Fuel Taxes Encourage Fossil Fuel Reliance.

Great article - read another one like it yesterday from another British rag. Clearly, some are thinking ahead, and see fossil fuel for what it is - a dead end. Literally a dead end if we don't hurry up and get off of the stuff.

It's February, I can wear a t-shirt today in Greater Vancouver. It hit the freezing mark here what... twice this year? The mountains hardly have any snow on them. The hospitals are full of kids with asthma attacks, yet their parents drop them off in giant SUV's without putting two and two together.

Triple bottom line accounting or full circle as others say, shows that fossil fuel use is a winner for those skimming at the top, but is a money loser for everyone else. Look at Venezuela and Bolivia for example, the people there are now seizing rightfully what belongs to everyone, for everyone's benefit. While oil will still cause environmental damage etc, at least the wealth it does generate is spread more equitably.

What would Canada be like if we took a page from them and nationalized our oil industry? Billions more dollars would be ours to use to offset the environmental damage, the health impacts, or we could even apply some to really looking towards getting off of the black death. Imagine the cries from those with vested interests! I can just hear their lies now - communists - companies will leave - damn easterners etc.

If there is war on Iran and they do as they say in retaliation, and that is close the Straight of Hormuz, and stop shipping to the West, oil may hit $200 a barrel or higher. What if the entire Middle East explodes into anti-western anger? It could draw out for a very long time. So when the Canadian (read American owned) oil industry starts bringing in HUGE profits only to see it almost all leave Canada, should we not at least even think about keeping it here for our benefit? Shouldn't we nationalize for all our own best interests? Should multinationals reap the rewards from something that just comes up from the ground, while Canadians freeze in the dark?

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

While people should be making better choices concerning fuel consumption when buying a car, (and a house for that matter!) governments have to get a backbone and either force auto companies to make fuel cell vehicles, or create a crown corporation that will do it. Certainly, if we had a choice, most of us would buy a fuel cell vehicle.

---
Dave Ruston

or they could offer a huge incentive to do so like no tax for example. But let us remember much of Southern Ontario depends on the big three American automakers, and imagine the cries from them! I say too bad, they keep bringing out bigger and bigger v8's, v10's etc. Heck even Layton and team bent over and took it for the GM's and Ford's of this world last year.

Sadly there are too many vested interests when it comes to oil to see anything change, and if you believe what some scientists are saying - it may already be too late to stop global warming.

yet our corporate run government plods along like nothing major is happening. Sweden announced this past week that they are going to phase out oil - so we are going to get left even further behind.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

>>buy a fuel cell vehicle.<<

There are companies developing them. So far the cell still relies on fossel fuels. Several of the major car manufacturers have invested in Mallard and others, such as GM, are doing the research on their own. The auto manufacturers have more money to invest then the taxpayer.

What will happen when millions of tons of water is dumped into the earths atmosphere? Today the ground is white from frost and how much whiter will it be, when thousands of these cells are adding moisture to the air?

Fuel cells are a bogus pipe-dream by industries and NGOs. Hydrogen fuel cells and the hydrogen that goes into them is a net energy loss- that is they require more energy to make than they "produce." Energy provided, for the most part, by burning fossil fuels. Because the hydrogen system doesnt really produce energy at all- it just merely stores it (the hydrogen itself that is made by LNG or electricity) and it doesnt even do that well because all fuel cells leak at the molecular level.

No folks, nothing is going to save us from the coming crisis: all the "alternatives" put together will not even come close to supplying what we need RIGHT NOW, let alone provide for the limitless growth paradigm that we are slaves to. If there is any hope at all, it is to reduce demand in all developed countries to approx. 25% of what we use now. Simple as that. Whether or not that is done "accidentally" or on purpose, there just is no other option. Despite all the lip-service given to conservation and all, there are, in reality, very few of us who will voluntarily reduce or give up our current standard of living. Until that happens- get ready for a long, cold, dark, violent ride.

I don`t understand how fuel cell vehicles aren`t a viable alternative. They already use some fuel cell buses in Europe. And isn`t the power that comes from a fuel cell the result of an electric charge coming from within the membrane of the engine? From what I`ve read, i thought there was real promise with this technology, but I could be wrong. But I do agree that people have to lessen current consumption and live more modestly. Just look at the houses they build in suburbia these days! They`re huge! This wasn`t even done in the post war boom! But the problem is, the rich don`t want to downsize their homes. They also want to own 5 sports cars. The most excessive waste is at the top, but the rich have hijacked governments who use the US military to protect excessive wealth.

---
Dave Ruston

"I don`t understand how fuel cell vehicles aren`t a viable alternative."

