Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 68

Thread: Powering the Future - discussion

  1. #26
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

    The article in this month's National Geographic is a sound look at our alternatives. To sum...


    Hydrogen- Unless nuclear power is used, hydrogen basically creates more pollution than fossil fuels (because the energy expenditure used to isolate the hydrogen is greater than the energy it produces, using fossil fuels to create hydrogen causes more pollution than if we just burned the fossil fuels straightaway).
    This is a very unfair and oversimplified analysis of hydrogen and its use as a fuel. There are many factors in the production, transportation, storage and use of hydrogen.
    I will leave "one of a million " resources to start with.
    http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena.../benefits.html
    Joseph Felker
    AllentownOptical.com

  2. #27
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    I read a looooooong time ago that cars would only need a few modifications to run on alcohol, and the alcohol can be made from virtually any plant matter (renewable), distilled using solar stills (virtually free power), and is relatively clean.
    Spexvet,

    Did you see "Corncob Bob" on the Daily Show a couple nights ago? They led him out to a field and shot him in the back of the head. Popcorn everywhere. The point being, like hydrogen, Gasohol/Alcohol is a zero sum game: you have to invest at least as much energy in making the fuel as get back from burning it.

    Regards
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  3. #28
    Opti-Lurker
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Menlo Park, how the h*ll did that happen?
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by jofelk
    This is a very unfair and oversimplified analysis of hydrogen and its use as a fuel. There are many factors in the production, transportation, storage and use of hydrogen.
    I will leave "one of a million " resources to start with.
    http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena.../benefits.html
    This is a quote off the site you reference:

    But if we used hydrogen in very high efficiency fuel cells for our transportation and to generate power, we could significantly reduce the GHG emissions - especially if the hydrogen is produced using renewable resources, nuclear power, or clean fossil technologies.
    The meaningful part of this quote is the run on at the end and even then it's not entirely factual. Hydrogen gas doesn't naturally ocure in meaningful amounts on our planet. It must be produced by splitting water into is constituent elements, this takes quite a bit of energy. For hydrogen to be 'clean' the energy used my also be clean, for hydrogen to address the issue of global warming it must not be produced by burning fossil fuels which, regardless of how clean the technology, produce CO2 (a greenhouse gas) as a by product. The only way to eliminate GHG emissions is to stop burning fossil fuels (ok and stop using concrete which is the other major CO2 emitter but that's a discussion for another day). Basically whenever someone starts talking about 'clean hydrogen fuel' or the 'hydrogen economy' ask them where the hydrogen comes from.

    I'm a big fan of shifting to hydrogen as a means for transporting energy (what petrol products are now), i.e. we 'make' hydrogen one place, store it, move it to where we need energy then convert it back to H2O and extract the energy released in that reconversion. But before we do this we need to develop a clean way of generating the hydrogen in the first place.

    How we do that in the short term is quite an issue. Clean coal weans us off less desireable oil from the politically sensitive spots (middle east, former USSR) but it doesn't address CO2 emissions and it certainly opens up a HUGE set of other ecological problems, as Pete said "talk to the people from Centralia", I'll add to that "talk to the people in the river valleys of West Virginia". No easy answers yet.

  4. #29
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by coda
    This is a quote off the site you reference:



    The meaningful part of this quote is the run on at the end and even then it's not entirely factual. Hydrogen gas doesn't naturally ocure in meaningful amounts on our planet. It must be produced by splitting water into is constituent elements, this takes quite a bit of energy. For hydrogen to be 'clean' the energy used my also be clean, for hydrogen to address the issue of global warming it must not be produced by burning fossil fuels which, regardless of how clean the technology, produce CO2 (a greenhouse gas) as a by product. The only way to eliminate GHG emissions is to stop burning fossil fuels (ok and stop using concrete which is the other major CO2 emitter but that's a discussion for another day). Basically whenever someone starts talking about 'clean hydrogen fuel' or the 'hydrogen economy' ask them where the hydrogen comes from.
    ...
    Research in the production of hydrogen is going at a rate that should give us an acceptable fuel alternative within 10 years. I would say in less time as the price of petroleum steadily rises. Where does the hydrogen come from?
    http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_pr..._delivery.html
    Research into alternative methods of producing hydrogen are paralleling the rate of research on how to use, store and transfer.
    Joseph Felker
    AllentownOptical.com

  5. #30
    Master OptiBoarder chm2023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Camp Hill/NYC
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    Coda,
    I certainly do not mean to disregard increased efficiency as one way to ease both our effect on the environment and our dependence of foreign sources of energy. I believe the problem is going to be implementing said efficiency.

