The following article is for your information. The energy problem is just going to continue and get worse over the next few years. Domestic energy prices are rising rapidly (electric, natural gas, petroleum products} and will continue even if we go to war to secure large oil fields. Solar energy on a large scale is decades away, hydo is maxed out, nuclear power additions would be 10-15 years down the road, and wind power is too little to late. The only group of people that will NOT suffer extensively is the small scale county dwelling homesteader.

This will have a positive effect on the over-population problem -- large population states and large scale cities all over the world will be drastically reduced in size. Petroleum automobile usage will be drastically reduced and the world economy will go into a sharp downturn. I don't think the above is too pessimistic, just realistic over the next five years.

Happy new year and welcome to the new millennium.

********************************************************************* The Associated Press

TRIPOLI, Libya (December 25, 2000) - Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, in a letter to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that was made public Monday, said oil-producing nations should consider stopping all pumping for one or two years to fend off any attempts to lower world oil prices.

The letter, published in state-run Libyan newspapers, appeared to be Gadhafi's response to Chavez's call Sunday on members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to fight efforts to reduce the price of oil, his country's main export. Chavez had accused some oil-consuming countries of playing "a dirty game" of trying to push prices below $10 a barrel.

"Since the issue is one of aggression on the resources of the people of OPEC, then our last resort might be halting oil pumping completely for a year or two," Gadhafi said in his letter.

Halting production, Gadhafi wrote, is "a means of defending ourselves and our interests."

Last week, oil prices reached their lowest level in eight months, dropping to less than $22 a barrel. Under OPEC's pricing system, production decreases by 500,000 barrels a day if oil prices remain below $22 a barrel for 10 straight business days.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Ali Rodriguez, who is also OPEC's president, has said the cartel likely will cut production in January if world oil prices continue dropping. Several OPEC members favor the suggestion.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 26, 2000

Answers

Wish I'd had a good stiff drink before I read this post. Think I'll print this out and give it to hubby. I've been wanting a horse and cart for years....maybe I'll get it now :o).

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), December 26, 2000.

The quickest way to force us into self sufficiency, energy wise, would be for Muammar and friends to cut of supplies. Yeah, we might go to war, but how many are willing to send sons and daughters to die so they can drive their SUV's? Not as many as you think when push come to shove. The oil producers would be much better off milking us for as much as they can get, investing the proceeds into research of new technologies to provide energy, and selling that technoligy to us. Will they do it? Probably not, much more fun to party in the palace.

As for the statement that we are years away from other technologies ourselves and that thing like hydro are tapped out. We are only dollars awy from new technology. As soon as we are willing to pay for it, it will be done. I read in interesting article this summer (Smithsonian mag, I think) about how there is a thriving little businees fixing up old hydro sites out east, installing new generators, and selling the power to the big companies. Didn't sound like a tapped out resource to me.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

A few problems with your "realistic" time-line JLS...

1. Gadhafi shoots his mouth off on many topics, but not everyone listens. The Saudis have their hands on the oil valve and they aren't stupid. Raising the price too high will cripple the world's economy. (They've already tried that). Letting the price fall to $10 the way it did 2 years ago is a disaster for the oil producing nations (They've tried that, too) So, they are going to work hard to keep prices in the $20-25 a barrel range.

2. The problem is not so much in supply, but in distribution. Have you been keeping track of all the oil company mergers in the past few years? What's the first thing they do? Consolidate. Eliminate over- lapping jobs and refineries. Cut down on refinery capacity so they can keep THEIR price up, regardless of world supply. Did the jump in heating oil prices mean that there was less oil? Heck no. The refineries didn't crank it out.

3. High natural gas prices? A lot of utility companies switched from coal to gas to pacify the EPA. They'll switch back again. And with a Republican administration, the EPA be d*mned.

4. So we might go to war to get more oil? Who would you suggest? Pick a country, any country, that produces oil. And we're going to station an army their forever to insure our greedy needs?

5. The populations are going to shift wholesale out of the cities? And move where? And pay what for real estate? And their jobs will be where? And they're going to get to their jobs how? In what kind of vehicles burning what kind of fuel?

