Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hydrogen Economy

Expand Messages
  • Roxanne Boyer
    I have long thought that hydrogen is not the right energy carrier for either transportation or stationary uses (which account for most of our energy use).
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I have long thought that hydrogen is not the right energy carrier for either transportation or stationary uses (which account for most of our energy use).  There are articles in the recent issues of Renewable Energy World and Scientific American that question the logic of hydrogen as an energy carrier and blast politicians who are doling our money for the hydrogen economy.  Finally, some clear headed scientists are stepping forward!
       
      Here are some points:
      1)  The most efficient and inexpensive way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels.  If you are going to burn the fossil fuel to make hydrogen, you might as well burn it in an internal combustion engine directly.
      2)  If you have electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis, you might as well use the electricity directly.
      3)  A hydrogen pipeline costs many more times that of an electric grid.
      4)  Liquid fuels are much cheaper to distribute and store in tanks than hydrogen. 
       
      Hydrogen does have a place.  It's benefits are that it is light and burns "clean".  It only makes sense to use in places where these requirements are absolutely necessary, such as in aerospace, submarines, and underground mines.
       
      Why would politicians support the hydrogen economy?  I don't know, but here are some guesses.  1)  A "future" solution prevents them from having to implement current solutions and yet they can still call themselves environmental.  2) Refineries need more hydrogen to clean up our fuels and they need a way to make hydrogen.  Most of the "hydrogen" research is funding reformers, which convert fossil fuels into hydrogen.  Thus, politicians fund gasoline and diesel (keeping prices low), yet appear environmental.  3)  People needing research grants (universities, national labs, small business research companies) have waved their hands around, jumped on the band wagon and fooled the politicians.
       
      Wind and solar can provide electric energy directly.  Transportation fuels can be "renewable" liquids such as methanol, ethanol, DME, biodiesel and others. 
       
      {OK, now I am getting sort of silly, but still have a point}  What about muscle power?  It make no sense for people to drive short distances in cars and then go spend an hour in the gym wasting human power.  Think about all those people who jog around in circles, wasting energy.  Maybe the federal committee in charge of figuring out how to reduce obesity in the US should team with environmentalists and pay children to ride their bikes to school.  They pay farmers not to grow crops - can they pay employees not to drive cars.  Have fun with the thoughts
      .
       
       
       
    • HARRISON, HEATHER L. (JSC-ZR) (MEI)
      That s not silly at all. I think it s a damn good idea. ... From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@awesomenet.net] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:39 PM To:
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 20, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        That's not silly at all.  I think it's a damn good idea.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
        Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:39 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

        I have long thought that hydrogen is not the right energy carrier for either transportation or stationary uses (which account for most of our energy use).  There are articles in the recent issues of Renewable Energy World and Scientific American that question the logic of hydrogen as an energy carrier and blast politicians who are doling our money for the hydrogen economy.  Finally, some clear headed scientists are stepping forward!
         
        Here are some points:
        1)  The most efficient and inexpensive way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels.  If you are going to burn the fossil fuel to make hydrogen, you might as well burn it in an internal combustion engine directly.
        2)  If you have electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis, you might as well use the electricity directly.
        3)  A hydrogen pipeline costs many more times that of an electric grid.
        4)  Liquid fuels are much cheaper to distribute and store in tanks than hydrogen. 
         
        Hydrogen does have a place.  It's benefits are that it is light and burns "clean".  It only makes sense to use in places where these requirements are absolutely necessary, such as in aerospace, submarines, and underground mines.
         
        Why would politicians support the hydrogen economy?  I don't know, but here are some guesses.  1)  A "future" solution prevents them from having to implement current solutions and yet they can still call themselves environmental.  2) Refineries need more hydrogen to clean up our fuels and they need a way to make hydrogen.  Most of the "hydrogen" research is funding reformers, which convert fossil fuels into hydrogen.  Thus, politicians fund gasoline and diesel (keeping prices low), yet appear environmental.  3)  People needing research grants (universities, national labs, small business research companies) have waved their hands around, jumped on the band wagon and fooled the politicians.
         
        Wind and solar can provide electric energy directly.  Transportation fuels can be "renewable" liquids such as methanol, ethanol, DME, biodiesel and others. 
         
        {OK, now I am getting sort of silly, but still have a point}  What about muscle power?  It make no sense for people to drive short distances in cars and then go spend an hour in the gym wasting human power.  Think about all those people who jog around in circles, wasting energy.  Maybe the federal committee in charge of figuring out how to reduce obesity in the US should team with environmentalists and pay children to ride their bikes to school.  They pay farmers not to grow crops - can they pay employees not to drive cars.  Have fun with the thoughts
        .
         
