A solution to war

[MartianMan]

Lol. Now that I have your attention:

The Iraq war, terrorists, conflict with Hugo Chavez, etc. mainly come from one problem (arguably): Energy. More specifically: oil.

Well here is a device that makes hydrogen storage and release extremely feasible.

LINK (http://www.amminex.com/index_files/Page344.htm)

To get those who don't know about hydrogen updated, let me explain. Hydrogen is extremely reactive when ignited with oxygen. It is also the first element on the periodic table. Oil is a hydrocarbon (a.k.a. hydrogen and carbon). Igniting hydrocarbons produce carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap sunlight energy around the earth. Excess greenhouse gases increase the global temp., thus global warming. Global warming leads to icecaps melting in the arctic and in antarctica and raising the sea level. Also, it changes the conditions of tropical forests, savannas, etc. possibly leading to the deaths of many types of species.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, when ignited, forms only water. Thus, it is an ideal energy carrier. Unfortunately, hydrogen is also very reactive. Thus, it is unsafe for use in cars (i.e. they might blow up if not careful). This new invention, however, stores hydrogen safely. The hydrogen is bonded to the material in normal conditions causing it to be inert. Now, I know the link is fairly brief and uninformative, so let me summarize what it can do.

13.0 MJ/l is what the product claims to do. Converted to gasoline talk that means the hydrogen powered car can roughly go 500 km using 50 L. Convert to american units: that means the car can go roughly 23.5 miles per gallon.

Now that's not revolutionary, but do you really want to contribute to problems of war, famine, and political strife? Plus, it is good enough to do everything we need it to do.

The other problem is that we need to create Hydrogen. It's very reactive so it's rare to find in pure form. Solution? Solar and nuclear power. I'm leaning toward nuclear power as it is more reliable and efficient. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans feel nuclear power is dirty and dangerous. Because of this belief, most of our nuclear plants were created in the 50s and 60s with little plans to create more. Consider the alternative: dirty coal/gas vs. clean nuclear/hydrogen power. Why are we not doing anything?

Democracy and capitalism at its worst. Instead of creating more and better technologies, democracy and capitalism has allowed huge oil companies to block innovation and influence Congress. The irony is not lost on me.

Anyways, we need nuclear power and new energy development. It should be our #1 agenda for the next decade or two.

[tigermission1]

Now figure out how to make tons of money out of it (preferably $5-10 billion per quarter) and we got ourselves a new source of fuel for our SUVs

[Supermac34]

Of course that doesn't answer the fact that you would still need oil. Most oil doesn't actually go to fuels, but goes to industrial chemical manufacturing, plastics and synthetic manufacturing as well as other things...and not as a fuel, but as a component.

Even if you had a fuel to replace petrol based fuels, you'd still need tons of oil.

[StupidMoniker]

Oddly enough, the same group that is opposed to big oil is opposed to nuclear power.

[Sishir Chang]

I'm not opposed to nuclear power if someone can find a way of storing all that waste for the next 10 mil. years. I'll head off the obvious about Yucca mountain because there's still the problems of getting it there and what do you do when Yucca fills up.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source in itself but a storage medium since the only way we can get hydrogen here on Earth is by expending energy to free it from water or other compounds. At that point any energy source is good enough to get hydrogen and IMO its the ideal storage medium for renewables because the problem with things like solar and wind isn't generating lot of power but being able to store that energy when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. With hydrogen we can manufacturer tons of hydrogen when the sun is shining in addition to generating electricity then when the sun isn't shining we generate electricty from the stored hydrogen.

[krosfyah]

Oddly enough, the same group that is opposed to big oil is opposed to nuclear power.

Yup. It isn't an either or situation. Oil and nuclear have major problems.

We already have hybrids that can do 250 mpg. Lets just ramp that up right now until we can find a way to produce hydrogen that doesn't involved using natural gas in the conversion process.