No JLS, things aren't going to change that much in the next 5 years. Economic downturn? Nothing new there. We'll just weather the man-made storm. Higher prices? More drilling. More pressure on Detroit to cut down on the monster SUVs and 50 zillion horse-power "pickups" that require a step-ladder to get into and go "over-land" on Interstates with enough raw power to climb the 1 inch concrete lip into the mall parking lot. :)

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), December 26, 2000.

Think of what that will do to the economy, and how folks will loose jobs! There were several BIG articles in local papers about big buisnesses that shut down this year, or laid off a large number of workers. Then today, Hubby brought home a paper with a big article on the rising cost of heating oil, etc., and how it was affecting folks, esp the elderly on fixed incomes.

Do any of you remember the Jimmy Carter era recession? VERY unpleasant. Thank God we're in better shape than we were then...our own place, and fairly recession-proof jobs, and the kids getting grown. But whatdaya bet there are gonna be a LOT of folks with big gardens next year, and more woodstoves????

-- Leann Banta (thelionandlamb@hotmail.com), December 26, 2000.

Craig, if you don't subscribe, I urge you to pick up the latest issue of Countryside and read the article about the end of cheap oil. Then visit www.hubbertcurve.com or www.oilcrisis.com or www.dieoff.com, then sign up for the RunningOnEmpty e-group. Then reread the paragraph you posted above:

"2. The problem is not so much in supply, but in distribution. Have you been keeping track of all the oil company mergers in the past few years? What's the first thing they do? Consolidate. Eliminate over- lapping jobs and refineries. Cut down on refinery capacity so they can keep THEIR price up, regardless of world supply. Did the jump in heating oil prices mean that there was less oil? Heck no. The refineries didn't crank it out."

The refineries didn't crank it out because they were/are already operating at maximum. And at one point this fall, before the gathering recession reduced demand, EVERY oil-producing country on the planet was pumping at maximum capacity except Saudi Arabia and UAE. The North Sea, Venzuela, and Mexico are already at or near peak. The US peaked in 1970/72. What we are going through now is just the beginning of the rollercoaster.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), December 26, 2000.

Cash, I read that article and I have been to the running on empty site and I have a few problems with how the deductions are made. How does this guy know that there are only X amount of barrels of oil to be discovered? His crystal ball is really good and he could make boucoup cash off of that info, methinks. I remeber when I was really young all the talk that there would be no more oil in 1990. I think we are looking at 2001 next week unless I hit a time warp somewhere. I just don't buy the entire scenario because the presumption is made that they know how much more oil is down there.

I do believe that the need for alternative fuels is something that should be addressed. I think we should spend the money on advancing clean and renewable forms of energy. I agree we should reduce our consumption, but I don't buy the scare tactics and the supposition that one guy knows how many barrels of oil are left in the earth. It's bunk.

The problem reaction solution principle is gearing up. Why not push for expenditures on clean energy technology? There have been several cold fusion successes...read that free energy! We just need to change our focus. Why do we want to be slaves to fossil fuels? Why do we continue to support all of these corporate power structures that keep us on their merry go round? Let's all go out and buy a team of horses and learn to use them....aw nuts, it's raining and cold and I don't feel like it right now...plus I don't have the money!!! But it is something I am going to do this year.

There is so much out there that is doable and successful and yet we are kept by the powers that be in the box they made for us. If the oil industry was interested in their own long term future they would have greatly advanced their expenditures in solar technology, but we haven't pushed for it. Their concern is to make money not provide a product that is good for everyone. If there is money to be made, they will spend the time and energy to extract that resource. It's all about money and power, and in this case both.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 26, 2000.

Doreen, I just read your thoughts on the Y2k thread and this has me thinking somewhat. (yikes...) Money and power...what if money and power were concepts that enable the "NON-powers that be" to manipulate us as well? In other words, the folks who stand to make some kind of money or power in having us running scared? Who they are, I don't know, but it seems to me that maybe we need to examine the middle ground somehow: i.e.: not to be afraid and running for the hills or believing every scary thing we read, and also not being complacent and casual about running out of natural resources. I don't have the answer(s), but I am contemplating the question(s). (And I am replenishing/refreshing my supplies.)

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 26, 2000.

A comment on running out of oil: Current best estimates are for about a forty year supply at current usage levels (24 billion barrels a year). What is going to rapidly change is the price.

There was an excellent article in Scientific American Magazine about this subject. The authors concluded: The world is not running out of oil at least not yet. What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend.

