cheap / free energy "conspiracy" is it real?

[photonaholic]

After watching one of my all time favorite movies "Chain Reaction" (good thing DVD does not wear out) I though maybe I'd like to hear other peoples take on the "conspiracy" angle.

Hydrogen is one of the most abundant and very renewable resources our planet has to offer us, separating water was one of the earliest science demonstrations I remember from school, and the first one I tried at home.

When Hydrogen burns, it becomes water all over again.

When I look at all the time and effort it takes to create bio diesel fuel, it's no wonder that it will not take off any time soon, way too much energy has to be put in to get very little fuel out.

Hydrogen however could be harvested by using solar electricity, wind power, or even ocean tidal currents for next to nothing, the hardware to do it would pay for itself really quickly...

Even if the process were not 100 percent efficient, any semi skilled person with some basic knowledge could harvest, compress and use hydrogen for fuel, with far less effort and equipment than bio diesel.

On an industrial scale, production would be fast, cheap, and even easier.

So why is it that we don't see automobiles that burn hydrogen to run?

A hydrogen furnace could heat domestic hot water, warm our homes, cook our food, etc...

Is there any truth to the concept that our own governments would rather see the oil trade continue until all supplies are depleted??

Should I really care if oil producing nations would suffer if no one wanted their sludge anymore??

Are those "reported cases" of "pay offs" bogus smoke screens or reality?

There it is.... We are all thinkers here, That's why I enjoy this forum more than any other! let those thoughts out.

 

[brtaman]

One of the major problems that I see with hydrogen fuel being used in our lives, is that it takes the same amount of energy to separate the hydrogen from the water as the hydrogen gives off turning back into water. This would be with 100% efficiency all around. I believe it is the Law of Conservation of Energy...

Haven't done anything in chemistry lately, but my theory seems reasonable from what I remember.

Not too mention Hydrogens explosive nature...

 

[Byrnz93]

Had to do a paper on renewable energy source a year ago; from what I can remember about cars that run on hydrogen based on harvesting the hydrogen from H2O through electrolysis you end up using more energy to harvest the H2 than you get from burning it.

And the reason you don't see many of these cars, or electric cars (although they're gaining popularity) is that because of the oil companies. They actually buy many of the blueprints and designs and don't allow any access to them.
It would also be harder to turn the automobile scene upside down with these new cars than continue with our current petrol running cars.

Basically the oil companies are making billions as it is. They don't want to lose that because of renewable energy, so they do everything they can to prevent it. Even if that means we suffer further down the road.

 

[photonaholic]

Then lets broaden the scope a bit, not just Hydrogen, how about other technologies that "appear" to be suppressed from implementation.....

I heard about the oil companies buying people off.

Back when my oldest daughter was in school, I helped her do a paper on that subject, It got the science teachers attention and she got a good grade on it.

 

[StardustSprinkles]

I think it's true, it's common nature in greedy companies that think "I'm on top, I'm making the most money, all other competitors and ideas that might stop me from being the biggest and best had better watch their backs.."

 

[Cyparagon]

So why is it that we don't see automobiles that burn hydrogen to run?

Since it IS the lightest material known to man, it has to be compressed to hundreds of PSI to carry any respectable energy in a car. That being the case, a tank rupture is far more of a danger with hydrogen than with gasoline. It also cracks steel (see hydrogen embrittlement) so conventional materials cannot be used.

It is not a FUEL any more than li-ion batteries are a fuel. There is nowhere to find hydrogen that is not already bonded (there is nowhere to find charged li-ion batteries in nature), and more energy is required to make it than we get from burning it (more energy is required to make and charge li-ion batteries than we get from them) - therefore it's more of a storage medium... one that's more dangerous and FAR more difficult to handle than li-ion batteries for example.

 

[scopeguy20]

There are new technology hydrogen storage containers, and even if you do need to crack water to get H2 it is still a very clean burning fuel, and I believe you get more power to use than generating electricity,sending it a hundred or more miles in wires and then finally using about 4% of what was originally generated. Sure storage and leakage are dangerous challenges, so too with natural gas, propane and even gasoline. Just my USD $0.02 worth. -Glenn

 

[HIMNL9]

Well, there is at least one good thing about hydrogen ..... that is that if not for greed companies, you can produce your own one for almost free ..... water, a separator (electrolytic tank), a power supply (that can be also some solar panels), pumps and tanks, these are the things that, cause their high prices, make it non convenient ..... otherwise, if you can get these elements at cheap price (and some of them can also be DYIed), then you just need to left the unit work alone

and as bonus, solar panels can also be combined for produce both electricity and hot water, as i've experimented years ago, building a prototype for the camper of a friend (nothing really special, i've just took one of these hot water solar panels that have the plate with the tubes on the back, and filled the flat spaces between the tubes with solar cells )

 

[Chicxulub]

any semi skilled person with some basic knowledge could harvest, compress and use hydrogen for fuel, with far less effort and equipment than bio diesel.

