A few more strange bedfellows have recently been coaxed into the sack with the enviros, hawks, and labor advocates pushing for a smarter U.S. energy strategy. The newbies include growers of corn, soy, wheat, trees, and even dairy cows, all of which could play a role in cultivating homegrown energy sources.
Farmers have gotten wind of a new idea.
Photo: NREL.
Earlier this month, some 70 agriculture and forestry groups and companies endorsed a campaign dubbed "25 x '25," which advocates that 25 percent of energy in the U.S. come from "America's working lands" by 2025. That means biofuels like ethanol, bioenergy from processed animal manure and agricultural waste, and wind and solar power produced on agricultural lands. At the moment, these sources make up less than 4 percent of America's energy mix. Backers of the campaign, many of them generally right-leaning, include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, and the farm equipment giant Deere & Co.
"We don't see this as big, we see it as enormous," said Ernest Shea, a longtime agriculture and conservation lobbyist who is spearheading the 25 x '25 coalition. "Land managers inherently understand how soil, water, air, and sunlight can be harnessed and harvested, be it for nourishment or fuel. We see this as something that will dramatically expand agriculture's role -- as a producer not just of food and fiber, but also energy for America."
Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, a nonpartisan group of business, security, and environment experts that is funding the 25 x '25 campaign with support from private foundations, freely admits that the 25 percent target is a stretch: "As an energy wonk, I swallowed hard when [Shea and other agriculture leaders] presented this goal to me, because I know how aggressive it is." But, he says, it's doable, particularly given the tremendous amount of political capital agriculture interests bring to the table.
According to Kevin Curtis, a vice president at National Environmental Trust, there are more than 30 senators who consistently vote in favor of agriculture interests, most of whom have not traditionally supported clean-energy initiatives. Said Detchon, "If you look at the map last year of the [congressional] support for renewable fuels, it was in the center of the country, and the support for renewable electricity was stronger in coastal states. We're trying to bring those two together."
Already, the 25 x '25 coalition boasts an impressive roster of backers from both sides of the aisle, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R), former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D), Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D), and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). Gingrich, speaking at the March 8 press conference where 25 x '25 was unveiled, hailed the campaign as "urgent ... one of the major building blocks of creating a national security [plan]," and said there was no time to spare in turning its goals into legislative reality: "I urge you to go to Congress to get a resolution this year on a bipartisan basis that directs the congressional committees and the budget committees to develop a 25 x '25 strategy."
Given that no such strategy has yet begun to be mapped out, however, the chances of enacting any meaningful 25 x '25 legislation this year are slim. The coalition has rallied an array of interests around a broad goal, the symbolic importance of which cannot be underestimated, but hasn't put forward a plan for actually attaining that goal.
"There isn't much there there yet," said Nathanael Greene, a renewable-energy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We're supportive of the concept, of course, and applaud the Energy Future Coalition's success in bringing new allies to the table, but the real challenge is getting them to commit to a plan that can actually get us to 25 by '25." In other words, a plan that includes not just subsidies for so-called energy crops, but actual federal mandates such as a renewable portfolio standard requiring a certain percentage of the electricity produced in the U.S. to come from renewable sources, and a renewable fuels standard requiring a similar target for the use of biofuels.
Strange bedfellows are ready for a roll in the hay -- make that the switchgrass.
Photo: NREL.
Pork It Over
While NRDC and Environmental Defense are among the motley groups that have endorsed the 25 x '25 campaign, some enviros are concerned that the driving force behind the alliance is the heavy scent of pork, not a commitment to a clean-energy future nor to the kind of serious, binding policies that could help such a vision materialize.
Sure enough, there's good reason why agricultural interests would be hungry for new subsidies. The World Trade Organization is negotiating highly contentious rules that farmers fear could considerably constrain U.S. subsidies for agriculture. For years, the green community has been trying to get agriculture leaders to back renewables, and it's no coincidence that now is the moment they've decided to jump on board, some environmental activists say.
"There's a perfect storm of dynamics that is pushing the ag community toward renewables," says David Waskow, international program director for Friends of the Earth. "First, the pressure on their subsidies from the WTO. Second, the oversupply in the market that has caused their crop prices to bottom out. Third, high oil prices have made biofuels far more cost-competitive."