[MartianMan]

I'm not opposed to nuclear power if someone can find a way of storing all that waste for the next 10 mil. years. I'll head off the obvious about Yucca mountain because there's still the problems of getting it there and what do you do when Yucca fills up.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source in itself but a storage medium since the only way we can get hydrogen here on Earth is by expending energy to free it from water or other compounds. At that point any energy source is good enough to get hydrogen and IMO its the ideal storage medium for renewables because the problem with things like solar and wind isn't generating lot of power but being able to store that energy when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. With hydrogen we can manufacturer tons of hydrogen when the sun is shining in addition to generating electricity then when the sun isn't shining we generate electricty from the stored hydrogen.

Solution? Already exists. It's called an Integral Fast Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor)

Benefits include:

# Enhanced safety because of the high thermal conductivity of the fuel.
# Able to withstand both a Loss of flow without SCRAM and Loss of heat sink without SCRAM [1][2].
# Ease of fuel fabrication. Because the sodium fills the space between the fuel and cladding, the fuel need not be precisely fabricated. The fuel is simply cast.
# Because casting is simple, the fuel can be fabricated remotely, reducing the hazards of its radioactivity.
# Reprocessing is simplified because there is no need to stringently reduce the radioactivity of the fuel. Actinides can also be incorporated into the fuel.
# Proliferation hazards are reduced by the high radioactivity of the fuel.
# Pyroprocessing and electrorefining are feasible with this fuel. This allows on site reprocessing. Two forms of waste are produced, a noble metal form and a ceramic form. Both are suitable for geological disposal.
# The waste produced contains no plutonium or other actinides. The radioactivity of the waste decays to levels similar to the original ore in about 300 years.

Only negatives include:

- producing radioactive sodium with a short half-life (15 hours)


Lol. We have the technology, but we don't have the support. Sucks eh? Even if we didn't have the technology, we should pursue more and more research in energy development, nuclear being a major area.

[Sishir Chang]

Martian Man;

That sounds very interesting and I would be curious about learning more about it. While it makes waste easier to deal with though it still doesn't do away with waste and you're still stuck with dealing with radioactive waste for at least 300 years. I myself is skeptical that we can predict geological stability along with all potential probabilities that might occur to interred waste for decades let alone hundreds of years.

Nuclear may be a better option than fossil fuels but there are still many problems with it.

[tigermission1]

I would prefer natural gas myself, but that's just me.

[111chase111]

Lol. Now that I have your attention:

The Iraq war, terrorists, conflict with Hugo Chavez, etc. mainly come from one problem (arguably): Energy. More specifically: oil.

Well here is a device that makes hydrogen storage and release extremely feasible.

LINK (http://www.amminex.com/index_files/Page344.htm)

To get those who don't know about hydrogen updated, let me explain. Hydrogen is extremely reactive when ignited with oxygen. It is also the first element on the periodic table. Oil is a hydrocarbon (a.k.a. hydrogen and carbon). Igniting hydrocarbons produce carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap sunlight energy around the earth. Excess greenhouse gases increase the global temp., thus global warming. Global warming leads to icecaps melting in the arctic and in antarctica and raising the sea level. Also, it changes the conditions of tropical forests, savannas, etc. possibly leading to the deaths of many types of species.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, when ignited, forms only water.

I thought that Water Vapor was a greenhouse gas as well. Going to hydrogen fueled vehicles that emit water vapor as exhaust will go a long ways towards reducing our dependancy on foreign oil but will it actually do anything to reduce global warming?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688.html

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

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/climate/ccucla6.htm

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

[Cohen]

Lol. Now that I have your attention:
...

Democracy and capitalism at its worst. Instead of creating more and better technologies, democracy and capitalism has allowed huge oil companies to block innovation and influence Congress. The irony is not lost on me.

...


Naive Americian-centric thinking.

If there are such awesome, clean non-oil options out there the rest of the world would be using them...you know, where the influence of our huge oil companies does not reach.

[Sishir Chang]

I thought that Water Vapor was a greenhouse gas as well. Going to hydrogen fueled vehicles that emit water vapor as exhaust will go a long ways towards reducing our dependancy on foreign oil but will it actually do anything to reduce global warming?


