Re: My take on the State of the Union

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>> Andreas Pour wrote:
>> 
>>> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>>> 
>>> [ ... ]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The only two practical way are with Atomic power or direct solar 
>>>> production.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually you can hydrolyse water from any electric source.  That 
>>> means that in additon to unsustainable derivative methods, one could
>>>  use sustainable methods to generate hudrogen (nuclear-powered, 
>>> wind-powered, solar-powered, tidal-powered, hydrodam-powered, etc.).
>>>  I actually have a pretty good sustainable method for generating 
>>> hydrogen in my head which w/ current technology is very feasible.
>>> 
>> 
>> The issues with Hydrogen is more relegated to storage and delivery -- 
>> or should everyone own a cryostat?
> 
> 
> Storage technology is a problem ATM but feasible, and you don't need 
> super-cooling for it, see e.g. 
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/storage.html#approaches
>  ;   http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_transport.html .

The high pressure tanks might work if they could contain the Hydrogen -- at
that pressure it would leak out of a metal tank.  However, how do you fill
them?  A 5K PSI compressor is much more than you would need to liquefy
Hydrogen.  I can't see any way besides liquid to fill the tanks.

> Of course a hydrogen tank is currently more costly than a fossil fuel 
> tank, but I am not sure how the engine costs (internal combusion vs. 
> fuel cell) compare.

Currently fuel cells are very expensive but they hope that engineering can
reduce the cost.

> The other option is to convert the hydrogen to electricty

And where do you get the Hydrogen?  No, you are going to use Electricity to
produce the Hydrogen.

> at centralized locations and use electric cars (if battery storage
> technology advances faster).
> 
> In terms of delivery you can use pipelines, tube-trailer / pressure 
> vessels, cryogenic vessels or materials storage.  Gas pipelines are 
> probably the cheapest of those options.
> 
If it is being produced from water by electrolysis, then local production
is clearly the answer.  Which is why I suggested that everyone might have
their own cryostat.

<SNIP>

> Alternatively you can convert the gas to electricity for transport.  See e.g.
> http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/superconductivity.htm
> for superconductive electric transmission technologies.

Improving the efficiency of the electric distribution system would save a 
significant amount of energy, but remember that "high temperature" 
superconductors still require liquid Nitrogen.   In any case, I regard this 
as a separate issue.  What isn't a separate issue is where we will get the 
additional electricity.  We might just wind up burning the oil that isn't 
used to make gasoline.

>>> The real obstacle to these solutions is political.  Certainly I 
>>> would not expect an oil-man president to be serious about 
>>> alternatives.
>> 
>> Actually, if you read the report you might see otherwise.  The 
>> position is that in the short run our only alternative is more oil and
>>  conservation.  Conservation should not be imposed on people, but it 
>> appears to me the government could play a larger role in facilitating 
>> it.
>> 
>> 
>>> The oil companies will become serious when their current monopoly is
>>>  about to expire - b/c the oil runs out - or when they can replace
>>> it w/ another monopoly.
>> 
>> The oil monopoly is not the oil companies -- the monopoly is OPEC. 
>> Given that, I don't see a Methanol or Hydrogen monopoly -- there is no
>>  Ethanol monopoly.
> 
> 
> You are talking about the production side, correct?  The question would 
> be, who controls OPEC members, since OPEC is simply a cartel?  Who 
> placed certain regimes in power?  Who has development and exploitation 
> contracts, and how do oil companies react when oilfields are 
> "nationalized"?

I suppose it depends on how much they are paid for them. :-)

> Now look at the two other stages - refinement, and distribution.  Can't 
> seem to remember the last time I saw an independent refinery, or an 
> independent gas station for that matter . . .

There are still a few independent gas stations in Tucson.  This is possibly
because there is a distribution depot in Tucson and it is possible for them
to purchase generic gasoline.

We also have Diamond Shamrock gasoline stations which aren't exactly 
independent but they aren't part of the big oil companies either.  They and 
ARCO are usually the price leaders -- underselling the majors by a few 
cents.  So, in Tucson, I do see competition.

You probably haven't seen an independent refinery in the USA since 1984 
when Texaco purchased Getty Oil.  There are probably independent, or 
national, refineries in other countries.

> looks like a monopoly to me (and don't be deceived by the name on the
> gas station, that is a retail commodity market - like some supermarket
> putting their brand name on a can of corn -, look at who supplies the
> oil to the gas stations).

IIUC, there are 6 major oil companies (vertically integrated).  This is not 
a monopoly.  This is a common Leftist mistake -- to say that an oligopoly 
is a monopoly.

--
JRT

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.