could this be a terrorist nightmare or a corporate dream
Friday, April 30, 2004
the Swedish solution
like it or leave it
bio accumulative or not
don't sell me GM
with canola and a piss pot
-- thank jahweh for europe / be it so --
bio accumulative or not
don't sell me GM
with canola and a piss pot
-- thank jahweh for europe / be it so --
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
mobility future not firmly grasped by electricity policy
Sustainability in a generation is such a great idea.
The years up to 2012 are very important in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction by virtue of the expected launch of fuel cell vehicles to market at that time. Estimates place 50% penetration by fuel cells in the vehicle market as late as 2030, however, there are several developments ongoing that will likely accelerate development and adoption of related technologies, not the least of which is die activated solar panels and residential wind along with regulatory frameworks to promote distributed generation and optimize the capture of intermittentcy for redistribution.
India is running out of uranium but has firmly entrenched nuclear in its generating mix in pace with its rapid growth. China is similarly inclined to grow, but has made some tummy grumbling sounds about being hungry for renewable energy -- probably if the price is right and generation can satisfy the enormity of its growth. Watch out for Canada's nuclear extraction industry in the next few years exporting to more than just the US and parts of Eastern Europe. India is a prime and very large customer. Due to transportation restrictions India will likely be purchasing up to 8% enriched.
Remember that Canada's regulatory barriers to nuclear do not exist. Nuclear is a favorable technology to government seeking to supply the needs of the hungry and the weak. Even though Canada is considered 30% less efficient than its US neighbor in energy efficiency subsidies have essentially strangled sustainability, in particular energy conservation. The culture is slowly changing but may not be fast enough with the arrival of fuel cell vehicles.
Electrolysis of water is not considered the most efficient method of producing hydrogen only the most convenient beyond steam reform of natural gas or gasoline. Ethanol is poised to make a very large dent, but only as far as portable fuel goes. The market in cars will likely demand designs that incorporate either ethanol or hydrogen storage or both.
The marriage of hydrogen and nuclear is a done deal without immediate action. In Ontario it will take a year from now to implement even an office of promotion to look at sustainability legislative action. This is dangerous and could be costly.
-- someone asked me about residential fuel cells to spark the rudimentary analysis from my research above/ your comments are much appreciated as is any verifiable information about government timelines, industry insider information and the like --
I've been following advancements on residential fuel cells on several fronts.
At this point the technology is both too expensive and not as mature as some would like it. The hydrogen infrastructure is also a concern, which is now being solved by other hydrogen feedstock such as ethanol.
There are tests ongoing in Japan using a 1 kW model and in the US a fuel cell has been developed that is somewhat smaller than a regular furnace. It converts ethanol onboard.
Most of my fuel cell research concentrates on mobility, but there are obviously many important overlaps between portable power, mobility and home power.
There seem to be a lot of issues needing to be resolved with respect to market penetration of fuel. I don't think anyone is seriously looking at hydrogen piped in at the household level. The connection between hydrogen, water and electricity is still too attractive even with energy loss. The other indicator is that fuel companies have been protected by government from having to provide hydrogen at the pump because of the high cost of conversion. Part of the reasoning seems to be that the cost is too high all at once to penetrate the market at 30%, which is considered critical mass for self-sustained adoption of hydrogen. Essentially, I read this as meaning it will never happen because adoption of vehicles won't be in any concentrated market where distribution ownership is also similarly concentrated.
All monies invested, R&D efforts and technology transfer indicates that it is ethanol that is the chosen source of our future hydrogen needs. Nuclear is bound to follow quickly on the heels of that if oil consumption is also to be reduced and fuel cell vehicles become immediately popular. Home power and portable power will be waiting in the wings for low cost solutions to come from the automotive industry, as they already have done.
The years up to 2012 are very important in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction by virtue of the expected launch of fuel cell vehicles to market at that time. Estimates place 50% penetration by fuel cells in the vehicle market as late as 2030, however, there are several developments ongoing that will likely accelerate development and adoption of related technologies, not the least of which is die activated solar panels and residential wind along with regulatory frameworks to promote distributed generation and optimize the capture of intermittentcy for redistribution.
India is running out of uranium but has firmly entrenched nuclear in its generating mix in pace with its rapid growth. China is similarly inclined to grow, but has made some tummy grumbling sounds about being hungry for renewable energy -- probably if the price is right and generation can satisfy the enormity of its growth. Watch out for Canada's nuclear extraction industry in the next few years exporting to more than just the US and parts of Eastern Europe. India is a prime and very large customer. Due to transportation restrictions India will likely be purchasing up to 8% enriched.
Remember that Canada's regulatory barriers to nuclear do not exist. Nuclear is a favorable technology to government seeking to supply the needs of the hungry and the weak. Even though Canada is considered 30% less efficient than its US neighbor in energy efficiency subsidies have essentially strangled sustainability, in particular energy conservation. The culture is slowly changing but may not be fast enough with the arrival of fuel cell vehicles.
Electrolysis of water is not considered the most efficient method of producing hydrogen only the most convenient beyond steam reform of natural gas or gasoline. Ethanol is poised to make a very large dent, but only as far as portable fuel goes. The market in cars will likely demand designs that incorporate either ethanol or hydrogen storage or both.
The marriage of hydrogen and nuclear is a done deal without immediate action. In Ontario it will take a year from now to implement even an office of promotion to look at sustainability legislative action. This is dangerous and could be costly.
-- someone asked me about residential fuel cells to spark the rudimentary analysis from my research above/ your comments are much appreciated as is any verifiable information about government timelines, industry insider information and the like --
I've been following advancements on residential fuel cells on several fronts.
At this point the technology is both too expensive and not as mature as some would like it. The hydrogen infrastructure is also a concern, which is now being solved by other hydrogen feedstock such as ethanol.
There are tests ongoing in Japan using a 1 kW model and in the US a fuel cell has been developed that is somewhat smaller than a regular furnace. It converts ethanol onboard.
Most of my fuel cell research concentrates on mobility, but there are obviously many important overlaps between portable power, mobility and home power.
There seem to be a lot of issues needing to be resolved with respect to market penetration of fuel. I don't think anyone is seriously looking at hydrogen piped in at the household level. The connection between hydrogen, water and electricity is still too attractive even with energy loss. The other indicator is that fuel companies have been protected by government from having to provide hydrogen at the pump because of the high cost of conversion. Part of the reasoning seems to be that the cost is too high all at once to penetrate the market at 30%, which is considered critical mass for self-sustained adoption of hydrogen. Essentially, I read this as meaning it will never happen because adoption of vehicles won't be in any concentrated market where distribution ownership is also similarly concentrated.
All monies invested, R&D efforts and technology transfer indicates that it is ethanol that is the chosen source of our future hydrogen needs. Nuclear is bound to follow quickly on the heels of that if oil consumption is also to be reduced and fuel cell vehicles become immediately popular. Home power and portable power will be waiting in the wings for low cost solutions to come from the automotive industry, as they already have done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)