Don Villwock, a board member of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents 5 million farmers in the United States, admits that international trade negotiations have motivated his organization's support for the 25 x '25 plan. "We see it as a way to replace those dollars [from agriculture subsidies]," Villwock said. He hopes that the departments of energy and defense will pitch in alongside the USDA to subsidize "energy crops."
More important than subsidies, though, says Villwock, is the greater demand for crops that could come from the renewable-energy sector, driving up prices. He sees this happening already: After an ethanol plant was built near his farm in Indiana, the corn in his area started selling for 15 cents more a bushel.
"I see this as a very rare win-win-win-win opportunity," Villwock said of 25 x '25. He argues that in addition to benefiting farmers, the environment, and national security, it would give a boost to rural communities by creating jobs at wind farms and alternative-fuel plants, most of which are being built in non-urban areas.
How Green Is My Biofuel?
Enviros are not necessarily convinced, however, that the planet would be among the winners. Some have raised concerns that large-scale biofuel production could promote the development of monocultures -- vast tracts of switchgrass, for instance -- that could threaten wildlife habitat and biodiversity. But the main concern, according to NRDC's Greene, "is not so much the total number of acres that must be farmed, but the way those acres are cultivated."
Greene was lead author on a 2004 report, "Growing Energy," which concluded that biofuels could displace nearly 8 million barrels of oil a day by 2050, roughly equivalent to the current daily demand for gasoline in the U.S., without putting any additional acres under cultivation or displacing food production (assuming that agricultural practices become more efficient). But, he says, there are legitimate concerns about the amount of resources -- pesticides, fertilizers, water, gasoline for farm equipment -- that would be used to grow and harvest those crops. "If these plans aren't drafted with sustainable guidelines, clearly that could be a problem," said Greene. "We have to get the incentives structured right so that farmers are rewarded for being sustainable."
Party of 25
Also, because the 25 x '25 campaign would "let the market choose which renewable resources to prioritize," according to Detchon, the initial emphasis would likely be on more market-ready sources such as corn-derived ethanol and, to some extent, wind power, rather than eco-friendly but still relatively high-priced solar power.
Enviros also point out that the 25 x '25 strategy would only be a potent weapon against global warming if the emphasis were on cellulosic ethanol, because the corn-derived variety offers negligible reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions compared to gasoline. Furthermore, they say, if timber is included in the plan and characterized as a renewable energy resource, it could become an excuse for the timber industry to manage and harvest more wildlands.
The leaders of 25 x '25 have made it clear that while the campaign welcomes environmental allies, it is not primarily designed as an environmental initiative. "Its beating heart is with agricultural groups," says Kalee Kreider, communications director for 25 x '25.
That said, aggies may very well be supportive of the kind of regulatory standards that enviros have long been hankering for. Villwock, for instance, was unabashedly enthusiastic about the prospect of renewable fuel and electricity standards and requirements for Detroit to manufacture flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on gas-ethanol blends -- and why wouldn't he be? While it would impose costs on utilities, fuel providers, and auto manufacturers, it would only increase demand for agricultural crops such as corn and soy and waste products such as cattle manure and woodchips. (Bringing the energy industry and automakers on board, though, will be no small feat.)
According to Detchon, the current strategy is to roll 25 x '25 out in three legislative phases. Stage one, already under way, aims to get 50 percent of Congress members to endorse, in principle, the goals of the coalition by the end of this year. Stage two, also in the works, would get legislatures in 20 states to endorse the 25 x '25 target (the Colorado legislature has already done so, and Indiana, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are considering similar resolutions).
Both of these phases, Detchon hopes, will get the ball rolling on stage three: drafting detailed, binding national legislation that would put the campaign into action, either to be passed as a stand-alone bill or as amendments to farm, appropriations, energy, and tax bills. He hopes to work with a bipartisan coalition of farm-state senators to usher these initiatives through next year. While he won't name names, obvious candidates include Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Despite some reservations, many in the environmental community can be expected to help rally support for any such legislation. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Sierra Club President Carl Pope spoke to the political advantages of having agriculture interests support a clean-energy agenda: "The environmental chorus was never big enough to sing this song. We needed a bigger chorus, so now we're adding the bass section."