Hydrogen does not exist in it's raw form (hydrogen gas or H2) naturally anywhere on this planet. Hydrogen is a very reactive element, so it will react with anything is comes in contact with, usually oxygen in the atmosphere to produce water.

In order to separate hydrogen from other compounds, energy is required. So Hydrogen should not be thought of as an energy source, rather it should be thought of as an energy storage system not unlike a battery. You still need some energy to release the hydrogen for use in fuel cells.

There are alternative forms for getting hydrogen, some of which are more efficient than others. Using nuclear energy for one, will use less fossil fuels. Using solar or wind power are others, but currently solar uses almost as much energy to produce the solar panels than the solar panels generate in their lifetime, but that changes every month with newer manufacturing methods being developed.

The most promising I think, seems to be growing corn. The corn is fermented into alcohol (the waste used for animal feed) and the raw alcohol and water is catalyzed into hydrogen. No refining, very little hydrocarbon input. Fuel stations could easily be converted, and transportation is safer than transporting gasoline or hydrogen.

Similar methods are being tried with sweet grasses and even human waste.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Well, first off, most hydrogen proponents agree that it would take at least 20 years to bring a "hydrogen economy" to fruition if we were to start now, and as has been proven, we don't have that kind of time because we are hitting peak oil now. The "hydrogen economy" needed to be implemented 20 years AGO in order to be of any use to us now or in the near future.

Next, because hydrogen is the simplest element, it will leak from any container, no mater how strong and no matter how well insulated. For this reason, hydrogen in storage tanks will always evaporate, at a rate of at least 1.7 percent per day.

In order to be of any realistic use, hydrogen is liquefied and this will give it a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter. At this density, it will require four times the volume of gasoline for a given amount of energy. Thus, a 15-gallon gas tank would equate to a 60-gallon tank of liquefied hydrogen. Beyond this, there are the difficulties of storing liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air. In test vehicles, accidents have occurred from pressure build-ups resulting from plugged valves.

Beyond this, there are the energy costs of liquefying the hydrogen and refrigerating it so that it remains in a liquid state. No studies have been done on the energy costs here, but they are sure to further decrease the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of hydrogen fuel.

Hydrogen does not freely occur in nature in useful quantities, therefore hydrogen must be split from molecules, either molecules of methane derived from fossil fuels or from water. Currently, most hydrogen is produced by the treatment of methane with steam, following the formula: CH4 (g) + H2O + e > 3H2(g) + CO(g). The CO(g) in this equation is carbon monoxide gas, which is a byproduct of the reaction. Not entered into this formula is the energy required to produce the steam, which usually comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

For this reason, we do not escape the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We simply transfer the generation of this pollution to the hydrogen production plants. This procedure of hydrogen production also results in a severe energy loss. First we have the production of the feedstock methanol from natural gas or coal at a 32 percent to 44 percent net energy loss. Then the steam treatment process to procure the hydrogen will result in a further 35 percent energy loss.

It has often been pointed out that we have an inexhaustible supply of water from which to derive hydrogen. However, this reaction, 2H2O + e = 2H2(g) + O2(g), requires a substantial energy investment per unit of water (286kJ per mole). This energy investment is required by elementary principles of chemistry and can never be reduced.

This brings us to your point, Dave. Several processes are being explored to derive hydrogen from water, most notably electrolysis of water and thermal decomposition of water. But the basic chemistry mentioned above requires major energy investments from all of these processes, rendering them unprofitable in terms of EROEI.

The basic problem of hydrogen fuel cells is that the second law of thermodynamics dictates that we will always have to expend more energy deriving the hydrogen than we will receive from the usage of that hydrogen. The common misconception is that hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative energy source when they are not.

In reality, hydrogen fuel cells are a storage battery for energy derived from other sources. In a fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen are fed to the anode and cathode, respectively, of each cell. Electrons stripped from the hydrogen produce direct current electricity which can be used in a DC electric motor or converted to alternating current.

Because of the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel cells will always have a bad EROEI. If fossil fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, either through the Methane-Steam method or through Electrolysis of Water, there will be no advantage over using the fossil fuels directly. The use of hydrogen as an intermediate form of energy storage is justified only when there is some reason for not using the primary source directly. For this reason, a hydrogen-based economy must depend on large-scale development of nuclear power or solar electricity.

Therefore, the development of a hydrogen economy will require major investments in fuel cell technology research and nuclear or solar power plant construction. On top of this, there is the cost of converting all of our existing technology and machinery to hydrogen fuel cells. And all of this will have to be accomplished under the economic and energy conditions of post-peak fossil fuel production.