         
         

      • Paul Stolar
        Not silly, but also not practicle. Until we get Houston laid out to be foot/bicycle friendly, it won t happen. -----Original Message----- From: HARRISON,
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 20, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Not silly, but also not practicle. Until we get Houston laid out to be foot/bicycle friendly, it won't happen.


          -----Original Message-----
          From: "HARRISON, HEATHER L. (JSC-ZR) (MEI)"
          Sent: Apr 20, 2004 9:12 AM
          To: "'hreg@yahoogroups.com'"
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

          That's not silly at all.  I think it's a damn good idea.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
          Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:39 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

          I have long thought that hydrogen is not the right energy carrier for either transportation or stationary uses (which account for most of our energy use).  There are articles in the recent issues of Renewable Energy World and Scientific American that question the logic of hydrogen as an energy carrier and blast politicians who are doling our money for the hydrogen economy.  Finally, some clear headed scientists are stepping forward!
           
          Here are some points:
          1)  The most efficient and inexpensive way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels.  If you are going to burn the fossil fuel to make hydrogen, you might as well burn it in an internal combustion engine directly.
          2)  If you have electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis, you might as well use the electricity directly.
          3)  A hydrogen pipeline costs many more times that of an electric grid.
          4)  Liquid fuels are much cheaper to distribute and store in tanks than hydrogen. 
           
          Hydrogen does have a place.  It's benefits are that it is light and burns "clean".  It only makes sense to use in places where these requirements are absolutely necessary, such as in aerospace, submarines, and underground mines.
           
          Why would politicians support the hydrogen economy?  I don't know, but here are some guesses.  1)  A "future" solution prevents them from having to implement current solutions and yet they can still call themselves environmental.  2) Refineries need more hydrogen to clean up our fuels and they need a way to make hydrogen.  Most of the "hydrogen" research is funding reformers, which convert fossil fuels into hydrogen.  Thus, politicians fund gasoline and diesel (keeping prices low), yet appear environmental.  3)  People needing research grants (universities, national labs, small business research companies) have waved their hands around, jumped on the band wagon and fooled the politicians.
           
          Wind and solar can provide electric energy directly.  Transportation fuels can be "renewable" liquids such as methanol, ethanol, DME, biodiesel and others. 
           
          {OK, now I am getting sort of silly, but still have a point}  What about muscle power?  It make no sense for people to drive short distances in cars and then go spend an hour in the gym wasting human power.  Think about all those people who jog around in circles, wasting energy.  Maybe the federal committee in charge of figuring out how to reduce obesity in the US should team with environmentalists and pay children to ride their bikes to school.  They pay farmers not to grow crops - can they pay employees not to drive cars.  Have fun with the thoughts
          .
           
           
           



          Yahoo! Groups Links

        • Madhavi Chiruvolu
          Yes, I work within 2 miles distance from my home. I d love to use my bicycle to go to work rather than use the car. and the shopping area is also within 2
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 20, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, I work within 2 miles distance from my home. I'd love to use my
            bicycle to go to work rather than use the car. and the shopping area
            is also within 2 miles distance. But the problem is there are no
            pedestrian/bicycle paths near my area. Otherwise so many people
            in my community would have saved so much gasoline....b'coz most
            of the people I talked to were very much interested in using the
            bicycle for short distances rather than a car.

            >>> paulstolar@... 04/20/04 12:45PM >>>
            Not silly, but also not practicle. Until we get Houston laid out to be foot/bicycle friendly, it won't happen.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: "HARRISON, HEATHER L. (JSC-ZR) (MEI)"
            Sent: Apr 20, 2004 9:12 AM
            To: "'hreg@yahoogroups.com'"
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

            That's not silly at all.  I think it's a damn good idea.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
            Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:39 PM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

            I have long thought that hydrogen is not the right energy carrier for either transportation or stationary uses (which account for most of our energy use).  There are articles in the recent issues of Renewable Energy World and Scientific American that question the logic of hydrogen as an energy carrier and blast politicians who are doling our money for the hydrogen economy.  Finally, some clear headed scientists are stepping forward!
             
            Here are some points:
            1)  The most efficient and inexpensive way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels.  If you are going to burn the fossil fuel to make hydrogen, you might as well burn it in an internal combustion engine directly.
            2)  If you have electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis, you might as well use the electricity directly.
            3)  A hydrogen pipeline costs many more times that of an electric grid.
            4)  Liquid fuels are much cheaper to distribute and store in tanks than hydrogen. 
             
            Hydrogen does have a place.  It's benefits are that it is light and burns "clean".  It only makes sense to use in places where these requirements are absolutely necessary, such as in aerospace, submarines, and underground mines.
             