    Your point on offices is quite well taken. I used to leave the office in St. Pete later than most, and I would make a point of turning off four or five monitors that were on "screensaver" mode each night. One has to wonder how many megawatts of power are consumed each year just for the purpose of displaying a renderings of artificial aquariums and flying toasters to empty offices across the nation all night.

    Regarding the Far Northern Coastal Plain of ANWR, the USGS estimates there is slightly more than 10 billion barrels of oil to be harvested. Daily production is estimated to be 1.4 million barrels a day (a rate that could be sustained for approximately 20 years). To put that into perspective, the entire State of Texas produces just over 1 million barrels a day- the entire state of Alaska (without ANWR) is only 900,000 barrels/day. Claiming that the field could only provide "500 days" of oil is a tad misleading (well, its almost entirely misleading), since that claim assumes the entire nation would use oil solely from this one region. Even if this were possible, if we could import zero oil for a period of 18 months, the effect on the trade deficit would be incredible.

    As it stands, the US consumes far more oil on a daily basis than could be pumped (or more importantly- refined) from ANWR- so the effects of this oil would span two decades. The oil is there, it is on US soil, to say it is in a remote area is accurate even under the strictest definition of remote, and it has already been agreed that the oil there should be harvested (by the Carter Administration in 1980).

    Put simply, we need to figure out ways to conserve- that is beyond arguing. We should also be harvesting our domestic natural resources- especially a field as large and remote as ANWR- that is also quite beyond rational debate.
    If 1.4 million barrels are pumped per day for 20 years, this totals 10 trillion, not billion, barrels. Also, the Alaskan output is currently 1.8 million barrels per day.

    xoxo, the arithmetic police

  6. #31
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    The Alaskan output came from the Department of the Interior, so you'll have to take them to task on the numbers. Here's a link to the source chart:
    http://www.doi.gov/news/anwrchart.pdf

    As to the mathematics regarding the length of time 10.4 billion barrels would support an output of 1.4 million barrels a day...

    Total of 10,400,000,000 barrels (10.4 billion, 10.4 trillion would be 10,400,000,000,000)
    divided by 1,400,000 barrels/day (1.4 million)
    = 7,428 days

    Total of 7,428 days
    divided by 365 days/year
    = 20.35 years

    I've run those numbers through the calculator five or six times, but the answer keeps coming up the same- perhaps I'm punching the numbers in wrong? Or maybe there is some "new math" of which I'm unaware (the same math used to portray Social Security as indefinitely solvent perhaps ;^).

    xoxo
    Last edited by Pete Hanlin; 08-12-2005 at 04:38 PM.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  7. #32
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Regarding the feasibility of hydrogen as a power source, I would recommend writing a letter to National Geographic, as they are the source for the information I provided. As indicated elsewhere, hydrogen as an isolated element is not just sitting out there waiting to be harvested. Unfortunately, isolating hydrogen takes a bunch of energy- if you use fossil fuels to provide this energy, you would get a better "bang for the buck" to just convert the fossil fuel directly into energy.

    So, if you drive a hydrogen powered car and use hydrogen that has been isolated via fossil fuels, your car is "dirtier" than if you simply used an internal combustion engine. Nothing against hydrogen power, it just seems sensible to use nuclear- not fossil fuels- to isolate the hydrogen if reducing CO2 is your ultimate goal...
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  8. #33
    Master OptiBoarder rbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Gold Hill, OR
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    4,401
    I personally would not put too much stock in any articles pertaining to environmental or energy matters that I read in National Geographic Magazine. They do have an agenda and it certainly is not unbiased science or engineering.


  9. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Fear not the Democrats will be back in power some day and the world will run on hot air.

  10. #35
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    I personally would not put too much stock in any articles pertaining to environmental or energy matters that I read in National Geographic Magazine. They do have an agenda and it certainly is not unbiased science or engineering.

    Yes, NG does seem to have a bit of an agenda (one that favors environmentalism, human rights, etc.)- not a totally bad one at that. The fact remains, however, that it was a pretty good article on the subject of the world's energy. On this particular subject, they seemed to provide a pretty rational argument from a rather objective perspective.

