Michael
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:11 pm Post subject: Some more white papers on another Bush>s Blunder |
 |
|
From some engineers, that can actually do the math. Reports available from
links. I too wish that Bush would not have so many Blunders, like like
getting even with his mother>s and father>s ememy and supporting big oil.
We are the ones going to be eating the results of his blunders for a long
time...
From: "The Hydrogen Report, An Examination of the Role of Hydrogen In
Achieving U.S. Energy Independence"
Go here for more: http://www.tmgtech.com/images/Energy_Economics_Rev_B.doc
"Though it is not our intention to politicize the issue of the hydrogen
economy, we take strong exception to the five principal foundations of the
proposed Bush Hydrogen Fuel Plan:
1. Fuel cells are a proven technology
False. Fuel cells are proven to work, but the technology to reduce
manufacturing cost by an order of magnitude has not been developed, nor has
the reliability or durability of low-cost fuel cells been demonstrated. In
addition, we do not support the prevailing view that hydrogen is the best
fuel for fuel cells.
2. The (Hydrogen Fuel Plan) initiatives will overcome key technical and cost
barriers for fuel cells
False. Even if fuel cell technology advances dramatically, the major cost
barriers are associated with the manufacturing and distribution of hydrogen
fuel itself. These issues are inexorably linked to the laws of physics and
thermodynamics.
3. Hydrogen fuel will help ensure America>s energy independence
False. America will consume substantially more non-renewable energy in a
hydrogen economy that it consumes today. Unless our huge reserves of coal
(or nuclear power) are tapped, we will be increasingly dependent on foreign
energy supplies (of oil and natural gas) with each passing year
4. Fuel cells will improve air quality and dramatically reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
False. Again, America will consume substantially more fossil energy in a
hydrogen economy that it consumes today and therefore create more emissions.
The public needs a much more fundamental understanding of these critical
issues – as do politicians.
5. Hydrogen is the key to a clean energy future
False. As we have seen, hydrogen is quite a dirty fuel as currently
manufactured. In our view, the only viable, clean, and scalable methods for
producing enough energy to manufacture the huge quantities of hydrogen
required are nuclear and Zero Emissions Coal. Neither of these technologies
are the focus of the Bush plan.
We should give serious consideration to dropping the hydrogen mantra and
adopt a “transitional fuels” paradigm that allows fuel cell development to
continue on a sustainable economic path while the longer-term issues
regarding hydrogen are resolved. A natural hydrogen carrier such as natural
gas, methane, a liquid hydrocarbon or methanol, represents a viable
alternative to pure hydrogen for fuel cells, as they require far less energy
to extract the hydrogen at the point of use and can readily be derived from
coal.
Our coal reserves are the most attractive fuel source on which to base the
production of these transitional fuels. The extensive reserves in North
America suggest that a 400-year (or more) supply of feedstocks exist in this
form at present consumption rates. The prospects for developing new methods
of coal conversion with near zero atmospheric emissions should be
aggressively pursued as a national strategic defense priority.
The development of this coal technology could lay the foundation for a new
generation of power plants and conversion facilities, which not only produce
clean electricity from coal, but also manufacture methane and methanol for
commercial heating and transportation.
Moreover, we submit that it is neither necessary nor economically desirable
to completely eliminate CO2 emissions from vehicles. The reduced CO2
emissions from the new power-generating facilities we propose will
substantially offset modest CO2 emissions from vehicles, particularly with
the introduction of relatively clean-burning SOFC fuel cells using methanol.
While we acknowledge that this migration to new technology will take
decades, the dire (and, we submit, for the most part incorrect) global
predictions of some environmentalists can be averted with steady progress
toward cleaner fuels.
Given pressing timing concerns with regard to remaining oil supplies, we
must also give consideration to the path we will take to address and finally
solve the tremendously complex technical issues ahead. In the past, science
has taken quite a ‘meandering’ path to discovery and development. That
approach now may have severe consequences to our civilization. A more
pragmatic approach may be called for to solve these issues, so that the
required technical and human resources available can be sharply focused on
coal, methane, and methanol.
Finally, we must have is a more thoughtful public debate about the merits of
the hydrogen economy as proposed by the Administration. The huge investments
that are anticipated in this well-intentioned but sadly misdirected
proclamation will seriously impair the development of more rational energy
alternatives.
-----end ----"
From: "The Hydrogen Report, Executive Summary, An Examination of the Role of
Hydrogen In Achieving U.S. Energy Independence"
Go Here for More:
http://www.tmgtech.com/images/Hydrogen_Report_ES_-_bio.doc
"Conclusions
What then should be our choice of a clean alternate energy strategy? We
believe that, with the exception of a few special situations:
Hydrogen is not appropriate as a fuel, notwithstanding its zero carbon
content - it is simply too energy-intensive, difficult and dangerous to
produce and use.
