We'll be forced to use hybrids when the peak in oil supply hits. That plus biomass and wind power. There's no way we can sustain this extravagence for fossil fuels.
So what's the reality of hydrogen power/fuel cells etc.? I've always been in huge favor of finding alternative methods of power but have a very poor knowledge of the alternatives.
The hydrogen car is a myth for now. It takes a lot more energy to convert compounds into readily usable hydrogen fuel. IIRC, Bush's hydrogen plan was to use fossil fuels as the base compound, so any hopes of helping the environment is shot right there. We've dragged our feet on this issue for long because of money interests, but the world's fossil fuel supplies is dwindling and will dry up in the next 50 years. Everything in our society needs energy, from transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, science and technology. Here's a disturbing speech from some guy formerly in Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html The reality isn't as bleak, but our society is definitely going to have to change its energy consumption habits. The alternatives currently being discussed are- Solar and wind power- By some estimates, there's enough wind in the US to generate 3 times our total energy consumption. As oil prices increase, these technologies will have to be improved. Biomass- With improving technology sewage treament plants and waste treatment plants will also act as power plants. Your trash and wastes will be converted to engine fuel, power plant fuel, and hydrogen fuel. Nuclear power- If we were to totally rely all our energy on fission power, we could only sustain it for around 5 years at current consumption rates before the world's supply of uranium depletes. Breeder reactors aren't exactly a surefire technology anyways, so this alternative isn't going to satisfy our energy demands. For cars, the current demand for fast and powerful vehicles will probably rule out pure electric cars and the technology for hydrogen fuel cells is still far off. The transition between today's cars and fuel cell powered cars will be hybrids. We'll probably pay the same for a tank of gas in fifteen years even though we pumped half as much.
This is the nub of the problem. A few years ago in graduate school I did a survey of cold fusion technology and while there was some promising developments it still seemed like it was years if not decades away. Until a proven cost affective method for cold fusion is developed I doubt that fusion will be practical. Anyone there are already many existing renewable, non polluting energy technologies out there.
Fuel cell technology has been around for about a 100 years and has been widely used in space exploration. The problem with using fuel cells more widely is the difficulty in getting and storing hydrogen. Hydrogen for practical purposes needs to be considered as an energy storage medium than an energy source in itself since there is little free hydrogen out there. One idea is to use renewable energy sources, like wind, solar and etc., to provide the power to collect hydrogen by cracking water molecules. That hydrogen would then be stored to be used in fuel cells for cars, houses and other practical applications. This would eliminate the biggest problem in wind and solar generation is that you can only generate electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing because now that power will be stored in hydrogen. Of course the other problem with that is we have no hydrogen infrastructure to store and use hydrogen on a wide scale. Until we have a hydrogen infrastructure on the level of a fossil fuel infrastructure practical and affordable hydrogen is not going to happen. IMO a hydrogen based power system is something we should be working too but in the meantime like invisible fan said hybrids and bio fuels which can be used in current technology are a good transition.
But wasn't the point of the question to ask how far we could have gotten with those technologies if we had poured the hundred billion dollars from the Iraq war into research and development?
Cold fusion never seems feasible to me. Controlled thermalnuclear fusion is the real deal. Currently, there is a device in China and another one in Europe. Six countries are planning to build a new device. Here is a link to the web page of that project, http://www.iter.org/. An introduction to the project is pasted below. The ITER experiment (ITER means "the way") is designed to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes. Following on from today's largest fusion experiments worldwide, ITER aims to provide the know-how to build subsequently the first electricity-generating power station based on magnetic confinement of high temperature plasma - in other words, to capture and use the power of the sun on earth. ITER will test all the main new features needed for that device - high-temperature-tolerant components, large-scale reliable superconducting magnets, fuel-breeding blankets using high temperature coolants suitable for efficient electricity generation, and safe remote handling and disposal of all irradiated components. ITER's operating conditions are close to those that will be experienced in a power reactor, and will show how they can be optimised, and how hardware design margins can be reduced to control cost. ITER began in 1985 as a collaboration between the then Soviet Union, the USA, Europe (through EURATOM) and Japan. Conceptual and engineering design phases led to an acceptable detailed design in 2001, underpinned by $650M worth of research and development by the "ITER Parties" to establish its practical feasibility. These (with the Russian Federation replacing the Soviet Union and with the USA opting out of the project between 1999 and 2003) have been since joined in negotiations on the future construction, operation and decommissioning of ITER by Canada (who terminated their participation at the end of 2003), the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea. The project is expected cost ~$10 billion over its complete life. A decision on the site for ITER will allow the project to move on to its construction phase. The arrangements can be finalised on who will lead it and how the costs and procurements will be shared and, through the subsequent signature of a joint implementation agreement, will allow the international ITER Organisation to be established in late 2004. This will be responsible for and technically oversee all aspects of the project, from application for construction licenses from the nuclear authorities of the host country, through hardware procurements mostly provided "in-kind" by the Parties, through operation, expected to begin in 2014 and last 20 years, with its involvement of experimental physicists and engineers worldwide, and ultimately for decommissioning of the plant at its end of life. Constructing and operating ITER is the essential step to determining whether magnetic confinement of plasma can be usefully employed by humankind for centralised electricity generation in the latter half of this century, and this dream will be brought much closer to reality by the choice of its site.
Didn't know where else to put this and didn't want to start another thread. -------------------------------------------------------- Saudis said to boost oil output No. 1 oil exporter will reportedly increase production before election in effort to help Bush. April 19, 2004: 7:09 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower gas prices before November to help the president's re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday. Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, discussing his new book on the run-up to the Iraq war on CBS' '60 Minutes,' said Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States and a long-time friend of the Bush family, has given the pledge that "certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly." http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/international/election_saudi/index.htm?cnn=yes
