption I would be for it, but it most likely will add to our power consumption and could very well cause additional degradation of our environment.

---