quote:

---

The Ford Motor Company's latest prototype, the Focus, produces no pollution and runs completely on hydrogen-powered fuel cells

---

Every time I hear about this panacea of zero-pollution I start yelling at the TV again. Hydrogen fuel cells may be zero-emission, but the production of hydrogen certainly isn't. It is a very energy intensive process that either involoves electrolysis from water, where the hydrogen atoms are split from the oxygen atom using electricity. A quick look at how this electricity is produced in canada should convince us that using it to produce hydrogen is anything but zero-emissions:

quote:

---

Canada's Electricity Generating Capacity, 1997 (in MW)

Hydro 66 803

Conventional Thermal 30 988
(coal 18 012, oil 7 553, natural gas 5 423)

Nuclear 13 390

Tidal 20

Other (Renewables) 1 405

Total 112 606

---

So, about a quarter of the electricity in canada is generated from thermal (fossil fuel) sources, which are definately polluters.

In essence, fuel cell cars simply shift the burden of emissions to other areas where energy is produced.

Another way of producing hydrogen is by "reforming" it from fossil fuels such as gasoline or natural gas, which this article talks about in relation to Bush's interest in fuel cell vehicles:

quote:

---

What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy.

---

A lot of attention is being paid to alternative ways of continuing the wasteful and irresponsible ways we use our private automobiles, and I think it could be better spent encouraging us to change the way we live. Calling hydrogen a zero-emission fuel is simply a lie designed to keep us dependent on fossil fuels, but in an indirect way that soothes our conscience.

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: SHH ]

quote:

---

Yeah, I am a big fan of Vancouver's electric buses as well. They recently won a reprieve as there was talk of replacing them with diesels. A tragedy averted.

---

Keep in mind, though, that most of the electricity in Vancouver is generated... yes, by the burning of fossil fuels, up at the Burrard Thermal Plant -- which provides around a third of the electricity used in the province.

As for Burrard Thermal:

quote:

---

BC Hydro generates over 43,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually

---

and

quote:

---

The 950 MW Burrard Generating Station near Vancouver has a capability of 7,050 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/a). Burrard is a conventional thermal plant fuelled by natural gas. It supplements the hydroelectric system in years when water inflow is low and provides transmission support and electrical supply security for the Lower Mainland.

---

source: BC Hydro

Burrard Thermal does not operate all the time, only to supplement periods of low output by hydroelectric. It certainly does not provide a third of the energy in bc.

However, with the trend toward private enterprises building new generation sources in BC, don't be surprised if there are coal-fired plants opened in the near future.

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]

Right now, if you don't have a car then you need to spend $2.25 for the privelege of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the world on a screeching, swaying subway car. You may enjoy the privelege of standing around in a thoroughly empty room waiting for a bus to continue your journey. Once on the bus, you may again find yourself standing until you reach your destination, which itself may be several blocks from where the bus kicks you off.

Or you could take your car.

(We need to make that first option a little more efficient and enjoyable, so the second one doesn't look so good by comparison.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Hmmm. Well, thanks for the correction. Obviously I was misinformed. But you could be right. I can see some enterprising outfit, say, re-opening the Tumbler Ridge mine to start generating electricity from coal.

---

Yup. I don't know about Tumbler Ridge, but check this out:

quote:

---

POWER GENERATION PROJECTS
Stothert have been retained by Hillsborough Resources, the owner of the Quinsam Coal Mine near Campbell River on Vancouver Island, to carry out a feasibility study for a 49 MW coal fired power generating plant burning waste coal fines and raw coal, to be located at the mine mouth.

---

Source:Stothert Engineering

Lovely. Coal-fired generating plants. Another giant step backward, thanks to Gordo and co's new legislation barring BC Hydro from building new generating facilities, and encouraging the private sector to do so:

quote:

---

Under the plan, the building of coal-fired plants would be encouraged. British Columbia is a major coal producer, but exports virtually all its production.

---

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]

quote:

---

Hydrogen fuel cells may be zero-emission, but the production of hydrogen certainly isn't.

---

quote:

---

As hydrogen gained momentum, the oil companies rushed to buy up interests in technology companies developing ways to refine and store the new fuel. Texaco has invested $82 million in a firm called Energy Conversion Devices, and Shell now owns half of Hydrogen Source. BP, Chevron-Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, and General Electric have also locked up the services of many of America's top energy scientists, devoting more than $270 million to hydrogen research at MIT, Princeton, and Stanford.

Such funding will help ensure that oil and gas producers continue to profit even if automakers manage to put millions of fuel-cell cars on the road. "The major energy companies have several hundred billions of dollars, at the least, invested in their businesses, and there is a real interest in keeping and utilizing that infrastructure in the future," says Frank Ingriselli, former president of Texaco Technology Ventures. "And these companies certainly have the balance sheets and wherewithal to make it happen."

---

I am not against H2 power, I think it is a fantastic move forward. My argument is that it must be combined with a drastic decrease in vehicle use is the problem of emissions is to be solved. Calling these things "zero emissions" is false, and that's what makes me yell at the TV.

