Bush says were "hooked" on foreign energy - "let's build hydrogen cars"

Bush added there is "no question" the U.S. is currently "hooked" on foreign
sources of energy.
"We are going to have to change our habits. We are going to have develop
hydrogen-powered automobiles," Bush said.

Bush made the comments at a joint press conference with Mexican President
Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Bush noted the U.S. and Canadian automobile industries are already highly
integrated and expressed the hope this will lead the U.S. and Canada to develop
cutting-edge technology for a new generation of cars that use hydrogen as a
fuel source.

Turning to the U.S., Bush said it was clear the economy needs to be regeared
to consume less energy.

"We are using a lot of it (energy), and we need to conserve better in the
United States. We are dependent on energy from overseas and we need to become
less dependent on energy from overseas," Bush said.

Bush praised Canada's efforts to produce oil from tar sands, and said the
U.S., Mexico and Canada needed to share technology for producing energy.
"There is a lot we can do and will do on energy," Bush said.

snip from a Dow Jones Story


This guy is a damn train wreck. Hydrogen cars???????????????

How about better fuel efficiency NOW.

How about "tax breaks" for solar energy use ...TODAY.

Problem is, them hydrogen mines are on Titan, I think...

And you see, that's why we need a base on Mars. Them hydrogen miners are going to need to get some R&R somewhere. Mars is the obvious answer!

hydrogen can only be produced via some energy source. We can make all the hydrogen cars we want, but if we don't find alternate energy sources, they'll be powered with hydrogen generated with imported oil.

Is there something wrong with hydrogen cars?

We do need to move to alternative energy...


Sue

There are no "hydrogen wells" to be drilled. Of course, you could use dangerous and dirty nuclear power to make it, I suppose...

it's not exactly safe.....considering car wrecks?

it would require a whole new "infrastructure" for "fill-up"


etc....


start now...tell car manf to give better mileage immediately

It does NOTHING to foster energy independence. It just moves the pollution source somewhere else. Massive boondoggle in the making. Hybrids & fuel-efficient internal combustion cars are where it's at for now, along with solar, wind, water, etc for electricity production.

In Iceland they're producing hydrogen using geothermal energy to drive turbines and make electricity--it's pretty cool. But won't work here, obviously. Bio-diesel is the great renewable energy source for our future. Put all that french-fry grease to work!

But the fact remains that another fuel source is required to extract H from H2O.

And making Hydrogen automobiles would require much more fuel than Geothermal, etc. could provide.

Bushco Knows Hydrogen requires burning other fuels - that's probably why they prefer it over truly renewable and sustainable energy - it doesn't cut their oil company friends out of the actions. Big money could be made from production and newly refitted Hydrogen stations.

Plants live off of H, and they're leaves make it for them. It may take 20+ years to figure out how to replicate photosynthesis artificially, so we're not there yet, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. H technology has potential, just not in Bushie's time.

EDIT: Besides, they'll have a lot of scientists available to work on this when evolution research has been banned.:eyes:

Hydrogen only acts as an energy "transport mechanism", not an actual source.

Olaf

http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
Advantages
The hydrogen itself does not produce anything more dangerous than water when it is converted to energy (but see below). If all vehicles were converted to hydrogen, the result would be quieter, less polluted urban areas. Unlike the other energy sources, it can be used for personal transport. It is also a feasible way of storing electricity produced by renewable energy sources for use when the wind/sun/tide, etc, is not available.

Disadvantages
Hydrogen is not mined but produced and that requires energy, the very problem we have. It has been calculated that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce 1 billion kWh of hydrogen (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.). If you use oil or gas (the present day choice), the result is carbon dioxide and a reduction in the fuel source. It is also wasteful of energy – the production of the electricity and hydrogen would use more oil than if you had used it directly in the car as petrol.

It is also far more difficult to store and transport than oil products. For example:

Hydrogen leaks easily from containers at a rate of at least 1.7% a day.
In gas form, you would need 238,000 liters of hydrogen to replace the energy of 190 liters of petrol.
In compressed form, the car's fuel tank size would need to be 4.5 times that of petrol. It would also be under enormous pressure and kept at extremely low temperatures (-258°C).
To replace each tanker delivering petrol to a service station, you would need 2.9 tankers of liquid hydrogen and 15.4 vehicles of gaseous hydrogen.
It is a very dangerous substance (think of the Hindenburg). An accident with a hydrogen tanker would be potentially catastrophic.

To replace all the cars, lorries and busses with hydrogen engines and fuel tanks, and to build the infrastructure to service them would cost vast amounts of energy and money. And all this at a time when we would be hard pushed to provide enough electricity for our present power needs, let alone the creation of hydrogen.

