Quote:Original post by frostburn
Hydrogen on the other hand.. Of course, it requires energy to create hydrogen gas, so the only solution is hydro electric, nuclear (not clean, but no CO2), or solar. Fusion would be ideal, but it's still off somewhere in the future. The electric energy from these sources could be used to create hydrogen gas and this in turn fuel cars etc. Combustion of hydrogen produces only water wapor, and while that TOO is a green house gas it's more easily recycled.
It might also be possible to electro-chemically produce methanol by getting the raw elements from the atmosphere and water. Methanol burns just as cleanly as methane but is liquid in room temperature. It's relatively easy to create methanol now, but not in a way that also cleans the atmosphere. Ethanol also burns cleanly, and is also nice to have on a party :). It's also easy to create, but both production and combustion produces CO2.
You're forgetting about wind power. Recent advances have made wind power cost effective. The newest turbines "produce power for less than the price of electricity from a new natural gas-fired power plant" (
Cape Hope login as 'guest:guest' - This article is more about NIMBY politics in Nantucket than it is about science, but it's a start.) It seems to me that wind power make for a better source of electricity to use to generate hydrogen. That way the process would be green from start to finish.
The fundamental drawback of the article from the NYT is that it presupposes the use of nuclear power to generate hydrogen. Right there in the first paragraph it says this new advance, raises "the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil." It doesn't even allow for other possibilities. When I read articles that tout energy breakthroughs, but lead off with nuclear energy, I can't help be suspicious that there is an ulterior goal at work - namely to "rehabilitate" nuclear power in the public mind. Nuclear power has long been used to provide cover for nuclear weapons. It gives it a positive spin. Look at how the Iranians are using it. I think we can achieve our energy goals without nuclear power.
Here's one of the better articles regarding energy independence that I've read in the last few months:
Independence Way. Of course, coming from me, this article is more oriented towards politics - but energy policy in the United States is extremely political. This article is geared towards the practical - it lists several areas where a little bit of Presidential political power could go a long way towards energy independence. For example, some gains have been made in the production of cellulosic ethanol - ethanol made from leaves and stalks rather than fruit. It also suggests that ethanol would make for a better means of storing hydrogen and reports a break through in a method for separating hydrogen from ethanol. The article also makes a few other suggestions, it's worth the read.
And for politics and energy in general, here's one of the sharpest analysis of the situation that I've read all year:
Kerry's "Energy Plan" - Don't let the election framework fool you, this article should have been titled: "The Political Economy of Energy". It's outlook is somewhat bleak:
Quote:
The empiricists have identified a very serious consequence if we continue on the same path, and the energy crisis is quite real (We will show further on just how real in many ways). But if we accept their premise that it is genetically predetermined, then we might as well party on until the lights go out, because there's nothing we can do about it.
As for the op, the notion is interesting but is the science there? Can "carbon sequestration" work towards C02 reduction or is it just some thing that sounds like it might and thus makes for a good oil replacement industry for Texas?
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man