While its true that water vapor plays a role in the climate but at least its removed from the atmosphere through precipitation. I've heard also that part of the increase in water vapor is attributable to global warming too as temps rise the atmospheric capacity to hold water increases along with greater evaporation. If other causes of global warming are addressed its possible that atmospheric water vapor might decrease too.

[Ottomaton]

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

[MartianMan]

I thought that Water Vapor was a greenhouse gas as well. Going to hydrogen fueled vehicles that emit water vapor as exhaust will go a long ways towards reducing our dependancy on foreign oil but will it actually do anything to reduce global warming?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688.html

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

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/climate/ccucla6.htm

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

You are correct. Water is a greenhouse gas. However, the atmosphere is already fully saturated with water and an increase in water emission will have no effect on global warming except, as Sishir_Chang pointed out, if the global temp. rises, then the atmosphere will hold greater water amounts.

So, in short, water emission does not cause global warming.

[MartianMan]

Martian Man;

That sounds very interesting and I would be curious about learning more about it. While it makes waste easier to deal with though it still doesn't do away with waste and you're still stuck with dealing with radioactive waste for at least 300 years. I myself is skeptical that we can predict geological stability along with all potential probabilities that might occur to interred waste for decades let alone hundreds of years.

Nuclear may be a better option than fossil fuels but there are still many problems with it.

As the article states, the "waste" produced has the same half-life as the original ore. So basically we get the benefit of using nuclear power without an increase in waste since the ore would be radioactive whether or not we used it.

[MartianMan]

Naive Americian-centric thinking.

If there are such awesome, clean non-oil options out there the rest of the world would be using them...you know, where the influence of our huge oil companies does not reach.

Lol. So a person who researches different ideas is naive while another who blindly trusts the government to provide the best possible leadership is not? Every country has corporations and people with different agendas. And yes, the other countries in the world recognize the benefit of nuclear power, that is why they are becoming far more advance in nuclear power than we are. Stem cells, nuclear power, what next?

[MartianMan]

I thought that Water Vapor was a greenhouse gas as well. Going to hydrogen fueled vehicles that emit water vapor as exhaust will go a long ways towards reducing our dependancy on foreign oil but will it actually do anything to reduce global warming?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688.html

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

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/climate/ccucla6.htm

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Here, the info. is in your own link:

Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2 ([5], see B7). Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7].

[giddyup]

... water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7].[/b]
What about if you leave the sprinkler on too long?

[MartianMan]

What about if you leave the sprinkler on too long?

It still will not affect the total water vapor in the atmosphere because the atmosphere is already saturated.

[Sishir Chang]

As the article states, the "waste" produced has the same half-life as the original ore. So basically we get the benefit of using nuclear power without an increase in waste since the ore would be radioactive whether or not we used it.

Except that the radioactivity of the ore is probably a lot less concentrated in the ore than it is in the processed waste. Unless they can figure out how to reverse process the waste back into the earth as ore we'll still have the problem of where to store the waste where as the ore sits down in the ground.

[111chase111]

Here, the info. is in your own link:

Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2 ([5], see B7). Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7].


That's all fine. But what if millions of cars start spewing water vapor into the air? Any studies show what kind of effect that will have?

[wnes]

That's all fine. But what if millions of cars start spewing water vapor into the air? Any studies show what kind of effect that will have?

Cars have been emitting water vapor since their inventions. The end products of any hydrocarbon compounds after complete oxidation contain water. What's the beef with that?

[MartianMan]

That's all fine. But what if millions of cars start spewing water vapor into the air? Any studies show what kind of effect that will have?

Yes, there are studies. Did you read your own links? Water has saturated the air. An increase in water vapor is only a byproduct of an increase of another greenhouse gas, usually carbon dioxide. Think about it. Oceans have been evaporating water for hundreds of millions of years. The air is saturated. If millions of cars spew out water, it might just rain more for a little bit, but as for global warming, there will be no effect.