The Future
As one of the few transportation fuels available outside of oil, hydrogen has an important part to play in a sustainable future. While it is hard to see it replacing all of the present day's transport, it might be feasible to power public transport if that was expanded to replace individual vehicles. It would need to be produced with nuclear and renewable energy although – at the moment, only about 0.01% of hydrogen produced is made with renewables. The question is whether it would be more economic to simply have electrically-powered vehicles with batteries.

... Alternative energy is one of the few areas
I part ways with the Libruls.

They are so full of CAN'T.


These two are my own private pet peeve memes to be disputed.

"To replace each tanker delivering petrol to a service station, you would need 2.9 tankers of liquid hydrogen and 15.4 vehicles of gaseous hydrogen."
Not if you use On Demand Hydrogen Production (ODHP). Aren't
all service stations already plumbed for water? How else do
they deliver the "Bladder Buster Beverages" everyone is addicted
to.

"It is a very dangerous substance (think of the Hindenburg)."
I spent several days in flames disproving this little mythological
nugget. The demise of the Hindenburg was due to it's having been
painted with a mixture of Aluminum powder and lacquer paint. (AKA
Rocket Fuel) But, back in the late 1930's, who knew? Hydrogen
is no more dangerous than gasoline vapor.

"An accident with a hydrogen tanker would be potentially
catastrophic."
No more so, than say, a half full tanker full of regular gasoline.

Since I've eliminated two cherished "hydrogen problems". I will
add a real true problem with hydrogen.

Water vapor is a green house gas. Though not as dangerous to the
environment as free carbon.

I personally think the Administration is only doing what it
always does. Giving lip service to Alternative Energy while
at the same time working against it.

"sustainable" energy. We need sustainability more than anything.

How about Eco-energy?

The hydrogen tankers and distribution are less of a concern in my opinion than the fact that it doesn't really give us a new energy source, since we have to use just as much energy to convert it to a useable medium.

I know one thing that we can't do...we can't continue to think we can live in a culture of perpetual growth. The faster we peddle...the closer we get to that cliff.

Olaf

Second only in importance to conservation...

We as people should try working with nature for our energy
needs instead of working against it.

There's a colossal fusion reactor hanging in our sky
every day... How often do we take advantage of it?

It looks like the only interest is in a silver bullet
solution to energy needs. Things are going to have to
change... We do it now at our pace or later at the
dictation of something we can't control.

Thanks Olaf.

Such as this test one in California



Location:
Honda R&D Americas research facility in Los Angeles

System configuration:
Solar battery, electric converter, electrolyzing system, compressor, pressurized hydrogen tank

Hydrogen production capacity:
In conjunction with commercial electric power: Max. 2Nm3/h*; Solar power only: Max. 1.2Nm3/h*

Hydrogen storage capacity:
400L (350 atm)

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/station/



1200000 cm3(volume of solar only production per hour) * .0000899 grams(density of hydrogen gas) = 107 grams of hydrogen an hour * 12 hours of daylight = 1294 grams or 1.294 kilograms during daylight hours.


1 kilogram of hydrogen equals the energy content of 1.04 gallons of gasoline. Solar production has yielded enough hydrogen to propel a single compact car 40 miles. Not very impressive if I do say so. Obviously more power equals more hydrogen, but understand that you can never improve on the theoretical maximum amount of hydrogen per unit electricity that you can electrolyze.

It takes 237.13 kJ (237,130 joules) per mole of electrical energy* to synthesize hydrogen by electrolysis of water.

(a) 1 kWh (kilowatt-hour) equals 1,000 J/sec x 3,600 sec = 3.6 million joules;

(b) 237.13 kJ/mole ÷ 3.6 MJ/kWh = 0.06587 kWh/mole;

(c) 1 mole of H2 weighs 2 grams


http://www.stardrivedevice.com/electrolysis.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pertab/h.html

I'm all ears.

BTW... Thanks for the informative links.

(1) since the product could be produced on marginal land the negative agricultural impact could be minimized. Existing pipelines, tankers and storage facilities could be kept intact unlike those associated with a hydrogen infrastructure.

(2) Improvements to the electrical transmission infrastructure to improve distribution capacity.

(3) Straight up tax rebates (not deductions) for solar paneling on new and existing buildings. Market incentives would exist to reduce the cost per kilowatt electric since construction companies and photovoltaic manufacturures would get a larger cut of the fixed rebate that would gradual be reduced by inflation or changes to tax law.

(4) more public transportation, especially fast intercity and light rail.

(5) more hydroelectric, solar, wind...additional nuclear for base load requirements. Less coal, oil and gas consumption.

(6) owing an SUV would be felony punishable by induction into the army and having your ass shipped to Iraq.

I want my SUV!