            Why would politicians support the hydrogen economy?  I don't know, but here are some guesses.  1)  A "future" solution prevents them from having to implement current solutions and yet they can still call themselves environmental.  2) Refineries need more hydrogen to clean up our fuels and they need a way to make hydrogen.  Most of the "hydrogen" research is funding reformers, which convert fossil fuels into hydrogen.  Thus, politicians fund gasoline and diesel (keeping prices low), yet appear environmental.  3)  People needing research grants (universities, national labs, small business research companies) have waved their hands around, jumped on the band wagon and fooled the politicians.
             
            Wind and solar can provide electric energy directly.  Transportation fuels can be "renewable" liquids such as methanol, ethanol, DME, biodiesel and others. 
             
            {OK, now I am getting sort of silly, but still have a point}  What about muscle power?  It make no sense for people to drive short distances in cars and then go spend an hour in the gym wasting human power.  Think about all those people who jog around in circles, wasting energy.  Maybe the federal committee in charge of figuring out how to reduce obesity in the US should team with environmentalists and pay children to ride their bikes to school.  They pay farmers not to grow crops - can they pay employees not to drive cars.  Have fun with the thoughts
            .
             
             
             



            Yahoo! Groups Links

          • Paul Archer
            What would be practical (if not all that helpful in terms of actual energy produced) would be treadmills, exercise bikes, and stairmasters that powered
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 20, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              What would be practical (if not all that helpful in terms of actual energy
              produced) would be treadmills, exercise bikes, and stairmasters that powered
              generators that fed back to the grid...


              12:45pm, Paul Stolar wrote:

              > Not silly, but also not practicle. Until we get Houston laid out to be foot/bicycle friendly, it won't happen.
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: "HARRISON, HEATHER L. (JSC-ZR) (MEI)"
              > Sent: Apr 20, 2004 9:12 AM
              > To: "'hreg@yahoogroups.com'"
              > Subject: RE: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy
              >
              > That's not silly at all. I think it's a damn good idea.
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
              > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:39 PM
              > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy
              >
              > I have long thought that hydrogen is not the right energy carrier for either transportation or stationary
              > uses (which account for most of our energy use). There are articles in the recent issues of Renewable
              > Energy World and Scientific American that question the logic of hydrogen as an energy carrier and blast
              > politicians who are doling our money for the hydrogen economy. Finally, some clear headed scientists are
              > stepping forward!
              >
              > Here are some points:
              > 1) The most efficient and inexpensive way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels. If you are going to burn the
              > fossil fuel to make hydrogen, you might as well burn it in an internal combustion engine directly.
              > 2) If you have electricity to make hydrogen by electrolysis, you might as well use the electricity directly.
              > 3) A hydrogen pipeline costs many more times that of an electric grid.
              > 4) Liquid fuels are much cheaper to distribute and store in tanks than hydrogen.
              >
              > Hydrogen does have a place. It's benefits are that it is light and burns "clean". It only makes sense to use
              > in places where these requirements are absolutely necessary, such as in aerospace, submarines, and
              > underground mines.
              >
              > Why would politicians support the hydrogen economy? I don't know, but here are some guesses. 1) A "future"
              > solution prevents them from having to implement current solutions and yet they can still call themselves
              > environmental. 2) Refineries need more hydrogen to clean up our fuels and they need a way to make hydrogen.
              > Most of the "hydrogen" research is funding reformers, which convert fossil fuels into hydrogen. Thus,
              > politicians fund gasoline and diesel (keeping prices low), yet appear environmental. 3) People needing
              > research grants (universities, national labs, small business research companies) have waved their hands around,
              > jumped on the band wagon and fooled the politicians.
              >
              > Wind and solar can provide electric energy directly. Transportation fuels can be "renewable" liquids such as
              > methanol, ethanol, DME, biodiesel and others.
              >
              > {OK, now I am getting sort of silly, but still have a point} What about muscle power? It make no sense for
              > people to drive short distances in cars and then go spend an hour in the gym wasting human power. Think about
              > all those people who jog around in circles, wasting energy. Maybe the federal committee in charge of figuring
              > out how to reduce obesity in the US should team with environmentalists and pay children to ride their bikes to
              > school. They pay farmers not to grow crops - can they pay employees not to drive cars. Have fun with the
              > thoughts.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
              >
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              >
              >
              > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
              >
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              >
              >