[MartianMan]

Except that the radioactivity of the ore is probably a lot less concentrated in the ore than it is in the processed waste. Unless they can figure out how to reverse process the waste back into the earth as ore we'll still have the problem of where to store the waste where as the ore sits down in the ground.

I don't know about the concentration of radioactivity in waste vs. ore. All I know is that we need more research on nuclear power and preventing nuclear reactors from being built restricts scientists' ability to study real-life activities of nuclear power.

[Invisible Fan]

That's all fine. But what if millions of cars start spewing water vapor into the air? Any studies show what kind of effect that will have?

Everyone spews water vapor when they breathe. Perhaps more clouds would be formed and the reflected light from it would help cool down the earth. No one really knows, just as no one really knows how much CO2 the earth can handle.

While water is a greenhouse gas, the main culprits are methane and carbon dioxide. Nitrates and sulfites are more troublesome when it comes back down as acid rain.

Switching out of fossil fuels has other benefits as well. The city's air would be much cleaner, would have less particulate matter that causes lung cancer, and have less polution in the form of acid rain, polluted runoff, and gasoline leakages. The aesthetic value would improve as it would take longer for buildings to brown.

Hydrogen is still a long way to go. One environmental concern would be its storage. Should it be in gaseous form, a hydrogen leak of around 5% would be enough to damage and weaken our ozone layer.

[wnes]

MartianMan, from what I read, hydrogen-based processes generally have very low or even negative EROEI. Another draw back is it requires tremendous amount of precious metals, such as platinum, for large scale production.

[111chase111]

Everyone spews water vapor when they breathe.

Everyone spews out carbon dioxide when they breathe and methane when they fart. ;)

I'm not arguing against hydrogen cars! I'm just bringing up a point for discussion.

[Sishir Chang]

I don't know about the concentration of radioactivity in waste vs. ore. All I know is that we need more research on nuclear power and preventing nuclear reactors from being built restricts scientists' ability to study real-life activities of nuclear power.

I will agree with you that more research is needed but in the meantime until someone can show me a good way of dealing with the waste I'm going to remain skeptical about fission based nuclear power. Now if someone can develop controlled fusion that doesn't take a huge amount of energy input then I'm all for it.

[MartianMan]

I will agree with you that more research is needed but in the meantime until someone can show me a good way of dealing with the waste I'm going to remain skeptical about fission based nuclear power. Now if someone can develop controlled fusion that doesn't take a huge amount of energy input then I'm all for it.

So if someone develops a super clean and efficient power source, you wouldn't be against it? :rolleyes: :D

I don't feel that fusion will be utilized within the decade, maybe in several decades. In the meantime, we have to use what we have. It's either nuclear or gas/coal. I guess solar and geo-power (wind, water) would work but they aren't well developed either and fluctuate day by day. So to utilize geo-power, we need a very efficient storage device, which we don't have. Nuclear has so much untapped potential, it's a shame we aren't studying it as much as we should.

[MartianMan]

MartianMan, from what I read, hydrogen-based processes generally have very low or even negative EROEI. Another draw back is it requires tremendous amount of precious metals, such as platinum, for large scale production.

That is definitely true. Of course almost all energy sources we use have a low EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested?). I don't think the energy return is the main issue however. The Sun provides massive amounts of energy that is not utilized and so does nuclear material. There are many sources of energy that are financially feasible. The main problems involved are pollution and storage. Hydrogen solves both. Nuclear power solves the problem of energy investment. Plus, by creating a central location for energy storage (as opposed to cars), the power plant can be far more efficient than any car can be at creating energy, storing energy, and dealing with waste.

While platinum is the metal of choice for H2 creation, I'm sure as technology progresses other mechanisms will be discovered. We need more time and money spent into nuclear power. Plus, platinum only serves as a catalyst.

But yea, problems still exist, but the solution is getting close. We need some more support!

[Dubious]

Just say no to more humidity!


The benefits of Yucca mountain are worth the risks. Face it, the 104 nuclear facilities in the US have already produced thousands of tons of waste that is just sitting in temporary holding facilities a thousand times less secure than Yucca mountain. We have to ship that and store it anyway so if we spend 50 billion dollars developing the best system humanly possible, we might as well use it to produce relatively cheap, relatively clean energy.