...

So why is it that we don't see automobiles that burn hydrogen to run?

You answered your own question, methinks.

 

[Deleted member 8382]

^me too

 

[pullbangdead]

People still blame oil companies for things?

Wow guys, wow....

First, oil companies are not a couple of greedy guys behind desks wringing their hands trying to figure out how to screw you. Exxon is one of the most widely-held public stocks out there, with shares held by at least 1400 different institutions (read: mutual funds and investment firms) and at least 4 million American citizens. Do you own a 401(k) or a mutual fund? Then you probably yourself own a piece of Exxon, congratulations. The "greedy company buying off the government" thing, and especially the idea of the "government subsidizing oil production" thing is the scam. The government makes more profit from Exxon than Exxon makes from Exxon, because the taxes on Exxon are higher than their final profits. And as we've covered, it's not a few greedy people who own Exxon, it's 4 million+ average American citizens.

Next, oil companies LOVE the idea of hydrogen fuel in cars, absolutely love it. You know why? Because the cheapest source of hydrogen on earth is, you guessed it, oil! Most of the commercially-produced hydrogen on earth is produced directly from petroleum. (The rest? You have to use electricity, the majority of which is produced by, yep, fossil fuels!) Fossil fuel companies make huge profits off of hydrogen as a fuel, don't think they want to stop it. The reason it isn't happening is because gas is still cheaper to use, and that's what the public WANTS. What the public wants, the public gets. The public wants the cheapest transportation possible, so the public gets gasoline and petroleum-based fuels, simple as that. There's no evil man trying to keep alternatives down, all there is is a higher price keeping consumers away from it.

Finally, as some people hit on, hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier. Like gasoline and like batteries and like coal, it's just stored energy. Stored solar energy, in fact (all the energy we use on earth, except nuclear, is just stored solar afterall). Oil is pretty direct, just burn it and you get the heat. As it is, hydrogen is just another processing step on top of the oil to get energy from it, and it's much less portable. Hydrogen itself isn't any worse than gasoline as far as volitility, except it's a gas, which makes it a loss worse to deal with when you have to compress it.

So using energy to crack a hydrocarbon or to crack a water, then using energy to separate the hydrogen from the other gasses (just oxygen in the case of water, but it still takes energy to separate them because of the decrease in entropy), then using energy to transport it...and with all the other steps, it's an EXPENSIVE process. More expensive than using gas right now, which is why everyone is still using gas. You don't get anywhere near 100% efficiency. Of course you don't get anywhere near 100% efficiency with anything else, so the biggest difference is cost, and the cost is HIGH.

And finally OP, really, hydrogen production and usage is much more complicated than making bio-diesel, even if it looks simple on the surface, it's complicated underneath. Bio-diesel requires a little chemistry and no alterations to your car. H2 requires major alteratiosn to your car, and much more complicated facilities and processes than producing bio-diesel. The idea is simpler, yes, but doing it is more complicated.

 

[charliebruce]

AFAIK, it is hard to compress hydrogen to such a density that it contains enough energy to move a vehicle far, without being at very high pressure or cold. Plus, the infrastructure already exists for petroleum and diesel, at least in the developed world, whereas a hydrogen network isn't as established. Another issue is building an engine running on pure hydrogen but producing similar torque and energy in the same size and limits of a normal car engine. HFCs are starting to become more popular, but at the moment you can't get HFCs over about 5kW without paying through the nose or building it yourself (PEM design, IIRC - still in its infancy and most high powered cells are currently only engineering samples)

IMO electric/Li-ion will be the way of the future - I've been doing quite a bit of research and for most normal use, a 25kWh pack will provide about 100-200 miles of driving in a high efficiency, light chassis vehicle, and cost £2-3000 every 3-5 years in degeneration, depending on usage and temperature. I think the savings in fuel alone pretty much cover the cost of the cells, combined with convenience of charging from home on a pre-existing infrastructure...

 

[StridAst]

Ok, things to keep in mind, is there is very real corporate pressure on emerging techs! this is concrete fact. The idea that it's always some evil greedy oil execs however is not. A wonderful example of this pressure is advanced geothermal energy. (concept of drilling two wells until you reach hot rock, shattering, then acid etching the rock to allow passage of water from well A to well B. then running water through to get steam to run your turbines.) Pros: you can build these power plants just about anywhere. Cons: it's emerging, not well established tech. Result: The loans needed to finance the construction of this type of power plant are considered more risky, therefore given higher interest rate.