              -------------------------------------------
              I judge a religion as being good or bad
              based on whether its adherents become
              better people as a result of practicing it.
              - Joe Mullally, computer salesman
              -------------------------------------------
            • Mallardcable1@aol.com
              I have a very nice bike love to ride but Houston is so dangerous for a cyclist that I never ride unless in Memorial park loop or out on a country road and it
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 20, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I have a very nice bike love to ride but Houston is so dangerous for a cyclist that I never ride unless in Memorial park loop or out on a country road and it is a huge shame.  And the bike lanes we have so far are a joke most of them end and begin with nowhere else to go.  I even found one spot where the bike lane ends and 20 feet later is a sign that says no bikes allowed beyond this point.   So lets all loby city hall for more bike lanes and a more complete bike lane plan and future expansions including a bike lane comming in I-10 expansion 20 to 30 miles in fair weather is a cake of a ride and for all those out in Katy that want a no hassle ride in a dedicated bike lane with those concrete bunkers on either side would be wonderful.
              • Steven M. Stelzer
                I don t doubt how bike unfriendly this town is, but I see a lot of cyclists in spite of it. It s a matter of choice, just like everything else. If you don t
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 20, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I don't doubt how bike unfriendly this town is, but I see a lot of cyclists in spite of it.  It's a matter of choice, just like everything else. If you don't bicycle, recycle.  If you already recycle, study up on it and recycle even more.  Tune up your car.  If it dies, buy a Prius.  Be a part of the solution instead of the problem.  Nobody can do everything right, just do the best you can.  I think things are getting better, we just have a lot of bad habits to change.  But my point is, we can only change ourselves and hope that everyone else can change themselves.
                   
                  Steve Stelzer
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Mallardcable1@... [mailto:Mallardcable1@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:05 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

                  I have a very nice bike love to ride but Houston is so dangerous for a cyclist that I never ride unless in Memorial park loop or out on a country road and it is a huge shame.  And the bike lanes we have so far are a joke most of them end and begin with nowhere else to go.  I even found one spot where the bike lane ends and 20 feet later is a sign that says no bikes allowed beyond this point.   So lets all loby city hall for more bike lanes and a more complete bike lane plan and future expansions including a bike lane comming in I-10 expansion 20 to 30 miles in fair weather is a cake of a ride and for all those out in Katy that want a no hassle ride in a dedicated bike lane with those concrete bunkers on either side would be wonderful.
                • chasmauch@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/20/04 11:03:32 PM Central Daylight Time, stelman@ev1.net ... I can t do without my car and switch to a bike but have switched my electric
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 21, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/20/04 11:03:32 PM Central Daylight Time, stelman@... writes:

                    I don't doubt how bike unfriendly this town is, but I see a lot of cyclists in spite of it.  It's a matter of choice, just like everything else. If you don't bicycle, recycle.  If you already recycle, study up on it and recycle even more.  Tune up your car.  If it dies, buy a Prius.  Be a part of the solution instead of the problem.  Nobody can do everything right, just do the best you can.  I think things are getting better, we just have a lot of bad habits to change.  But my point is, we can only change ourselves and hope that everyone else can change themselves.
                     
                    Steve Stelzer


                    I can't do without my car and switch to a bike but have switched my electric supplyer to Green Mountain's 100% wind plan. I know lots of folks don't like GM for various reasons and don't want to revive that argument here. Guess everyone needs to check them out and reach their own conclusions. I have done so and am satisfied that most of the bad raps against them are just that - bad raps. My latest bill has the following information on the back:

                    kWh electricity used :   706
                    CO2 emissions avoided (pounds) :   1,049
                    Equivalent automobile miles not driven :   1,166

                    That seems to me like a pretty good contribution to cleaning up the air.
                    Charlie
                  • Jim & Janet
                    Here in Fort Worth, the police ride bicycles in the central downtown area. They will only move off the busy sidewalks and ride in the street if they need to
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 21, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Here in Fort Worth, the police ride bicycles in the central downtown area. They will only move off the busy sidewalks and ride in the street if they need to cross. I have confronted individual officers and asked them to move into the street since it violates a city ordinance against riding on sidewalks. Their response is that it's not safe to ride in the streets!
                      All of the city busses are required to have bicycle racks on the front and the drivers are trained in how to secure bikes on them. Bike racks are 98% empty all the time. They allow bikes on the passenger trains between Fort Worth and Dallas and to DFW but there are not bike lanes up to the stations.
                      You can pass all the laws you want supporting bicycle access but without the active and ongoing support of elected public servants and citizens, it won't work.  
                      Good luck
                      Jim Duncan
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:04 PM
                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Hydrogen Economy

                      I have a very nice bike love to ride but Houston is so dangerous for a cyclist that I never ride unless in Memorial park loop or out on a country road and it is a huge shame.  And the bike lanes we have so far are a joke most of them end and begin with nowhere else to go.  I even found one spot where the bike lane ends and 20 feet later is a sign that says no bikes allowed beyond this point.   So lets all loby city hall for more bike lanes and a more complete bike lane plan and future expansions including a bike lane comming in I-10 expansion 20 to 30 miles in fair weather is a cake of a ride and for all those out in Katy that want a no hassle ride in a dedicated bike lane with those concrete bunkers on either side would be wonderful.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.