IMHO, its not going to happen before collapse.

In response to DrCaleb: The amount of land required to provide enough biofuel to make hydrogen (or run machines) is more than all the arable land available today. To think we can produce enough from our waste alone is a fantasy, just as it is a fantasy to believe that current alternatives will provide a technological fix for our overconsumption issues. And electricity is still required. So were talking nuclear, which has its own problems that last milennia.

Again. ALL the options together will not even come close to maintaining current consumption, even if they were able to be brought online NOW, let alone allow any kind of economic growth in the future. It is simply too late to avoid a collapse.

Please note everybody: Since we can't use nuclear, or solar, or biofuel, or wind, or tidal power, or geothermal, or any combination thereof, we should just pack up now and move back to the caves. Might as well give up, as the environmentalists who can't seem to "carry the two" believe it's hopeless.<br />
<br />
Recent figures show that using a small percentage of landmass would produce enough biofuel to meet our needs. Case in point: Brasil, who use a small percentage of crop land, and use it to run most petrol vehicles on a blend of 85% methanol 15% petrolium.<br />
<br />
It's not human nature to lay down, curl into a ball and give up, Chall. We can make big changes in our energy use, and it is possible to eliminate our dependence on oil.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm">http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm</a><br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

"The common misconception is that hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative energy source when they are not. "<br />
<br />
With your knowledge of Chemistry, surley you know gaseous hydrogen is not it's only form . . .<br />
<br />
<a href="http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/2/6">http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/2/6</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Area_of_Interest/Chemistry/Materials_Science/Energy_Source_Materials/Tutorial.html">http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Area_of_Interest/Chemistry/Materials_Science/Energy_Source_Materials/Tutorial.html</a><br />
<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

Apparently these things will generate only .350 to 1.0 Kwh when operating at 5 molecules of hydrogen for 1 molecule of ethanol- its peak efficiency. This is not a lot of power- barely enough to power a home (it would have to be a far more effecient home than the average today), let alone any industrial applications. Ethanol would still be needed to be produced in large quantities and this requires a huge amount of arable land (and also utilizes a huge amount of fossil fuels for fertilizer and pest control) in a narrowing world of resources where food production for millions of starving people will compete.

One of the metals needed in the reactor is rhodium. Rhodium occurs native with platinum and thus its supply is extremely limited (as rare and as expensive as platinum- if demand increases the skys the limit on the price) and requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to produce. It also is consumed during the process, so rhodium/ceria units will need to be continually replaced. The annual world production of rhodium is only 7 or 8 tons. It is also toxic. These reactors also require huge amounts of energy to manufacture which is provided by fossil fuels.

The reality is that a huge, drastic reduction in demand (50-75 percent) has to happen right now in order to make the cliff we are going to fall off of any less steep. But that reduction itself will cause economic collapse. The fall is coming, it cannot be eased or escaped and perhaps technologies like hydrogen from ethanol will be the ones that will be needed in the world afterward. But to think that its a solution, or even a part of a solution that will ease or "get us through" whats coming is a dream. It has nothing to do with my knowledge of chemistry.

"This is not a lot of power- barely enough to power a home "<br />
<br />
Well, no. These are more suited to a mobile application. There are other fuel cells more suited to Homes/Industry.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.plugpower.com">http://www.plugpower.com</a><br />
<a href="http://www.wd.gc.ca/mediacentre/2003/Jun24-02a_e.asp">http://www.wd.gc.ca/mediacentre/2003/Jun24-02a_e.asp</a><br />
<br />
"One of the metals needed in the reactor is rhodium. <snip> It also is consumed during the process,"<br />
<br />
The Rhodium is listed as a catalyst. A true catalyst is not consumed during a chemical reaction, and the article does not specify if it does.<br />
<br />
Ethanol is not a be-all fuel source, but can reduce our dependence on Oil. And estimates of land to supplement 50% ouf our yearly oil needs, amount to about 640,000 hectares. Roughly PEI.<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

Great response DrCaleb, some good details that I apparently have not gotten correct and dont feel like arguing over anymore as I personally feel the importance of them is too small, given the enormity of the situation we are now in. Tomato or tomahto.

But you have not really adressed the last paragraph of my last post, which is the REAL issue here, although admittedly not really on topic. I stand by what I said: Too little too late. I do think your sig is apropo here though, because this technology WILL be needed to restart on a much smaller scale that is more suited to hydrogen technology after collapse.

And is the "our" in your post referring to Canada? Does that mean we will need to produce even more ethanol so the U.S. can have their share under NAFTA? Or is ethanol not covered?