USA could become energy self-sufficient with natural gas.

[gattaca]

USA could become energy self-sufficient with natural gas, and even an exporter of natural gas.

 

[fenix144]

for what. 15 years? 50 years? at best a 100?

Btw your signature makes me think of schizophrenia for some reason.

 

[rambot]

And all that it will cost is their ground water supplies!!!

 

[Kalevalatar]

Oh yeah, burning ice, the next big thing to fuel wars.

 

[gattaca]

Oh yeah, burning ice, the next big thing to fuel wars.

water is rocket fuel.

Water is H2O = Hydrogen 2 + Oxygen

when you pass an electrical current through the water it will split into

Hydrogen and Oxygen

rocket fuel is liquid-Hydrogen + liquid-Oxygen

Or you can just use the Hydrogen in an

Hydrogen internal combustion engine.

so yes you can burn ice.

Hydrogen on the Cheap - Popular Mechanics

 

[keith99]

water is rocket fuel.

Water is H2O = Hydrogen 2 + Oxygen

when you pass an electrical current through the water it will split into

Hydrogen and Oxygen

rocket fuel is liquid-Hydrogen + liquid-Oxygen

Or you can just use the Hydrogen in an

Hydrogen internal combustion engine.

so yes you can burn ice.

Hydrogen on the Cheap - Popular Mechanics

Nope you are not burning ice or water. Water is the product of combistion of Hydrogen.

 

[Cromulent]

water is rocket fuel.

Water is H2O = Hydrogen 2 + Oxygen

when you pass an electrical current through the water it will split into

Hydrogen and Oxygen

rocket fuel is liquid-Hydrogen + liquid-Oxygen

Or you can just use the Hydrogen in an

Hydrogen internal combustion engine.

so yes you can burn ice.

Hydrogen on the Cheap - Popular Mechanics

Yes, but where do you get the electricity to split the water from?

 

[Kalevalatar]

Methane hydrates, the "burning ice" I had in mind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, but where do you get the electricity to split the water from?

From coal-fired power plants, of course.

 

[gattaca]

Yes, and where do you get the electricity to split the water from?

From natural gas fired power plants, of course.

or solar energy.

 

[Cromulent]

From natural gas fired power plants, of course.

or solar energy.

Why bother with the hydrogen if you're just going to be burning natural gas? Surely better just to use the natural gas for whatever you were going to be using the hydrogen for...

Hydrogen would be a decent way of making solar energy work for transportation though, it all depends on the economics of fuel cells, and whether storing the energy as hydrogen works out cheaper than storing it as electrical energy in a battery.

 

[rambot]

The person who invents new and appropriate power storage devices (batteries or something new), is gonna be a bajillionaire

 

[rossignol]

The only problem with natural energy is storage of that energy. You can run houses electricity on wind, water, solar but to store it for times there is no wind or for driving cars is more difficult.

Studies in Japan have grown since their last devastating quake. New breakthroughs of storage of natural energy usage of new kinds of natural energy are being discovered. It is possible but needs a load of money for development and support to be able to change our infrastructure.

Fully electric cars are on the road as of this year and in the city of Vancouver, 20% of gas stations require an outlet for them. The electrical outlets run fully on electricity provided by natural means like wind and water as does the city. The future is here.

 

[Cromulent]

Hydrogen fuel cells might actually be a very good way of balancing out the intermittency of some renewables. If large, rapidly-reacting hydrogen electrolysis plants were constructed near major electricity lines to absorb the excess load, the hydrogen could be used to power vehicles, and the thermal base load generation could be run with a higher utilisation factor without wastage when the wind was blowing.

Pumped storage is another good option, but only when the topography allows.

 

[rossignol]

The technology is known but there are few governments with little funding for things like this to develop quickly. Every city in the world could be fully powered from natural resources if people want the government to invest money into developing and creating infrastructure for it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The biggest problem with 'green' energy technology is that it must fulfill these requirements:

1. It must be expensive, requiring that users secure loans to install it, with little or no actual payback for the actual consumer.

2. It must be highly efficient, even if not effective, and thus technically complicated to satisfy the egos of it's designers.

3. It must be controlled by government and business elites, who must profit financially and politically from it's implementation.


It cannot be inexpensive and effective. That is anathema to the movers and shakers. Green energy is yet another cow to be milked, not a means of reducing the cost of energy for the common man.

 

[Cromulent]

It's not about reducing cost, it's about mitigating climate change and maintaining energy security through diversification.

Other than that, your three points are inaccurate, or unimportant. Renewables don't have to be expensive, they are merely an emerging technology. Technology generally becomes cheaper as it develops. Renewables will do the same.