If hydrogen is used, it must not be sourced from either electricity (itself
a derived energy carrier) or natural gas (an energy source in short supply
with many other priority users).
Coal, rather than oil or natural gas, should be the energy source for any
alternate fuel strategy, especially one that is based on derived energy
carriers.
Ammonia, despite difficulties in its use, may be the optimum choice of
carbon-free energy carriers; however, we do not believe that it is necessary
to use carbon-free fuels – reduced carbon fuels are sufficient.
Methanol, methane, synthetic natural gas (SNG), all represent excellent
reduced carbon fuels (relative to direct coal, gasoline and other
hydrocarbons) that can be derived from coal and used with much greater
convenience and efficiency and at a much lower energy cost than hydrogen.
Since all of these low-carbon fuels can be used as direct fuels in
alternative designs of fuel cell, we believe that emphasis should be placed
on the further development of such cells, with appropriate capability
included for additional carbon sequestration – if needed.
Direct methanol fuel cells may be the best choice for transportation use in
view of their low temperature of operation, but much more work is required
to improve their efficiency.
Hydrogen has been greatly oversold by ‘evangelists” in the USDOE and
elsewhere and also by the environmental lobby, including some very
persuasive writers who are adept at choosing half truths to fit their
preconceived conclusions. In short, upon close and objective examination, we
find that The Emperor Hydrogen has no Clothes."
From: "The Truth about Hydrogen" (A Response to Amory Lovins’ “Twenty
Hydrogen Myths”) by John R. Wilson, Ph.D.
Go here for more:
http://www.tmgtech.com/images/Truth_about_Hydrogen_Myths_Response_-_v4.1.doc
"Our Preamble
In his recent paper “Twenty Hydrogen Myths”, Dr. Amory Lovins, CEO of the
Rocky Mountain Institute addresses some of the important issues regarding
the proposed future “hydrogen economy”1. He describes some of the discussion
that has occurred as “conflicting, confusing and often ill-informed” and
claims that some issues have been raised solely as reasons for not
developing a “Hydrogen Economy”.
He is right on both counts but his paper adds to the problem by:
(a) Failing to address adequately several of the key issues that render
hydrogen non-viable as a fuel on both economic and technical grounds6.
(b) Addressing a lot of his favorite issues, many of which have little to do
with the viability of hydrogen and
(c) Providing misleading and “conflicting, confusing and often ill-informed”
information on some of the issues that he does address.
To add to the confusion, several of the “myths” that he identifies really
are myths – but most are not." |
|
cyril
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:23 am Post subject: Re: Some more white papers on another Bush>s Blunder |
|
|
"Michael" <PostNoSpam@RecoveryByDiscovery.com>, notre ami(e) à tous,
qu>on aime tellement qu>on ne l'échangerait pas contre un carton de
Lussac-St Emilion 1990 (deux cartons, je dis pas), a écrit :
[quote]
Ammonia, despite difficulties in its use, may be the optimum choice of
carbon-free energy carriers; however, we do not believe that it is necessary
to use carbon-free fuels – reduced carbon fuels are sufficient.
[/quote]
I don>t think using NH3 would be very "clean".
[quote]Methanol, methane, synthetic natural gas (SNG), all represent excellent
reduced carbon fuels (relative to direct coal, gasoline and other
hydrocarbons) that can be derived from coal and used with much greater
convenience and efficiency and at a much lower energy cost than hydrogen.
Since all of these low-carbon fuels can be used as direct fuels in
alternative designs of fuel cell, we believe that emphasis should be placed
on the further development of such cells, with appropriate capability
included for additional carbon sequestration – if needed.
[/quote]
Methanol produced from coal with sequestration could be a very good
fuel. It is not only lower in C than gasoline. Since it does contain
oxygen, it burn with low carbon monoxyde emissions. It is sulfur-free.
The big quality is that production and use could start to grow
together. No "hen and egg" problem.
Methanol could be first blended with petroleum-derived fuels, then be
used alone in motors (and jet engines as well), then used in fuel
cells.
The problem is that MeOH is quite volative, and vapours are toxics.
Avoiding exposition must not be a major problem however.
Since the USA are running out of natural gas, and the world will
follow, new sources of methane are needed. SNG with sequestration can
be promising, together with landfill gas, and coalbed methane.
--
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
Aldous Huxley |
|