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Flat
pmaier Posted 6:49 am
24 Mar 2006
Emotions ahead of commen sense. Biofuels still use air for combustion and thus introduce both CO2 and Nitous Oxides into the air, both major contributors to global warming. They also require fertilizer which requires energy and also get wasted into our environment, contributing to nutrient enrichment of our biosphere.
We should work towards a hydrogen energy solution, as this would not only provide electricity but combustion for our cars, all without any air pollution. Actually also adding oxygen to our environment, now deprived by conventional combustion. Even a small car uses as much oxygen as about 2000 people.
The largest challenge to our biosphere is nutrient enrichment as our present regulations ignore all pollution caused by nitrogenous waste (urine, proteins etc.) and allows our rivers still to be used as giant urinals by cities.
Nutrient enrichment already is killing reefs and causes dead zones in open waters and on land it causes wild fires, as the result of Green Rain.
Let's use common sense, not waste any more time and public funds and focus on a real solution.
AND let's use food production to feed those who now are starving.
Permalink
howardgw Posted 8:58 am
24 Mar 2006
The NRDC "solution" isn't any better. And, like most of these proposals, it is focused on finding the silver bullet that will allow us to go on doing what we are doing.
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 2:09 am
25 Mar 2006
to fossil fuels is a greenscam with potentially disastrous consequences.
The Bush brothers, a cabal of giant agro businesses, their paid
consultants and political cronies are behind a series of initiatives that
involve massive taxpayer funded subsidies to large environmentally
destructive corporations. Sadly, they're aided by a number of well
meaning but misguided groups and individuals.
Biofuels derived from corn, palm, soybeans, and other crops are not only
environmentally destructive, they can't be produced profitably without
massive subsidies - subsidies that should be used for environmentally
viable solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives and wind
and solar energy.
Biofuels are an economic, environmental and humanitarian disaster:
* The production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it
produces.
* The production of biofuels from crops will lead to more air
pollution, irreversible soil depletion, water depletion and pollution,
erosion, forest destruction, higher use of fossil fuels, pesticides,
fertilizers and harm to animals.
* Crops to produce oils to meet the demand for biofuel are directly
destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rain forest now.
* Fertilizer for biofuel production will lead to a massive increase in
phosphate strip mining, destroyed wetlands, poisoned water and disturbed
river systems.
* Conversion of U.S. farmland from food production to fuel crop
production will lead to dependence on foreign nations for our food supply.
The subsidies required to make biofuel production "viable" are more
corporate welfare to the same giant agro companies damaging the
environment now. They divert funds from real solutions such as
conservation/efficiency initiatives, public transportation systems,
increased use of solar and wind energy, and sustainable small scale food
farming vs. massive monoculture fuel crop production.
Government mandates of biofuels for transport will further hasten
environmental destruction.
We can't grow our way out of the impending energy crisis with more
destructive practices that fuel more cars for more people to drive on
more roads to more parking lots to buy more junk.
The hard decisions can no longer be avoided. There must be a massive
shift in our thinking, behavior and consumption.
The biofuels scam must be stopped in its' tracks. If it proceeds, we'll
plunge further into debt, destroy irreplaceable natural resources and
send another portion of the biosphere up in smoke.
If you'd like more information on biofuels, see the Energy Justice Network FACT SHEET
(http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html), Feeding Cars Not People
(http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/) and
Worse Than Fossil Fuel (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/ )
Permalink
pmaier Posted 3:56 am
25 Mar 2006
Environmental issues are complicated and individuals that try to discuss them are often considered 'Chicken Little'. Unfortunately many also have used environmental issues to promote their own 'green goals' (green not the color of trees but that of money).
The issue however is not so difficult to understand, provided you keep it simple. Look at life as if it is a large box full of Lego blocks. Actually much simpler than my kid's box, since this box of life only has mainly four different blocks: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and 'reactive nitrogen'.
There is plenty of nitrogen in the air (78%), but that form of nitrogen cannot be used as a building block. Up until the start of the last century, the naturally formed 'reactive nitrogen' blocks were the limiting factor for life on earth and basically established the balance and biodiversity in our biosphere, as we know and like it.
However, by introducing manmade 'reactive nitrogen' blocks (fertilizer) we have created much more life and we obviously have disturbed this balance. It is estimated that 25% of the `reactive nitrogen' in the proteins of human bodies, now originates from the fertilizer industries.