    The issue at hand remains- while I do not believe we will be running out of petroleum anytime soon, we will eventually have a serious impact on the environment (and some argue that we have already seriously impacted the environment) if we do not figure out a way to produce cleaner energy. One of the main issues I wanted to discuss was the "pseudo-clean" fuels out there- namely, hydrogen (which we've discussed), and even electrically powered vehicles.

    I've seen studies that show the batteries used to power these cars (and the energy that goes into charging them) is, again, dirtier than simply using an internal combustion engine. So, before some student at Berkeley thumbs her/his nose at me for driving my 25mpg car, perhaps they should take a realistic look at some of the alternatives they propose.

    One alternative, as we've discussed, is conserving fuel. If I'm going a mile down the street for a soda, it would be cleaner (and healthier) to walk or ride my bike. Also, driving to work alone in my Ford Expedition is probably a waste of resources (well, at 16mpg, its definitely a waste- which is why I take the car).

    All I'm suggesting is that the non-ecologic minded among us pay heed to the fact that we all need to pitch in to keep the air clean- AND the greens among us need to be realistic about the ways they propose to acheive a cleaner environment. I'm guessing there has to be a middle ground somewhere (and I don't see that middle ground in the latest energy bill).
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  11. #36
    Rising Star Monkeysee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    103
    Part of the Canadian government's response to this problem:

    http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/

    I've heard some cities have/are banning drive thru's at fast food outlets to reduce the amount of pollution caused by idling cars? Is this a reality anywhere?
    Chimperial Optical-what a great place to work!

  12. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Government solutions to anything anywhere seldom have anything to do with reality.


    Chip

  13. #38
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    Regarding the feasibility of hydrogen as a power source, I would recommend writing a letter to National Geographic, as they are the source for the information I provided. As indicated elsewhere, hydrogen as an isolated element is not just sitting out there waiting to be harvested. Unfortunately, isolating hydrogen takes a bunch of energy- if you use fossil fuels to provide this energy, you would get a better "bang for the buck" to just convert the fossil fuel directly into energy.

    So, if you drive a hydrogen powered car and use hydrogen that has been isolated via fossil fuels, your car is "dirtier" than if you simply used an internal combustion engine. Nothing against hydrogen power, it just seems sensible to use nuclear- not fossil fuels- to isolate the hydrogen if reducing CO2 is your ultimate goal...
    Pete,
    Are we "discussing FUTURE sources of energy" or present day alternatives? Hydrogen is a FUTURE CLEAN source of energy.The link I provided spells out some very promising research. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_pr..._delivery.html
    As you have said, the problem is not immediately surmountable. Maybe burning National Geographic as fuel until hydrogen is available as a clean source.?
    Joseph Felker
    AllentownOptical.com

  14. #39
    Master OptiBoarder chm2023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Camp Hill/NYC
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,196

    math police publicly humiliated, de-badged (?)

    What is concerning is the current administration is doing nothing to address the problem Read somewhere recently that the Bush admin worst legacy (and they are legion;) ) will be the anti-science direction they have taken: stem cell research not supported, climate change denial, no energy policy beyond fossil fuel SSDD, and my favorite, encouraging "intelligent design" being taught in our schools (that sound you hear is the Chinese clapping). The "intelligent design" thing is telling, as this whimsical notion has failed to gained acceptance in the marketplace of ideas--the usual pathway for scientific knowledge--the proponents will simply legislate it. Bravo.

  15. #40
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    The Bush Admin has made a lot of proposals regarding the use of coal- which is a natural resource of the US. Yes, it is a fossil fuel- which is why the admin has been encouraging research into "clean coal" methods of producing power.

    Investment in wind power has also increased under the Bush administration. Additionally, at least the administration has pushed for some kind of energy policy- which has been lacking in recent history. Criticism of the direction is understandable- but let's at least discuss a direction and then course correct along the way (which of course raises the question "But which direction do we take to begin our journey?").

    Contrary to the rhetoric on stem cell research, the administration did not prohibit stem cell research (this is the subject of another NG article, btw- one that pretty much completely disagreed with the admin's policy, but did state the issues quite thoroughly). The admin has restricted federal funding to cell lines that were already in existance. The US still has- by far- the largest number of cell lines undergoing research. Do I agree with the admin's policy on this issue? Not necessarily. Is it as draconian as stated by those with a political agenda- most definitely.