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SHH:
While all fuel cells use the ionized hydrogen atom, pure hydrogen isn’t required. The hydrogen atom found in ethanol works just as well and many such fuel cells are already in production. Thus, the source of fuel could be fermented corn, which is ultimately, solar.

---

Ethanol is energy-intensive to make, and just fermenting corn without further distillation only yields 14% by volume (or by weight, I forget which, but you can work it out from the point where the ethanol begins to kill the yeast) at best.

This is why companies like Archer Daniels Midland pork out on $2 billion plus subsidies from the US government in order to profitably make ethanol in the first place.

quote:

---

I am not against H2 power, I think it is a fantastic move forward. My argument is that it must be combined with a drastic decrease in vehicle use is the problem of emissions is to be solved. Calling these things "zero emissions" is false, and that's what makes me yell at the TV.

---

I see your point, tyoung, I'm just saying that it does not have to be that way. Hydrogen can be clean if we start with clean energy. But that requires changes in the way we generate power as well, which I am in full support of.

It boggles the mind that the US wants to make hyrdogen out of oil. So much contreversy has come up over the American quest for oil, and yet they still want to use it???? It would be in the best interests of the US government to become independant of oil producing companies (particularily in the middle east). Such independance would damage left-winger's abilities to slander the Bush administration, as oil would not be a reason to go to war because they will need a heck of a lot less of it.

If Bush does not see the merit behind breaking America's oil dependance, then maybe he really is a moron...

quote:

---

First, temperatures of 700 degree Celsius drive oxygen out of the material, where it oxidizes carbon in the methane to form carbon oxides and free hydrogen. Temperatures as low as 375 degrees Celsius are then used to reduce water vapor, pulling oxygen from water to replenish the crystalline structure -- producing more hydrogen.

"By cycling the temperature back and forth in the presence of methane or water, you can continuously produce hydrogen," Wang said.

Although the use of rare-earth oxides such as cerium oxide as catalysts for hydrogen production has been known for some time, the addition to iron to those oxides by the Georgia Tech researchers has significantly enhanced the surface chemistry activity of these materials, allowing the oxidation and reduction reactions to take place at lower temperatures. Wang believes the reaction temperatures may be lowered farther by "tuning" the iron content and understanding the trade-offs between reaction efficiency and temperature.

Lowering the reaction temperature to 350 degrees could allow solar energy to supply at least some of the heat needed

---

Gir: you said

quote:

---

It would be in the best interests of the US government to become independant of oil producing companies (particularily in the middle east). Such independance would damage left-winger's abilities to slander the Bush administration, as oil would not be a reason to go to war because they will need a heck of a lot less of it.

---

THe US government, Bush et al, is big oil. Look at all of the corporate links that have been discussed on this board. Halliburton and Dick Cheney, for example. Re-read the article I posted twice. You can't disconnect some ideal of "the US Government" from money, corporations, and greed. While there has been a little slander here and there, most of what I've seen on this board has been a discussion of fact. As regards the issue of H2 power, look at the article. Big oil is in favour because the demand for their product stands to increase if H2 becomes the fuel of choice.

[ 10 June 2003: Message edited by: tyoung ]

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- While hydrogen is touted as a clean fuel waiting to replace fossil energy sources, a new study concludes its widespread use could increase damage to the ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet radiation.

The report in Friday's editions of Science magazine says such trade-offs shouldn't prevent development of hydrogen fuel cells, but they should be taken into account when considering what measures might be needed to limit any environmental downside of a hydrogen-fuel economy.

---

This process is probably still more efficient then burning the oil in our inefficient internal combustion engines. I agree it would make more sence to use the sun in a more direct way, rather then this cirquitious (?) route.

quote:

---

Because hydrogen readily travels skyward, the researchers estimated that its increased use could lead to as much as a tripling of hydrogen molecules -- both manmade and from natural sources -- going into the stratosphere, where it would oxidize and form water.

---

Of course, the reverse process also occurs, which is photolysis, bringing water back to hydrogen and oxygen. I wonder how the equilibrium behaves, anyhow, and whether the concern being voiced is due to a proposed mechanism of free radical formation from the hydrogen molecule (which would possibly promote formation of water from ozone).

In any case, if hydrogen is entrained in some fashion, for example, by using alkali metal hydrides, then the problem is moot since they're solids and the hydrogen gas can be released on demand as one drives a vehicle, which would reduce leakages enormously.

But hydrogen is dangerous stuff and will make an explosive mixture with air over a wide range. I used to fill balloons, for high altitude weather observations, very carefully with hydrogen. I forgot the exact number but if I recall correctly even as little as two percent oxygen contamination of the hydrogen will form an explosive mixture. In the electrolizers, we used, we were forever checking to make sure that the hydrogen coming out was pure, because having one of those plate steel cells blowing up makes a huge mess of things.

quote:

---

The idea of combining it with another element could make sence, since storing hydrogen gas is a problem too.