It is obvious that we cannot stop using fertilizers to grow our food, but we should become aware of what happens with the 'reactive nitrogen' during and after we have used it, since most of it eventually will end up in our environment.
The impact of 'reactive nitrogen' on our environment is mostly ignored, partly because of lack of understanding, partly because it affects different turfs of interest (agencies in government and faculties in our educational system) and possible also because nitric oxide (as a result of burning air) also a form of 'reactive nitrogen' comes from the tail pipes of our cars.
This anthropogenic nutrient enrichment of the earth's biosphere has enormous consequences, which not only impacts the atmosphere (global warming, destruction of the ozone layer), but also our open waterways (eutrophication, i.e. the 8000 square miles `dead zone' in the Golf of Mexico, red tides, destruction of coral reefs and pfiesteria in estuaries) and, due to `green rain' (rain containing `reactive nitrogen'), stimulates vegetation, which in turn, during droughts, provides the extra fuel for wild fires.
Many of these anthropogenic `reactive nitrogen' sources will be difficult to control, but where they could have been controlled in sewage (human waste), it was omitted mainly due to an incorrectly applied water pollution test.
The Clean Water Act, now 31 years old, still allows cities to use rivers as giant urinals.
In 1972 it all seemed so easy, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act and Senator Muskie stated on the Senate floor: "This Act simply means, that we can not use our rivers any longer to treat our sewage".
Even tough many claim that this second largest federal public works program has been successful; neither of the Act's goals -- swimmable and fishable waters by 1983 and elimination of all water pollution by 1985 -- have been achieved.
Neither can they ever be achieved, because the regulations implementing the Act ignore 40% of the pollution caused by fecal waste and all the pollution caused by urine waste in sewage. Sadly this is the result of an incorrectly applied pollution tests.
This pollution test is called the BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) test, which measures the oxygen used by bacteria that feed on the organic matter in sewage. Sewage contains carbonaceous matter (fecal), which is used by heterotrphic bacteria and nitrogenous matter (urine and proteins), which is used by autotrophic bacteria.
When the test was developed in England, around 1920, it was found that completing the test would take 30 days, but when applied on raw sewage, the autotrophic bacteria only contributed to the oxygen consumption after 6 to 10days. During the first 5 days, the test only measured the oxygen demand of the heterotrophic bacteria, called BOD5, while the proper name is C-BOD5.
The oxygen usage by autotrophic bacteria (N-BOD) also could be measured with another nitrogen test and the BOD5 test became a timesaver, but always intended to be used together with the nitrogen test. When the BOD5 in sewage is measured 200, the total C-BOD is 300 and the N-BOD 200.
Although all this is well described in the old literature, it became common engineering practice worldwide, to solely use the BOD5 test value and consider this value to represent all the organic waste in sewage.
While writing the CWA in 1972, Congress was told that eliminating all water pollution was not possible, but that demanding "secondary treatment" -- considered 85% treatment-- would be a good step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, when EPA applied the 85% treatment requirement for its NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permits, EPA applied this requirement on the BOD5 test, which, as explained earlier, only measures 60% of the pollution caused by fecal waste and not any of the pollution caused by urine waste.
Since the BOD5 test does not distinguishes between C-BOD and N-BOD, it is not possible to evaluate the treatment efficiency of a sewage treatment plant, neither is it possible to establish a waste load on receiving water bodies. Last but not least, since this test value-- still assumed to be C-BOD5-- is used for the design of a treatment facility, plants are designed to treat the wrong waste.
The results of one day proper testing in 1984, discarded an approved plan to expand Salt Lake City's sewage treatment plant which would have cost the city 135 million dollar.
Autotrophic bacteria -essential in the nitrogen cycle--will be present in sewers and sewage treatment plants and will exert a N-BOD when effluents of plants are tested. This will raise its BOD5 value, often higher than the 30 (85% of 200) as was required for the discharge permit and causing such plants to be out of compliance.
Not only that many cities and industries were fined, thus penalized for treating their wastewater better then was required, legal enforcement of the NPDES program was impossible.
EPA acknowledged the problems in 1984, but instead of correcting the test procedures, EPA allowed also the use of the C-BOD5 test, which is similar to the BOD5 test, except that a special chemical is added to kill the autotrophic bacteria. Many sewage treatment plants, prior to 1984 out of compliance, got into compliance by adding this chemical to their test.