;)

that his plan to build hydrogen cars doesn't include technology for developing new, cleaner methods for producing the hydrogen. so, under his proposals, we'd have clean burning hydrogen cars, but the hydrogen would be produced with good old fashion fossil fuels like coal and oil. so while the use of coal might lessen our dependancy on oil, it will be a zero-sum result on the pollution and greenhouse gas emssions front.....

not to mention insure billions more for his oil, gas, and coal friends....

adding to and perpetuating the dangerous, polluting uranium and plutonium fuels which are tested and developed on Native American land.

material that could be used for these fuels (oh, look another limiting factor on growth)and then where do you store it? Anyone...anyone...

Olaf

saw a nova show about that last night - :scared: the shit out of me....

to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues, etc.).

So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accommodate (recycle) and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it.

The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste and create more opportunity for abuse or mishap.

We import the spent fuel from Russian nukes and process it for the remaining uranium powered electric plants in the U.S. and abroad.

The program has been successful in the elimination of some 4,000 Russian warheads, but has created a dependence on the Russian uranium to power the U.S. plants; prompting the Energy Dept. to explore and pursue new sources of nuclear fuel for these plants.

New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters.

but what the Nova expose talked about was how easy and available sources of low level, but toxic and dangerous, radioactive material is. they were talking about several thousand old soviet devices used to irradiate seeds that have cesium 137 (I think) which, because it has the consistency of talc, can be easily dispersed just by attaching it to regular old explosives. there was a small unintentional dispersal of a tiny amount of this material in brazil which caused widespread panic and an enormous clean-up effort. and in that case it was a significantly smaller amount than what is found in these "seed irradiators." in addition, there is so much unaccounted for radioactive material not only in russia but right here at home. i think they quoted several thousand unaccounted for sources in the US alone. and apparently it doesn't take much more than a knowledge of making a regular bomb to turn it into a dirty-bomb. sure it won't be dramatic like a nuke going off. however, the long term affects on health could be substaintial and, more importantly perhaps, the short term effects could be very costly in cleanup and even result in abandoning sections of cities.

didn't one of those seeds burn for days during the Chernobyl disaster?

And the government's own reporting is that a percentage of these seeds come out flawed or nicked, as I recall.

eom

Renewable Energy Given Priority


An eagerly anticipated law on the usage of renewable energy will come into force in January 2006. The Law of Renewable Energy was recently passed by the NPC.



Feng Zhijun is vice-chairman of the Committee on Environmental and Resources Protection of the National People's Congress (NPC) and a member of the group which drafted the law. He believed it will significantly promote the development of renewable energy in China.



"By setting out the rights and responsibilities of all related parties, the law will boost market demand for renewable energy and improve the confidence of investors," said Feng in an interview with the People's Daily.



The "renewable energy" mentioned in the law is non-fossil energy, such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy.

snip

http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/123585.htm

... is abstinence and detox is it not?

Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a means of energy storage and transportation, just as electricity is stored in batteries and and moved on wires. Free hydrogen does not exist on Earth. It must be removed from other molecules and that takes more energy than whay we get out of it.

it's the existing auto industry that may want "hydrogen"

If nothing else, Bush can state the obvious pretty well.

decades old obvious.

Let the scrounging begin!

Or were the laws of thermodynamics repealed in the last bankruptcy bill?

as many alternatives as possible, including public transportaton. And we need them *yesterday.*

The Peak Oil Blame Game is starting already:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032305_world_stories.shtml#0

to be in short supply globally....what a coward.

prisons, especially those freedom hating pot smoking ones, hooked up to treadmills to generate power. Good old fashioned physical slave labor. When we don't have enough prisoners, we'll just make more shit illegal!!

Olaf

I heard this proposed as a very viable way of getting the planet to reduce fossil fuel use back in the early 1970's. These were NASA scientists, saying that in just a few years, if we put our mind to it, the United States could erect gigantic solar panels a couple million miles from earth and beam the energy to the earth in the form of microwaves, which could then be converted into electricity. The beams could even be designed so they don't fry any airplanes that might accidentally fly into the beam. This was 35 years ago. What happened?

Oh, I forgot. The space development budget is now to be mainly for military projects.

... the day they've squeezed the last red penny out of
our pockets for oil/gas.

here's a cool link on the hydrogen power ups and downs. Plainly written too...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm

but at least *'s not telling us there's plenty of oil under Disneyworld or somewhere and the only way to get it is to pump nuclear waste under it and force it up through Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.

Thermal Depolymerization Process (TDP)

The technology exists today to convert agricultural waste, sewage sludge and almost any other form of carbon-based waste into all of these products:

• high-quality oil
• clean-burning gas
• purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing
• sterilized water

The process also destroys the prions that carry mad cow disease.

From the January 22, 2004 issue of USA Today:



From the May 2003 issue of Discover magazine:




"Kompogas" used in Switzerland:
http://www.icehouse.net/pjals/handful/0404/ar8.html

Kudos to Paul Martin for not laughing out loud at "Mr. Obvious".

(Ballard Power systems, builder of these hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, is based in Canada.)








http://www.ballard.com/

would probably all be driving solar powered flying cars by now...