In this particular case the interest rate is the difference between a geothermal plant costing less then a coal fired plant, and producing the cheapest electricity on earth, and the reality of the situation which is they cost MORE then coal now, as the interest rate skews the final cost per kilowatt At the moment, coal plants are still cheaper to build, because they are established tech, and the companies that lend the giant sums of money needed to build power plants know what to expect and give better rates to the "safe bets"

Is this a conspiracy? no. It's just shrewd marketing. Which ALWAYS favors the status quo. Emerging tech becomes viable after people spend insane amounts of their OWN money proving it, workout out the bugs, and getting it to the point of where the big financial institutions feel safe investing in it.

The fact is, hydrogen has plenty of downsides. These slow the process down. You could build a pipeline network to distribute it. however you would need to line all the pipes to protect them from the H2. This makes it cost more then existing techs to build up the infrastructure. When you have to pay MORE money to get a new tech working, then to keep using the old tech, how do you convince the big financial lenders to invest in it? The concept of green energy does have it's appeal, but it doesn't carry enough weight at a shareholders meeting.......

Also hydrogen isn't a perfect clean fuel. water is NOT the only byproduct. Any flame containing atmospheric nitrogen can and will produce oxides of nitrogen. Burning hydrocarbons don't get the nitrogen from the oil. it comes from the atmosphere. NO2 and NO are still produced. You still need to worry about emission control. you also get H2O2 on the side (hydrogen peroxide can form when burning hydrogen. less of a problem as it's unstable and sunlight breaks it down, as does catalase in our blood (and that of all mammals) All in all it's a LOT cleaner burning then fossil fuels. but NOT perfect. burning anything in this atmosphere can and does produce oxides of nitrogen. Yes people, even our lasers do produce it when we burn things

Conclusion: Logistics favors established tech, and there isn't ENOUGH pressure yet to push society quickly to a sustainable clean infrastructure

 

[HIMNL9]

People still blame oil companies for things?

Wow guys, wow....

First, oil companies are not a couple of greedy guys behind desks wringing their hands trying to figure out how to screw you.

No, effectively, they are much more numerous, and much worse than this

Next, oil companies LOVE the idea of hydrogen fuel in cars, absolutely love it.

Probably is for this reason that the original patent for the hydrogen car (that was presented more than 20 years ago in TV and come from an Italian inventor) was buyed and closed in a safe for 15 years, trying to discourage all the researches (not speaking about the end made from the double-chambered cylinders car motor built in Japan almost in the same period of time, that was making possible to drive 50Km with a liter of fuel at 90Km/h and cutting to half the pollution, and that made the same end )

Finally, as some people hit on, hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier.

True, only, it's more efficent, if well used, and cause less pollution than some others (and, by the way, someone already built a DYI dissociator for homemade hydrogen production )


Sorry, no intention to offend, probably i'm in a "devil's advocate" phase, and sometimes i can't resist to these replies ..... peace

 

[StridAst]

as a side note, a common misconception about "cheap" and "free" energy is that solar and wind power have the potential to be as cheap as fossil fuels. Both cost considerably more right now. largely due to maintanence costs. For example. with solar. I'm quite certain everyone here can well imagine how dirty the optics get out there in the real world, with large surface areas exposed to the elements. Care to take a guess how much the costs are to keep those exposed optical collection methods clean are? We all know how much dirty optics effect laser performance, keep in mind that percent of energy lost makes a HUGE difference. As for wind power, cleaning and maintaining those big windmills is a real pain and they DO take abrasive damage and then theres dirt collecting at bad points for dirt to collect in.... Real world applications never work out as well as in theory. These two techs are already well established, however DESPITE the energy source for them being more or less free, they still can't yet compete on price with fossil fuels..... Hydrocarbons ARE cheap energy. Until something cheaper comes along, it's going to be the way things just are.

 

[Cyparagon]

...then finally using about 4% of what was originally generated.

4% sounds like an ass statistic to me.

even if you do need to crack water to get H2 it is still a very clean burning fuel

And where do you get the electricity you need to crack water? The burning of hydrogen produces water vapor - the most potent greenhouse gas of them all.

I believe you get more power to use than generating electricity,sending it a hundred or more miles in wires and then finally using...

^3 steps

So you think it's better to generate electricity, send it hundreds of miles to an electrolysis plant, convert the electrical energy to chemical hydrogen energy, cool the hydrogen (using more electricity), compress the hydrogen (using more electricity), transport the hydrogen (using who knows what energy), and burn the hydrogen? 7 steps sounds more inefficient to me.

There are new technology hydrogen storage containers

That cost how much more than a steel tank?

Sure storage and leakage are dangerous challenges, so too with natural gas, propane and even gasoline. Just my USD $0.02 worth. -Glenn

Natural gas doesn't have to be compressed to be transferred. Gasoline doesn't even need to be in a closed container to be transferred. I'll give you propane, but that's why we only use propane sparingly, and propane can at least be stored in a steel tank.