This article can be found at:

http://click.go2net.com/click? area=results.goto_nobid&site=dp&shape=textlink&cid=0001cc86def8cbe7000 00000&clickurl=http%3A//www.goto.com/d/sr%3Fxargs% 3D00u3hs9yoahSumGpxqaqgGlClEqZlp% 252BXppRflA6UFOemKhqgGJpUhAWlFiXkmRakpten5mQWpOcWkRamrCY2cgQ3CwMjFzMHN yMXLYhKZtnJaXmFefm2iZn12jCpRR1FqWcQyqkJJRUD9IEMXB3gEv4Rw%253D

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 26, 2000.

Satelite technology is being used in our state to map coal reserves.They have also mapped straight line sewage pipes with that and infrared technology and global positioning.This info from out state Div of Water.They have probably even mapped you in the back yard taking a pee,I don't know.

I am not in a oil producing area,but imagine the same technology is being used to map oil reserves.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), December 26, 2000.

Ford Motor recently came out with a statement claiming the era of the internal combustion engine is about over to be replaced by fuel cell technoligy. Now wouldn't that be nice!.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), December 26, 2000.

Hi Sharon, coal is the fuel of choice for US power plants; however, the rest of the world is not abundantly supplied like us, specially third world countries. Current technology understands the burning of coal, fairly efficiently at about 40-50%. There is a problem with combustion byproducts, but a lot can be taken out except carbon dioxide. I have seen estimates the US has a 600 year reserve supply of coal.

Kirk, fuel cells will be good technology in the coming years. A slight consumer adjustment will be needed. No longer can we have super large vehicles (SUV's), but rather small personal surface transportation devices (maybe no air conditioning?). Don't know when large trucks will have motors and cells large enough to operate.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 27, 2000.

Doreen, judging by your answer your visit to those sites was too brief -- the answers to your comments were right there. They know how much oil is down there because oil-discovery technology is way ahead of where it was in the 1970s or even 1980s. The oil companies have literally mapped the entire planet these days in 3-D, and they know what's down there -- and what's not. The petroleum engineers involved in computing the new global Hubbert Curve have access to that information. And they have made beaucoup bucks on it -- the report Campbell, Leherrere, et al wrote for Petroconsultants goes for $30,000 a copy. You think it's coincidence that BP (British Petroleum in its previous incarnation) has now adopted a sunflower as its corporate symbol and pronounced itself an alternate energy company? Or that Saudi Arabia is a leading investor in photovoltaics? Read the March 1998 issue of Scientific American for more information.

As for the idea that we have forty more years of oil at current consumption levels, please note: 1) consumption is steadily rising at about 2-3 percent a year, adjusted for recessions and such. Compounded annually, that alone reduces the forty years to 30 or less. Nor does that take into account the explosive growth expected in China, India, Indonesia. China alone plans to have 30 million cars on the highway by 2010. (Maybe more, I'm pulling the number from memory and trying to be conservative.)

2.) The forty-year estimate is based on self-reported national reserve numbers that have become a joke within the industry. Within OPEC nations, oil production quotas are based on reserves, so the more reserves you report, the more oil you get to pump and the more money you make. Not surprisingly, as soon as that rule went into effect the amount of reported "reserves" went way up. There's a chart at dieoff.com (lousy name, good info) that shows that. Nor do those reserves go down each year to account for annual production.

Example: The Dec. 18 issue of Oil and Gas Journal, the definitive industry publication, gives the reserves as of 1/1/2001 and 81 countries have no changes (compared to 78 last year) and only 24 countries with change (27 last year). That means that these 81countries are assumed to have added as proven reserves exactly as much they have produced! (My thanks to Jean Leherrere for the info.)

3) Oil fields don't just suddenly run dry, like natural gas fields do. Production is a bell curve. We will never "run out" of oil -- it will just become more difficult and more expensive and more scarce.

One last note: fuel cells. The one point rarely mentioned in talk about fuel cells is that the hydrogen that powers them comes from hydrocarbons, usually natural gas. Also, fuel cells are energy sinks, not sources. That means it takes more energy to create the hydrogen they use than they will produce. That's a losing proposition in the long run. Yes, there are other sources -- PV electricity to split water, for example -- but you're still fighting the laws of physics.

