| ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY
6/13/03 <link>
Hydrogen
fuel cells - impact on ozone layer?
A paper from the journal Science is reporting on ozone depletion risks
from hydrogen use. This Chicago Sun-Times article says, "...Researchers
issued a report Thursday saying that if hydrogen replaced fossil fuels
to run everything from cars to power plants, large amounts of hydrogen
would drift into the stratosphere as a result of leakage and
indirectly cause depletion of the ozone. They
acknowledged that much is still unknown about the hydrogen cycle and
that technologies could be developed to curtail hydrogen releases,
mitigating the problem. But they say hydrogen's impact on ozone
destruction should be considered...
Unlike fossil fuels, which produce an array of chemicals that pollute
the air, a hydrogen fuel cell when making energy releases only water
as a byproduct.
But in an article in this week's edition of Science magazine,
researchers at the California Institute of Technology raised the
possibility that if hydrogen fuel replaced fossil fuels entirely it
could be expected that 10 percent to 20 percent of the hydrogen would
leak from pipelines, storage facilities, processing plants and fuel
cells.
Because hydrogen readily travels skyward, the researchers estimated
that its increased use could lead to as much as a tripling of hydrogen
molecules going into the stratosphere, where it would oxidize and form
water. ''This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and
the disturbance of ozone chemistry,'' the researchers wrote..."
2/16/03 <link>
One
of the reasons why solar energy is not getting cheaper
We recently came across this note by Matt Bivens in The Nation. It
points out a very important reason why alternative energies that can
make an impact NOW, are not becoming more popular - the current White
House and the folks in Congress. The bootmline is the impact massive
subsidies have had in sustaining fossil fuels and nuclear energyTo see
why, consider the following points from Biven (bold text is our
emphasis):
"...In
sum, we're talking about gift-wrapping $50 billion to $60 billion
over the next ten years and handing it over to the oil, gas, coal and
nuclear power industries. And this is all utterly routine --
barely worthy of comment. Fifty billion dollars!
For perspective: President Bush's chief economic adviser estimates a
war with Iraq will cost somewhere from $100 billion to $200 billion.
What's most offensive is we aren't getting anything in return. These
are old, dirty industries. Does anyone believe feeding them billions
of extra dollars each year will lower the cost of energy? Or clean the
environment? Create significant new jobs? Make us safer from
terrorists? Free us from dependence on volatile foreign nations?
Now think of what would happen
if that $50 billion were instead invested in solar power - if the
stated policy of the US government was to starve those dirty subsidy
hogs, and divert the money instead to installing solar panels across
the nation. You may be surprised to learn we've
never made anything approaching such a commitment to solar. Since
World War II, all
federal subsidies to solar power have amounted to a paltry $4.4
billion - against $145 billion sunk into nuclear power. In other
words: We've spent 32 times as much tax money on splitting atoms as we
have on harvesting sunlight.
And if we now reversed that
trend? The cost of solar power would drop. Frank
Hinrichs, a vice president of Shell Solar - the solar power division
of energy major Royal Dutch/Shell - says that historically, every
doubling of the amount of solar panels in use has driven the price of
solar-generated electricity down about 20 percent. Solar-generated
electricity is today about five times as expensive as coal-generated
energy (leaving aside, of course, coal-burning costs that show up
elsewhere - from the price tags for fighting asthma, paying death
benefits to miner families, cleaning up pollution, etc.) But costs
have dropped ten-fold in recent years, and are still dropping thanks
to investments like the $100 million San Francisco is spending to
install wind and solar power capacity. But does California always have
to do everything? A federal $50 billion fund could install at least
500 times as much PV paneling as that...Global Green is pushing an
international fund paid for by all nations. Citing a World Bank study
that estimates fossil fuel subsidies globally come to $210 billion a
year, Global Green suggests each country cut into those useless
subsidies, and use the freed-up cash as its ante. Since the United
States consumes a quarter of the world's energy, Global Green humbly
suggests we kick in one quarter of the cash, or $12.5 billion. A
crushing burden? It's not even half of what the Bush Administration's
energy legislation asks Congress to give to oil, coal and nuclear
companies..."
10/31/02 <link>
Automobile gas mileage guide for 2003 shows falling average
mileage
Not surprising at all, but depressing indeed. Hybrids are highlighted
as being the better ones on mileage.
9/28/02 <link>
Hydrogen-powered fuel cells
In an interesting interview with Salon, Jeremy Rifkin (author of
"The Hydrogen Economy") talks about the future of energy
being tied to hydrogen, which is expected to burn cleanly, producing
simply - H2O - water. Salon's article/interview also
provides a link to some snapshots of some fuel cell vehicles - which, to
our pleasant surprise includes
many SUVs! Perhaps it is targeted towards the large numbers of
people who love (gas-guzzling) SUVs, and if so, we think that is a
great idea - since we must keep finding ways to gently reach out to
them to support the alternative energy sources movement with their
votes. Beyond the obvious excitement the
article/interview generated in us, what we also found interesting was
how Europe is leading the world in the exploration and attempt at
commercialization of alternative energy technologies. This was
highlighted further by Mr. Rifkin, in this
op-ed in the Washington Post. It is indeed a sad state of affairs
that the U.S. is not leading the world in this, and that reflects our
almost exclusive dependency on petroleum and fossil-fuels, with
limited effort (and no real vision) to move towards
environment-friendly alternative fuels in a big way. (Disclosure:
we own purely petroleum driven cars - so we are not yet as
"green" as we aim to be). Some of
the long-term implications of a successful change to hydrogen-powered
fuel cells are highlighted in these statements by Mr. Rifkin.
"...The sun is setting on the great
fossil-fuel culture that began with the harnessing of coal and steam
power more than 200 years ago. Leading petro-geologists disagree about
when global production of oil will peak -- that is, reach the point
where half the known oil reserves and projected oil yet to be
discovered are used up. ...The Cassandras say
that peak production is likely to occur as early as the end of this
decade, but probably no later than 2020. The optimists say global peak
production won't occur until around 2040. What's most striking,
however, is how little time separates the two camps -- only 20 to 30
years. What they both agree on is that once global oil production does
peak, two-thirds of the remaining oil reserves will be in the Middle
East, the most politically unstable region of the world. What this
means is that countries still dependent on oil will struggle to
maintain access to the remaining Mideast oil fields, with all of the
risks and consequences that accompany that reality."
"...The difference in perspective between Europe
and America on this score is reflected in the attitudes of the world's
giant energy companies. The European-based companies, British
Petroleum and Royal Dutch/Shell, have made a long-term commitment to
making the transition out of fossil fuels and are spending large
amounts of money on renewable energy technologies and hydrogen
research and development. BP's new slogan is "Beyond
Petroleum." Philip Watts, chairman of the managing directors of
the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, has stated that his company is preparing
for the end of the hydrocarbon age and is exploring the promise of the
hydrogen economy. By contrast, the American energy company ExxonMobil
has remained steadfast in its long-term commitment to fossil fuels and
has made little effort to explore renewable energy and hydrogen.
The European Union is now in position to become the
first superpower to make the long-term shift out of carbon-based fuels
and into a hydrogen era. A change in energy regimes of this magnitude
over the course of the next half-century is likely to have as profound
an effect on society as coal and steam power did. [our emphasis]"
We are watching with interest the massive hydrogen
power initiative in the country of Iceland, which has set in its
vision the elimination of fossil fuels over the next 30 years.
Recent articles on this effort may be found in MSNBC,
and BBC (1,
2)
|