Having an MSc. in Renewable Energy, I can safely say that the drive is towards simplicity wherever possible, as nobody wants to go and do maintenance on something ten miles out to sea. And most engineers (albeit not all) are far more satisfied by a simple, elegant solution that solves a problem efficiently. So overcomplexity and inefficiency aren't going to stroke our egos.

All forms of energy are controlled by governments and big businesses. Fossil fuels are exactly the same in this regard. The alternative is to stop using energy altogether, not something I'd be queuing up to try!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not about reducing cost, it's about mitigating climate change and maintaining energy security through diversification.

Other than that, your three points are inaccurate, or unimportant. Renewables don't have to be expensive, they are merely an emerging technology. Technology generally becomes cheaper as it develops. Renewables will do the same.

Having an MSc. in Renewable Energy, I can safely say that the drive is towards simplicity wherever possible, as nobody wants to go and do maintenance on something ten miles out to sea. And most engineers (albeit not all) are far more satisfied by a simple, elegant solution that solves a problem efficiently. So overcomplexity and inefficiency aren't going to stroke our egos.

All forms of energy are controlled by governments and big businesses. Fossil fuels are exactly the same in this regard. The alternative is to stop using energy altogether, not something I'd be queuing up to try!

The number one reason that green energy, even after so many years of development, is not widely used is because it is too expensive for the average family. The consumer must see a reasonable payback or he won't buy it. Why is this so difficult for engineers, bankers, and politicians to understand. Everyone gets a payday except the consumer.

P.S. I just read that GM is suspending production of the Chevy Volt for five weeks because of lagging sales. This car is a
great idea, for everyone except the consumer.

P.P.S. Sorry if I gored yer ox.

 

[Cromulent]

The number one reason that green energy, even after so many years of development, is not widely used is because it is too expensive for the average family. The consumer must see a reasonable payback or he won't buy it. Why is this so difficult for engineers, bankers, and politicians to understand. Everyone gets a payday except the consumer.

P.S. I just read that GM is suspending production of the Chevy Volt for five weeks because of lagging sales. This car is a
great idea, for everyone except the consumer.

P.P.S. Sorry if I gored yer ox.

Which is why governments must take the lead. Ever wonder why fossil fuels are so cheap? The combustion and boiler technology was paid for by governments looking to build faster, more powerful warships. Nuclear energy? Nuclear weapons.

Added to that is the fact that the cost per kWh quoted for fossil fuels never takes into account the externalities it causes. Environmental damage and deaths from mining, future rises in fuel prices, and, of course, the damage caused by climate change.

The following is a table of the results of a US government study into the cost of energy from different sources:

It doesn't include any tax credits, or externalities, and you can see that renewables really don't have that far to go to catch up to the conventional forms anyway. And the price of fossil fuels is only going to go up.

So the future has to be either renewable, or nuclear. And seeing as we're running out of uranium, the choice is either between developing new "breeder", or thorium reactors, or renewables, or a combination of both. No matter which way things go, it's going to end up being a little more expensive for the consumer, but nowhere near as expensive as it would be if we sat on our hands and waited for the price of fossil fuels to go through the roof without developing a viable long-term alternative.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is why governments must take the lead. Ever wonder why fossil fuels are so cheap? The combustion and boiler technology was paid for by governments looking to build faster, more powerful warships. Nuclear energy? Nuclear weapons.

Added to that is the fact that the cost per kWh quoted for fossil fuels never takes into account the externalities it causes. Environmental damage and deaths from mining, future rises in fuel prices, and, of course, the damage caused by climate change.

The following is a table of the results of a US government study into the cost of energy from different sources:

It doesn't include any tax credits, or externalities, and you can see that renewables really don't have that far to go to catch up to the conventional forms anyway. And the price of fossil fuels is only going to go up.

So the future has to be either renewable, or nuclear. And seeing as we're running out of uranium, the choice is either between developing new "breeder", or thorium reactors, or renewables, or a combination of both. No matter which way things go, it's going to end up being a little more expensive for the consumer, but nowhere near as expensive as it would be if we sat on our hands and waited for the price of fossil fuels to go through the roof without developing a viable long-term alternative.

I agree that government must take the lead, by replacing 'incentives' with laws and codes contained in a national energy policy. High energy costs and pollution are a global problem, but the U.S. must act domestically by enacting polices and legislation to deal with domestic energy problems. We also need to be pragmatic in our approach, focusing first on conservation of energy, which has been the stepchild in the energy debate (No one gets rich, famous, or powerful by conserving energy, only by producing more).