The future? You'll find the hydrocarbon versions of Gary North out there if you look hard enough, but I remain convinced we can cope, especially in the US. Third World nations will suffer more -- the Green Revolution is based on cheap energy. But adjustments can be made, I believe. As for when, we won't know until it's past, and it likely won't be a single obvious peak but rather a saw-toothed plateau. By 2010, though, we'll be on the downhill side. And it will be homesteaders and small farmers like those on this board who will be vital in helping America make the transition to an era of expensive energy.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), December 27, 2000.

I have a question. What about producer gas? There was an article in countryside last year. I would like to learn more about this as an alternative. Does anyone have any information? Thanks, annette

-- annette (j_a_henry@yahoo.com), December 27, 2000.

Annette, try this link for a good intro

http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/executive_summary.shtml

-- Eric in TN (eric_m_stone@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

Hi Annette, Producer gas has lower heating value than other gaseous fuels, but it can be manufactured with relatively simple equipment; it is used mainly as a fuel in large industrial furnaces. With the large supply of natural gas in this country, we probably will not see much this except in areas without natural gas and a large coal supply. On a small scale, it may be viable for homesteader without a wood supply.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 30, 2000.

Folks, I hate to sound like a Pollyanna, but I think this is another scam being laid on us by the powers that be. Are any of you aware of a product called "Orimulion"? It's a bitumen, and Venezuela has been extracting it and selling it for quite a few years. They supposedly have an amount of energy available from this product equal to 1000 times the amount of energy in all of Saudi Arabia's oil fields...

My friend from Venezuela was blown away when she found out that I, who am interested in energy issues, had never heard of orimulsion. This was maybe three years ago. Since that time, I have never talked to a single person who has heard of this product (even including my next door neighbor, who retired recently as V.P. of Unical Oil Company!), although I suspect that many people in Floriduh have, since it was in the news there because of environmental protests about the time I heard about it.

There is plenty of info on this subject on line; just do a search for Orimulsion.

I believe the word "orimulsion" to be a contraction of "Orinoco" and "emulsion", since it is an emulsion of water (I think) and is found in the Orinoco River basin of Venezuela.

JOJ

I still think we all should focus on energy conservation, though...

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 07, 2001.

Doreen, re solar energy: my son in law's mom lives near San Diego, Calif. Her electric rates are now at 43.5 cents per KWH. This is essentially the cost of solar power, if all replacement costs are included (e.g. replacement of batteries, etc.).

If a person were able to use the grid as the "battery", the costs for solar are much lower. Thus, it would seem that many folks in that area (and maybe others?) will be switching to solar if the costs for grid power don't go down fairly soon.

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 07, 2001.

Kirk, JLS, and others,

Fuel cells are cool. No doubt. But they are being over hyped as a "solution" to our fuel problems. If we had a source of hydrogen (pure hydrogen, that is), they would be a truly fine solutiion to our energy problems, and to the global warming threat. But we don't have this hydrogen source. The only likely way we'll get such a source is from photoelectric powered electrolysis of water, which seems to be a long ways into the future, at best.

Current fuel cell tech relies on getting the hydrogen out of natural gas or propane. There are other sources which could also be used, but all of them result in production of global warming carbon dioxide, methinks. Pure hydorgen, of course, can be either burnt, or electolized in a fuel cell, with the only byproduct being energy and water vapor.

Cash, I am skeptical of your belief that "they" know how much oil is "down there". My neighbor, mentioned above (the retired VP of Unical) explained to me why "they" changed the dismal forecasts of the seventies (remember the "shortage"?) to a hugely optimistic forecast. The earlier estimates (and they are ALL estimates) were of "proven" reserves. The new forecasts also include "probable" and "possible" reserves. (Sorry, I am not sure I got the exact terminology, as it's been a few months since we talked on this subject)

I agree with your assessment about pure hydrogen which is manufactured from fossil fuels being a net energy loss. There is, however, a net gain if propane or natural gas is used to power the fuel cell. Again, though, this is not going to produce the clean power of pure hydrogen. I also disagree with your assessment that splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen by photoelecrics is "fighting the laws of physics". Why do you say that? It may not be economically feasible to do this, at this time, but it certainly seems that it may be possible in the future. I don't see a physics problem with this. Please explain. I LOVE your "hydrocarbon versions of Gary North" statement!