EPA, by administrative ruling, lowered the goals of the CWA from 100% treatment to a mere 40% treatment, without asking or informing Congress.
Although aware, several members of Congress do not want to take action, because they are told that demanding better sewage treatment is not necessary and would be very costly. Reality is that sewage treatment technology already was available in 1972, which achieves 95% treatment of both C-BOD and N-BOD and is less expensive to build and operate than conventional sewage treatment, which actually was developed solely to control odors.
Although it will be difficult for everybody directly and indirectly involved in the implementation of the CWA, the Act should be implemented as it was intended and promised to the American public. Only then, with better knowledge and understanding, would we be able to reduce this eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of our biosphere, which may not affect our environment tomorrow, but certainly decades from now.
While natural eutrophication of lakes, according to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory 1992 Report to Congress, would take thousands of years, man-induced eutrophication is occurring in decades.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:48 am
26 Mar 2006
What about tertiary sewage treatment plants (denitrification bacteria are used to reduce the nitrate loads) going up around the country nowadays?
And what is your solution for fuel usage? Most Americans and world inhabitants will not give up cars without a major battle.
I think that biofuels are an excellent idea, however clearly not all the kinks have been worked out. For example corn is not the answer, I am not sure that switchgrass is either (although I have not read anything about it), but there are potential biofuel crops out there that are, for example willows. Also low-value wood that is predominant in forest management is another one that could be an important driver. Humans used biofuels ever since we became Homo sapiens at the latest, maybe even before that, not an expert in this field. So I am not sure that it is such a bad idea, all you technocrats out there notwithstanding.
Permalink
pmaier Posted 1:52 pm
27 Mar 2006
One of the problems in this field of engineering is that expressions are used without a clear definition. Primary treatment is probably the clearest, since it means primary clarification. Secondary treatment, required by Congress to initiate the Clean Water Act is by some called biological treatment and by other, as by EPA, 85% treatment.
The test EPA used to set its standards was incorrect used and as consequence only measured 40% of the pollution causing oxygen demand. Sewage treatment was first applied in the 19th century and intended to control odor problems. Only later in the fifties and sixties were regulations enforced, while there actually was very little science behind sewage treatment. Regulations in the seventies used an essential pollution test incorrectly and as consequence ignored not only part of the pollution caused by fecal waste, but also all the pollution caused by nitrogenous waste (urine and protein), hence the fact that rivers still are used as giant urinals.
Tertiary treatment mostly refers to removal of phosphorus, although some may also include de-nitrification, but then what type of treatment is called nitrification?
There were much more problems with this incorrect use of the test and although EPA officially acknowledged the problems in 1984, in stead of correcting the test procedure, it allowed an alternative test, which solely measure part of the fecal waste. By administrative rule, EPA not only lowered the goals of the CWA from elimination of all pollution to a measly 35% treatment, but also still did not correct all the problems in the field that still assume that sewage has the same composition as was measured back in 1920, when the specific test was developed.
It is quite possible that many sewage treatment plants are designed to treat the wrong waste, simple because the raw sewage is not correctly tested. This is also the reason why nobody wants to perform the correct testing, as this may very well show up.
EPA claims that nitrogenous waste (urine and protein) is not organic and therefore Congress never intended it to be treated. But since bacteria will use ammonia (urine hydrolyses into ammonia) as an energy source and thereby uses oxygen, this is an equal source of oxygen demanding pollution as fecal waste, while it in all its forms also is a nutrient for aquatic plant growth (algae).
Yes you can design a treatment process that contains bacteria for both carbonaceous food and nitrogenous food (called nitrification) and you can create conditions to force bacteria to use the oxygen in the nitrates to oxidize carbonaceous food (called denitrification), but that is only possible if you also maintain the nitrification process, which is not required.
The Clean Water Act represents the second largest federally funded public works program and it simply failed because of lack of understanding and a faulty applied pollution test. Sadly biological treatment processes were already available in the forties which maintained all the processes earlier mentioned at half the cost what communities now have to pay for an odor control facility.
2. Hydrogen.
The highest priority for any energy solution should be NO air combustion as this causes CO2 and more important Nitrous oxides, both causing global warming while the second one causes nutrient enrichment, among others Green rain (rain with fertilizer).