Or we can learn to live at an energy consumption level significantly lower than that to which we have become accustomed. But that's not bloody likely since energy consumption = quality of life.

[Sishir Chang]

The main problems involved are pollution and storage. Hydrogen solves both. Nuclear power solves the problem of energy investment. Plus, by creating a central location for energy storage (as opposed to cars), the power plant can be far more efficient than any car can be at creating energy, storing energy, and dealing with waste.

Except that you can produce hydrogen with renewables like solar, wind and geothermal and hydrogen provides the solution for dealing with fluctuations in availability of those power sources. Further those sources produce no waste unlike nuclear. Alll of the advantages you cite from nuclear and hydrogen can be gained from renewables and hydrogen with the advantage of not having to deal with highly radioactive waste for at least hundreds of years.

[Sishir Chang]

The benefits of Yucca mountain are worth the risks. Face it, the 104 nuclear facilities in the US have already produced thousands of tons of waste that is just sitting in temporary holding facilities a thousand times less secure than Yucca mountain. We have to ship that and store it anyway so if we spend 50 billion dollars developing the best system humanly possible, we might as well use it to produce relatively cheap, relatively clean energy.


So what do you do when Yucca mountain fills up or if you find out that Yucca mountain isn't as geologically stable as thought?

I agree we gotta do something with the waste we have now but until we can figure out a way to get rid of the waste why keep on creating more waste we're going to be stuck with for centuries or millenia.

[MartianMan]

Except that you can produce hydrogen with renewables like solar, wind and geothermal and hydrogen provides the solution for dealing with fluctuations in availability of those power sources. Further those sources produce no waste unlike nuclear. Alll of the advantages you cite from nuclear and hydrogen can be gained from renewables and hydrogen with the advantage of not having to deal with highly radioactive waste for at least hundreds of years.

I don't believe that solar, wind, and geothermal power will provide enough energy to power the globe like nuclear can, currently. That'd be great if we develop the technology to utilize natural power efficiently. The nuclear "waste" that is produced may eventually be used as well. Not studying nuclear power isn't going to help increase our knowledge of nuclear power...

[Sishir Chang]

I don't believe that solar, wind, and geothermal power will provide enough energy to power the globe like nuclear can, currently. That'd be great if we develop the technology to utilize natural power efficiently.

I'll give you the same answer that you posted on nuclear. Shouldn't we be doing more research into renewables? Without building more renewable power plants we're not going to be able to find out more.

As far as enough energy to power the globe on a sunny day there's probably enough energy in the wind and sunshine falling on South Dakota to power the US. There's renewable energy everywhere, in the air, sky, oceans, ground and plants its just a matter of tapping it and storing it.

[MartianMan]

I'll give you the same answer that you posted on nuclear. Shouldn't we be doing more research into renewables? Without building more renewable power plants we're not going to be able to find out more.

As far as enough energy to power the globe on a sunny day there's probably enough energy in the wind and sunshine falling on South Dakota to power the US. There's renewable energy everywhere, in the air, sky, oceans, ground and plants its just a matter of tapping it and storing it.

I mean we don't have the technology to extract the energy needed from wind, solar, etc. to power the US. But nuclear will provide enough power.

I agree we need more research into both areas. But currently, only nuclear can solve our power needs.

[Sishir Chang]

We have the technology to extract energy from solar and wind and have had it for years, centuries in the case of wind. What we don't have is a good way of storing it. If we use renewables to generate hydrogen and then use hydrogen to generate electricity problem solved.

[MartianMan]

We have the technology to extract energy from solar and wind and have had it for years, centuries in the case of wind. What we don't have is a good way of storing it. If we use renewables to generate hydrogen and then use hydrogen to generate electricity problem solved.

I never said we couldn't extract energy. I said we can't extract enough energy to power the US. Maybe in 10 years it'll be financially feasible to do so everywhere in the US. Right now, only Southern California can break even using solar power.