Hi, sheepish; I just passed through your lovely state on the way home from Costa Rica a couple of days ago. How ya doing? I think you are being totally paranoid to think that there are powers that are trying to manipulate our energy supplies for their own selfish interests. Sure wish I wasn't suffering from the same paranoia! Ha ha!

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 07, 2001.

Fuel cells are cool. No doubt. But they are being over hyped as a "solution" to our fuel problems. If we had a source of hydrogen (pure hydrogen, that is), they would be a truly fine solutiion to our energy problems, and to the global warming threat. But we don't have this hydrogen source.

Hi Joe,

I remember you from the old TB2K forum and always enjoyed your posts. :-)

As far as a source for hydrogen - I'm hoping that hydrogen from algae will be the way to go for future hydrogen production. There was quite a big whoop-dee-do in the news on hydrogen from algae several months ago but since then not much has been mentioned.

I like this concept because the energy input is MUCH smaller than getting hydrogen from solar panels, etc.

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), January 07, 2001.

I was just led to this site and found your discussion excellent without the usual ideological rhetoric. Just a couple of remarks: I don't recall any successful replicable fusion experiments, theoretical ones yes. But much time has passed in my memory. Another point is that we are giving up at least one renewable sources (hydro), not using much of another (tidal), and restricting another (atomic fission). I have seen in my time a movement away from low- tech, site-specific energy development to high-tech, extensive capital-intensive development. Thus increasing our dependence on grid systems controlled by relatively small number of entities. Globalization only accelerates these processes. Discussion here seems to support the idea that we have bought into high tech solutions to the energy problems. Food for thought.

-- marshall chrostowski (mcfarm@silcom.com), January 07, 2001.

Thanks JOJ, that was all very interesting info.

Regarding the cold fusion that worked experiments, the University of Utah is one that I remember specifically. It was at least 18 months ago and if I remember correctly there were other experiments in both the US and Europe soon after that had the same positive results.

I am not nearly as versed as all of you are on these things, just a real small side line for me from more of a social aspect than a scientific one. I really have a terrific problem with nuclear energy though. It's much too dangerous. Sorry, but I am 100% against it.

I unfortunately do believe that the powers that be, might take advantage of the California situation....what? me paranoid?...nah.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 07, 2001.

Tidal power sounds great, BUT, the tides are controlled by the moon, if we build too many tidal power stations won't that slow down the moon's orbit and bring it crashing down on our heads?

-- John (john@cnd.co.nz), January 07, 2001.

Good questions, Joe. IÕll try to answer at least a few of them now, more tomorrow.

Not to knock your Unical VP, but the Venz heavy oil deposits have been known for decades. TheyÕre even developed a little bit for certain really simple, very limited uses. The stuff is really dirty and very hard to refine into more useful petro-stuff. The problem is that the deposits, simply put, have to age a few more millions of years to turn into really useful oil.

I donÕt understand your comment about using propane or natural gas to power a fuel cell. As you mentioned earlier, both gases are used as sources of hydrogen for fuel cells. The H/2 is stripped out of the (hydro)carbon molecules by one of several chemical processes. That brings us right back to the net energy loss problem -- it takes more energy to strip out the hydrogen then the hydrogen produces when itÕs used in either fuel cells or engines. It is far more efficient, in terms of energy production, to burn both natgas and propane directly in generators.

You hit the nail on the head with the debate of proven versus possible or probable. Proven means just that -- the oil engineers know how much is in a particular field and how much they can expect to recover. Possible and probable are wishful thinking, the numbers used by the hypesters when theyÕre trying to raise money for development. In the range of estimates of that engineers produce for each field, the possible and probable numbers usually come from the 90th percentile of potential production -- and no field on earth has ever produced to those numbers. Campbell and his friends had access to the very best, most accurate data in the world. There are no more giant or supergiant fields out there left to discover. They are all known. Even the Caspian find, which was announced to much fanfare last year, is a relatively minor field -- itÕs most optimistic production would meet world oil demand for less than nine months.

As for PV electrolysis of water Òfighting the laws of physics,Ó I was referring to that net energy loss problem again. It will always take more energy to produce the H/2 than it will provide when used. IF solar cells get cheap enough and IF a hydrogen storage and transmission infrastructure can be developed, THEN it might make marginal sense to use excess PV power to create H/2 for nighttime use, when the sun isnÕt shining. Otherwise youÕre better off using the PV power directly.