Global warming is important, but nutrient enrichment of our biosphere is equally detrimental. We also should look at the usage of oxygen. Even a small car will use as much as 2000 people. One third of the oxygen is presently generated in the oceans by phytoplankton and two third on land by vegetation. Loosing the rain forest will eventually also impacts the production of oxygen and since hydrogen is generated by splitting water, you also will generate oxygen. This knife cuts on both sides.
In addition, electricity is very convenient, but also very wasteful, as only part of the electricity generated will be used and the rest results in heat lost in the atmosphere. The company has to deliver electricity for peak demand, which only occurs during a few hours of the day, so most of the electricity generated will be lost in heat.
How much? Who knows, only the power company can tell you, but they probably won't.
All and all if you priorities all alternatives, the clear winner is hydrogen, as it is storable (in tanks) and thus can be used in engines to energize cars and other transportation. All by converting hydrogen with oxygen into water. Some will say that energy is required to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water and that is of course true, BUT now you can use any alternative energy sources (like for example tidal energy) to generate the electricity to split the hydrogen and then transport the hydrogen to the users. N Most tidal locations are so remote from populated areas that by the time the electricity generated arrives at location where it is used, the electricity is gone due to resistance (heating).
If hydrogen becomes the source of energy you will also see the development of using temperature difference to generate energy, like now done in Iceland using geothermal energy.
May be our grand children will live in communities, whereby the only utilities they will have will be water & sewage and a hydrogen gas supply line. They will have their own hydrogen cells to generate their own electricity, while hydrogen is also used for heating and cooling. Cars will run on hydrogen and stations will provide the high pressured hydrogen required to get any distance on a tank load. We probably can simply use our present natural gas lines and replace the natural gas with hydrogen. Year ago, when natural gas was proposed to replace gasoline in cars, objections were raised that you would be driving around with a bomb in your trunk. This problem clearly has been resolved and we now have large city busses driving on natural gas.
There certainly will be problems, but the largest problem will be a political problem as many with a self interest in some form of alternative energy will lobby Congress for funding and use their influence to criticize any real solution. We clearly are already witnessing this now and as a result are losing important time.
If you like to contact me personally my email address is (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[20]='\"';l[21]=' 116';l[22]=' 101';l[23]=' 110';l[24]=' 46';l[25]=' 97';l[26]=' 100';l[27]=' 114';l[28]=' 101';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 101';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 109';l[35]=' 112';l[36]=':';l[37]='o';l[38]='t';l[39]='l';l[40]='i';l[41]='a';l[42]='m';l[43]='\"';l[44]='=';l[45]='f';l[46]='e';l[47]='r';l[48]='h';l[49]='a ';l[50]='
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:28 am
28 Mar 2006
So, while I am not arguing that more research should be put into hydrogen, why aren't we putting more research into cold fusion? You know? At the same time while you are saying that special interests for individual energy sources are trying for a piece of the market, isn't hydrogen a special interest source just like the rest of them? I think that the future is in diversification of energy sources, not specialization, because not one of them can solve the problem when it will become one (real soon).
Permalink
pmaier Posted 6:51 am
28 Mar 2006
You would be surprised how far this technology has been developed. Electrolysis of water creating hydrogen and oxygen has been known for a long time.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:13 pm
28 Mar 2006
Permalink
pmaier Posted 2:08 pm
29 Mar 2006
Geothermal, tidal, wind, sun you name it, all now not economical feasible because the transmission of electricity from such remote location will get lost by the time it reaches a location where it can be used.
The generated compressed hydrogen can be transported to the nearest point of a gas pipeline, from where it is delivered to the users.
Although there are already sources available, you will see other systems develop, for example using the temperature differences in oceans or lakes or ground and possible even biological system, as the present energy in biological cells comes from splitting hydrocarbons (glucose) and the electron carrying hydrogen now is neutralized by oxygen and also forms water.
Who knows somebody may come up with a process to capture the electron carrying hydrogen, before they are neutralized by oxygen.
Will this ever happen? Not likely as it, like the industrialization process will cause unemployment and you can already see how the coal industries and agriculture are pushing their solutions and are using their influence in Washington to get to the taxpayers wallets.
Again, we should eliminate the use of air for combustion to generate energy. Imagine what will happen if you would do away with the power companies that now sell electricity?
Permalink