Tis a tad bit more complex than that. Current hydrogen generation technologies are either very inefficient or they require fossil fuels as feedstocks. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a medium of energy transmission. If you think of hydrogen powered vehicles as if they had batteries in them rather than hydrogen combustion engines or fuel cells, you will be far closer to the truth than the popular conception.
Tis a tad bit more complex than that. Current hydrogen generation technologies are either very inefficient or they require fossil fuels as feedstocks. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a medium of energy transmission. If you think of hydrogen powered vehicles as if they had batteries in them rather than hydrogen combustion engines or fuel cells, you will be far closer to the truth than the popular conception.
I kinda figured them for batteries of a sort. But can't we use nuclear engergy plants to supply power to the hydrogen extraction equipment?
Buddy IVO from Bulgaria told me that they were mixing used bio-oils with thier deisel to extend a tank. But the gov't didnt want them to do it because it made black sooty smoke. apparently they do ALL the illegal stuff in Bulgaria...
True biodiesel requires no modification whatsoever of diesel vehicles. What you are talking about is a modification that allows your car to run on straight vegetable oil.
In both cases, the amount currently available is pitiful and the theoretical production volume required to meet all transportation needs is enormous: around 1/3 of all arable land in the USA would have to be devoted to production of fuels. That is only for transportation mind, not commercial power stations. You can bet that if more people had biodiesel vehicles that "free" vegetable oil would suddenly cost as much as gasoline. Hell, now that I think about it, vegetable oil is pretty damn expensive as it is! When was the last time any of you guys bought vegetable oil in the grocery store? That stuff is like $20/gallon! I'm sure the stuff for cars would be cheaper, but you get the idea.
As for emissions... diesel engines are much worse than gasoline because of the differences between the catalytic converters used on the two systems. Now, the reason why this is true is because diesel fuel typically contains a good deal of sulfur which poisons the more effective types of catalysts. I have no idea what the sulfur content of biodiesel is likely to be, so it may be that this problem could be corrected.
In my opinon biodiesel is only useful as a public relations gimmick to raise awareness of the issues. I think it would be much more intelligent to get a hybrid. Conservation is far more effective than most other options.
With respect to hydrogen: Yes, that is the only current way to build a "green" economy. Nuclear power with a hydrogen distribution system. To be fair wind and hydroelectric power can also contribute quite a bit, but nuclear is the only option substantial enough on its own. God I hope ITER gets past break-even!
PETA will put a stop to that!!! bastards....
"Don't kill algae for fuel!!! WAHH!!"
i have read this topic with interest, from the point of view that i've been studying these subjects at uni the past 2 years. i have to say i agree with Tracer's comments and corrections. i'll add a few more thoughts:
- nuclear has indeed a high value. Both economically and ecologically (no greenhouse gas emmisions -Kyoto). However, it's not a good idea to have ALL our energy come from them, for 2 main reasons:
1) never put all your eggs in the same basket, makes you vulnerable.
2) nuclear plants are great for the baseload of energy demand, but they are too slow/uneconomic to compensate hour-to-hour (15mins in fact) fluctuations in the demand.
- investing in renewable energy (wind, water, solar) is a good thing, but all have their limitations (to be extremely short: wind: placement/environment, water: placement/environment, solar: cost) and are unable to compensate the big boys. still its good to have them as a growing share of the energy supply. Kyoto is a good stimulus.
- coal is becoming cheap relative to e.g. oil due to the market and due to high efficiency technologies, but has a higher penalty on environment (CO2).
- price caps and government intervention are economically not a good thing. Look at the California energy crisis a few years ago. In relation to ecological effects, it's better to let the market work on its own by having a tradable green-permit system.
- Things like fuel-cells / hydrogen are unfortunately uneconomic at this time, but technologies that do offer better solutions are e.g. Cogeneration (electricity + use of "waste" heat) , STEG, ...
a sad story: In belgium, the green party managed to have to government close down the power plants by the year 2015 and beyond. This intention was based solely on ideological reasons. the truth is that this, combined with Kyoto, will make our energy bill unbelievably high. i hope they review this matter.
In conclusion i would like to share TB's comment on ITER and look hopefully at what it might bring.
edit: STEG = steam + gas