ThatÕs not to say that all of these technologies donÕt have a place in our future. My opinion is that we -- or in my case my children -- will develop a society powered by multiple, diverse, grassroots power sources, everything from algae producing hydrogen to biofuels to eking out the remaining oil supplies. And Joe, youÕre absolutely right -- conservation would solve a lot of our problems before they begin.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), January 07, 2001.

Thanks for the reply, Cash,

I admit to being a bit embarassed when my friend from Venezuela told me how amazed she was that I (normally at least fairly informed on energy matters) had never heard of Orimulsion. I have of course heard of oil shale, but this is different.

You say that the Venezuelan heavy oil deposits have been known for decades, but has there been a profitable method of extracting it and marketing it before? I did a modicum of research on this after hearing about it a couple of years ago; the main source of info was some Floriduh newspapers which said that Orimulsion was being protested by Floriduh environmental organizations as being too dirty. There was a Floriduh power company which had a contract to burn the stuff to create electricity.

If you are right, and this product needs to age for a few million more years--hooray, we're not depleting the world's hydrocarbon reserves anymore, right? You say: "I donÕt understand your comment about using propane or natural gas to power a fuel cell. As you mentioned earlier, both gases are used as sources of hydrogen for fuel cells. The H/2 is stripped out of the (hydro)carbon molecules by one of several chemical processes. That brings us right back to the net energy loss problem -- it takes more energy to strip out the hydrogen then the hydrogen produces when itÕs used in either fuel cells or engines. It is far more efficient, in terms of energy production, to burn both natgas and propane directly in generators. "

I would have to agree that it sounds more efficient to burn the natural gas or propane directly, but there are a few companies (see, for instance, AVISTA and PLUGPOWER websites) which claim that they convert natural gas and propane with a fairly high efficiency (around fifty percent, if memory serves). While this is a good deal less than a high efficiency space heater, for instance, if their claims are to be believed (and if I'm not misinterpreting them, or remembering them wrong, although I did have a fairly long conversation with a rep of AVISTA on one of the national public radio call in shows a few months ago) it is not a net loss. The AVISTA guy claimed that their fuel cell converted either of these two gases into heat and water vapor. No CO2, he said. I asked how that was possible, since both gases are composed of hydrogen and carbon--like why isn't there any CO2 or CO produced. He claimed that the carbon turned into pure carbon, sort of like charcoal, which could be used for "other purposes". I was skeptical at the time, and you're making me even more skeptical. You continue:

"As for PV electrolysis of water Òfighting the laws of physics,Ó I was referring to that net energy loss problem again. It will always take more energy to produce the H/2 than it will provide when used. IF solar cells get cheap enough and IF a hydrogen storage and transmission infrastructure can be developed, THEN it might make marginal sense to use excess PV power to create H/2 for nighttime use, when the sun isnÕt shining. Otherwise youÕre better off using the PV power directly. "

I see what you meant now. Sure, it takes more power to create H2 than it will produce in return (actually, I think it takes the same amount of power, but there are heat losses to consider) I think the idea, as I surmised it is that one could produce all kinds of hydrogen from photoelectric cells. The hydrogen could then be used to power a fuel cell, or an internal combustion engine for that matter. It's not important that it takes more power to create the hydrogen than it gives you back in this situation; the idea is to be able to store a significan amount of energy in a vehicle, as opposed to having to haul around a bunch of solar panels (larger in surface area than the top of the car) There is no net loss of power, there is just an efficiency loss from converting from solar to hydrogen. But having the ability to have large collectors which can remain in one spot would seem to make up for the loss of efficiency. If not now, at some point in the future, when we have more efficient and affordable photoelectric cells.

Cash, and Jim too, I am clueless in regards to hydrogen being produced by algae. The only gaseous byproducts I know of coming from algae are oxygen (during the day when they are photosynthesizing (is that a word?) and CO2 during the night, when they are not photosynthesyzing enough to cover their repiratory needs. Can you fill me in, or give me a web site? Pretty please?

