[Grovenet] FYI, from this week's E-Skeptic

[David Morelli]

On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Bob Browning wrote:

> In this week’s eSkeptic, Alice Friedemann examines the science and  
> pseudoscience behind a hydrogen economy. Is it worth the energy?
>
> ....
>
> Unlike gasoline, hydrogen isn’t an energy source — it’s an energy  
> carrier, like a battery. You have to make hydrogen and put energy  
> into it, both of which take energy.
>
Inaccurate.  Gasoline is an energy carrier in exactly the same manner  
as hydrogen.  It has to be processed from the base chemicals of  
Hydrogen and Carbon by the addition of energy and a very long  
processing time.
> ... When hydrogen is made from natural gas, however, nitrogen  
> oxides are released, which are 58 times more effective in trapping  
> heat than carbon dioxide.
>
One of the items measured in the tailpipe of your automobile is  
Nitrogen oxides (NOx), yes it is released, and yes it is a problem  
under both systems.
> ... The goal is to use renewable energy to make hydrogen from water  
> via electrolysis. When the wind is blowing, current wind turbines  
> can perform at 30–40 percent efficiency, producing hydrogen at an  
> overall rate of 25 percent efficiency — 3 units of wind energy to  
> get 1 unit of hydrogen energy. The best solar cells available on a  
> large scale have an efficiency of ten percent, or 9 units of energy  
> to get 1 hydrogen unit of energy. If you use algae making hydrogen  
> as a byproduct, the efficiency is about .1 percent.12 No matter how  
> you look at it, producing hydrogen from water is an energy sink. ...
>
> Hydrogen can be made from biomass, but there are numerous problems:
>
> it’s very seasonal;
> it contains a lot of moisture, requiring energy to store and dry it  
> before gasification;
> there are limited supplies;
> the quantities are not large or consistent enough for large-scale  
> hydrogen production;
> a huge amount of land is required because even cultivated biomass  
> in good soil has a low yield — 10 tons per 2.4 acres;
> the soil will be degraded from erosion and loss of fertility if  
> stripped of biomass;
> any energy put into the land to grow the biomass, such as  
> fertilizer and planting and harvesting, will add to the energy costs;
> the delivery costs to the central power plant must be added; and
> it is not suitable for pure hydrogen production.13
> Putting Energy into Hydrogen

Note what was just said about generating usable hydrogen from biomass  
using renewable energy sources, and recall that

> "Oil is too powerful and useful to waste on hydrogen — it is  
> concentrated sunshine brewed over hundreds of millions of years. A  
> gallon of gas represents about 196,000 pounds of fossil plants, the  
> amount in 40 acres of wheat.


Biomass yields 10 tons per 2.4 acres within one year, the gasoline  
production process yields one gallon per 40 acres after hundreds of  
millions of years.

Nothing personal, but based upon the author's arguments, we cannot  
possibly have a sustainable gasoline based economy.

I agree with that.  We cannot.  Nor can we have a sustainable  
environment based upon the combustion of ancient carbon sources.

Perhaps we could paraphrase the author and say "Ancient oil is too  
powerful and useful to waste by burning in applications where less  
powerful and useful materials would suffice."

Or perhaps, the author should be invited to discuss the options for  
creation of gasoline from water and carbon, rather than refining  
( which is not creation ) it from petroleum stock.

David