---

But those obstacles can and must be overcome since we MUST find a way to break our oil dependance. There are a variety of environmental concerns, but also a big strategic one. There is a limited quantity of oil in the Earth, which is going to run out sooner or later (more likely sooner). More efficient engines that still depend on petroleum-derived hydrocarbons (gas, diesel, jet fuel, etc.) are only delaying the inevitable.

Which brings me to my next point, Bush & friends.

quote:

---

THe US government, Bush et al, is big oil. Look at all of the corporate links that have been discussed on this board. Halliburton and Dick Cheney, for example. Re-read the article I posted twice. You can't disconnect some ideal of "the US Government" from money, corporations, and greed. While there has been a little slander here and there, most of what I've seen on this board has been a discussion of fact. As regards the issue of H2 power, look at the article. Big oil is in favour because the demand for their product stands to increase if H2 becomes the fuel of choice.

---

quote:

---

How about a horse, it reproduces itself, it can gather its own energy, has some built in intelligence, lasts for 20+ years, does not rust, don't need a switch for the seat-warmer, and it can be used for food. And best of all it would not cost $20,000. Which means less time grubbing for the buck, probable the most wastfull thing ever invented.

---

The other school of thought is ethanol. Big industry and agriculture is behind thsi one. Agriculture because corn must be grown to produce ethanol and industry because plants and distribution systems must be built.

As to reducing car use, I think the main point would be to make cities more attractive and livable.

For one example, my father-in-law is on the verge of retirement. He's anxious to move to the big ciy away from the small-town/suburbia he's lived in for 40 years. His reasoning is to be closer to museums, galleries, bookstores, theatres, etc. He's far from "old", but he doesn't like driving for 2-3 hours on the highway anymore.

This is the kind of sales pitch that needs to be promoted, and the kind of facilities and advantages that need to be developed. Public transit should be clean, fast, efficient and LUXURIOUS if you want to attract suburbanites downtown.

So often I read comments by suburbanites that "most people don't want to live in the city". We have to address why, reduce the noise, pollution in the cities, and promote the advantages. Cities have to become much more than a place to "make a quick buck, and then get the hell out."

Meanwhile the "true" cost of low-density developement has to be passed on to the buyers. Maintenence costs to develope and repair highways, sewers, water treatment, hydro, police, fire, ambulence services, etc. have to somehow be passed on to local property taxes.(This is somewhat true, but not 100%.) All of these things are far more cost-effective if provided in a high-density setting. Mass transit has to be funded by regional/provincial/federal levels.

Low density suburbs are massively subsidized by high density inner cities, yet (around here anyway) the myth is constantly promoted that the inner cities are subsidized by suburbia.

Changing these attitudes and financial restructuring HAVE to occur first, but I can't really see any easy way this will occur.

[ 14 June 2003: Message edited by: Steve N ]

quote:

---

there is no free lunch.

---

Every solution creates new problems, or has
unforseen consequences. The BT corn used to
profitably manufacture ethanol, is leaching
tons of toxin into the soil.

quote:

---

ARLINGTON, Va. — Scientists have developed a hydrogen-making catalyst that uses cheaper materials and yields fewer contaminants than do current processes, while extracting the element from common renewable plant sources. Further, the new catalyst lies at the heart of a chemical process the authors say is a significant advance in producing alternate fuels from domestic sources.

In the June 27 issue of the journal Science, James Dumesic, John Shabaker and George Huber, of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, report developing the catalyst from nickel, tin and aluminum and using it in a process called aqueous-phase reforming (APR), which converts plant byproducts to hydrogen. The process performs as well as current methods that use precious metals such as platinum, yet runs at lower temperatures and is much cleaner.

"The APR process can be used on the small scale to produce fuel for portable devices, such as cars, batteries, and military equipment," said Dumesic. "But it could also be scaled up as a hydrogen source for industrial applications, such as the production of fertilizers or the removal of sulfur from petroleum products."

---

[ 30 June 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

Now, if they could find a way to cheat the water overpotential effect...

[ 30 June 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

I’ve read stomach-turning accounts by environmental historians stating, e.g., that New York in 1900 was buried under roughly four million pounds of manure every day, horses were stabled away from their carriages, because their urine fumes were strong enough to blister paint, and the air was loaded with bacteria-laden dust carrying a plethora of respiratory diseases. Tuberculosis rates plummeted in the 20s after the car displaced the horse. As well, the amount of land clear-cut and turned into fields to grow feedstock for horses topped out at 93,000,000 acres in 1915, with almost none today. Some of the reforestration that’s taken place in the US north-east (Vermont was almost 90% cleared land in 1900; it’s 85% forested today) is likely due to this decline in land use to produce feed for horses (and oxen, as well).

We have *got* to find a way to move ourselves and our stuff around that isn’t going to kill this planet, but draft animals aren’t the solution.

[ 02 July 2003: Message edited by: alisea ]