Jim, as far as the net energy needs of algae being less than photoelectric, I think that may be a moot point. The main problem I see with photoelectric (other than potential polutants in the manufacturing process, of which I've only heard vague rumors) is cost. There is no energy required that is not already being "spent", is there? I mean, the sunlight comes down and hits the earth, and turns into heat. If it hits the photoelectric cell, it still turns into heat, either at the cell itself, or whenever the electric power it has produced is used to create some other form of energy (e.g. mechanical) which is then turned into heat unless it is stored as potenial energy.

I guess if we carried this to an extreme, and covered vast areas with photoelectric panels, there would be a problem, since we'd have panels in place of plant life in those areas, but I hope we won't get THAT greedy for power.

Interesting dialogue, guys; thanks. It is unusual to meet someone who challenges my knowedge in this field. (Not that I'm such an expert; it's just that there are many people who spout such nonsense about energy issues!

John, I'm not sure if you're serious about the tidal forces and the moon falling. Believe me, there's not a problem. For one thing, a tidal powered generating station wouldn't take any more of the "oomph" out of the tides than the continents do already, I think. It all turns into heat, either way.

The tides, however, by the friction against the earth, are slowing down the earth's rotation, in a predictable and, I believe, measurable amount. But we won't have to worry about longer work days any time soon :)

Doreen, I think cold fusion is a scam. Maybe I'm a Luddite, but there you are. Also, you may be old enough to remember when GE, among others, was promoting fission energy as being "too cheap to bother metering". Not. Fusion, whether cold or hot, is not so clean as we are lead to believe; although the MAIN reaction is to convert two hydrogen atoms (in the form of deuterium and tritium) into one helium atom, there is an extra neutron produced which, as I understand it, whams into whatever innocent atoms are hanging around the neighborhood, resultiing in various radioactive byproducts. I could be wrong about this, as it's been a hell of a long time since I've paid cold fusion any mind; anyone willing to edify me?

Gotta go to bed now. Night all.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 10, 2001.

If you want to keep up to date on the petroleum issue, which changes daily and you do need to be up to date, go to this forum. Judith

http://pub38.ezboard.com/bdownstreamventures

-- Judith (JHaral2197@aol.com), January 10, 2001.

Jim, as far as the net energy needs of algae being less than photoelectric, I think that may be a moot point. The main problem I see with photoelectric (other than potential polutants in the manufacturing process, of which I've only heard vague rumors) is cost. There is no energy required that is not already being "spent", is there? I mean, the sunlight comes down and hits the earth, and turns into heat. If it hits the photoelectric cell, it still turns into heat, either at the cell itself, or whenever the electric power it has produced is used to create some other form of energy (e.g. mechanical) which is then turned into heat unless it is stored as potenial energy.

Hi Joe,

My point was that you have to manufacture the solar cells (which require large inputs of energy to produce) and you have to figure that cost into the total net output (eMergy*) over the life of the cells.

If it takes more energy to build the cells than what you will recover over the liftime use of the cells then the solar cells would be considered an energy sink and not a reliabe long-term solution to our energy problems.

*if you're not familar with eMergy, see Jay Hanson's site for a far better explanation on eMergy principles: Energy Synopsis

With algae you don't have to build them (lowering your energy input immensely). If you want more of them you simply provide them with more food (sewage perhaps?) and room to grow.

Here are some of the links concerning hydrogen from algae:

Ha rnessing the Horsepower of Pond Scum: Researchers Hope to Magnify Yields of Hydrogen Gas from Renewable Green Algae

UC Berkeley and Colorado scientists find valuable new source of hydrogen fuel, produced by common algae

DoE News: Berkeley/NREL Team Develops Green-Algae-Based Renewable H2 Production Technique

I recognize that hydrogen from algae is an energy sink too (you still need to build capture, storage and transport devices). But because the energy inputs are lower I'm hoping that it will give us a longer time frame in which to find reliable alternative energy sources to replace petroleum.

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), January 10, 2001.

Now that the oil & energy companies have caused this energy shortage, I hope the tax payers do not have to give them more money. The Alaska pipeline is a good example of wasted tax dollars, oil piped to Long Beach, CA where it is sold as ship fuel because of it's low grade. The tax payers, Alaska wildlife & enviorment got shafted on that project, oil companies made out. The house i am designing & building will be as energy efficient as I can afford. Larry W.

-- Larry W (Nuts4bees@AOL.com), January 10, 2001.