    Intelligent design- you know, I am comfortable with evolution being taught in public schools as a scientific theory (and since the creation of the planet and life was neither observable nor, to date, repeatable- evolution is a theory). There are a lot of reasons to think evolution as a theory may not have completely hit on how life came to exist as it does on this planet- and all I ask is that we teach our children to scrutinize what ANYONE tries to teach them (regardless if it is evolution OR creationism).
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  16. #41
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro
    Spexvet,

    The point being, like hydrogen, Gasohol/Alcohol is a zero sum game: you have to invest at least as much energy in making the fuel as get back from burning it.

    Regards
    Not if you make it using a solar still.

    http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_.../manual15.html
    ...Just ask me...

  17. #42
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    The Alaskan output came from the Department of the Interior, so you'll have to take them to task on the numbers.
    In the spirit of Chip's responses in this thread:

    You actually believe ANYTHING that this republican administration says?
    ...Just ask me...

  18. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996

    Don' trust nobody.

    I never believe anything a Democrat Administration says either, in fact even less.

  19. #44
    Opti-Lurker
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Menlo Park, how the h*ll did that happen?
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    Not if you make it using a solar still.

    http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_.../manual15.html
    Still not true, this discounts the energy used in the harvesting, processing and transportation of the raw materials. It also discounts the energy cost associated with fertalizers, pesticides etc.

  20. #45
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    I did read a couple months ago- in an issue of Scientific American (again, definitely not a publication with a particularly conservative agenda)- that using agriculture for alcohol production (in an effort to replace gasoline) did have a negative return when the energy used for cultivation, harvesting, and processing were taken into account.

    I think the problem most of these alternative sources of fuel are facing is that gasoline has a relatively high concentration of energy due to the fact that you are instantaneously capitalizing on 1,000s of years of the sun's energy when you burn a fossil fuel.

    I haven't seen many objective sources that find any real net benefit from agricultural production of gasohol (well, the farmers and refiners benefit, but...). I believe the point that has already been made is worthy of reflection. If there was a real economic benefit to making this product, the government probably would not have to subsidize it.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  21. #46
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by coda
    Still not true, this discounts the energy used in the harvesting, processing and transportation of the raw materials. It also discounts the energy cost associated with fertalizers, pesticides etc.
    Use oxen and manure? :p
    ...Just ask me...

  22. #47
    Opti-Lurker
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Menlo Park, how the h*ll did that happen?
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    I think the problem most of these alternative sources of fuel are facing is that gasoline has a relatively high concentration of energy due to the fact that you are instantaneously capitalizing on 1,000s of years of the sun's energy when you burn a fossil fuel.
    You make an excellent point. In a recient issue of the Materials Research Society Bulletin (I'm an MRS member) there was an excellent article on the materials aspects of replacing petrol with hydrogen. The gravimetric energy density of gasoline is ~37 mega Joules per kilogram (MJ/kg), the volumetric energy density is ~26 MJ/Liter. I assumed that liquid H2 was close but I proved the old saw and made an *** out of me. Liquid H2 is 9 MJ/kg and 8 MJ/L, compressed H2 is about 5 MJ/kg and 3 MJ/L. The DOE target (to be reached by 2015) is 11 MJ/kg, 10 MJ/L, this means that the effective density of the final fuel must be greater than that of liquid hydrogen and will still be much less than that of gasoline. There are ways to get there but all are either dirty (as in using methane rather than H2, resulting in CO and CO2 emissions) or difficult (solid metal hydrides or hydrogen adsorbed on cargon). Another challenge for the effective use of hydrogen as a fuel but one which can hopefully be overcome.

    Incidentally I disagree that Scientific American has much of any bias. I think that science simply isn't doing a very good job of agreeing with modern conservative political philosophy (or you could read that sentance backwards and get closer to the truth).

  23. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Build more refineries.

  24. #49
    Opti-Lurker
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Menlo Park, how the h*ll did that happen?
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson
    Build more refineries.
    How does that address the environmental issues that Pete posed as the purpose of this thread?

  25. #50
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Incidentally I disagree that Scientific American has much of any bias. I think that science simply isn't doing a very good job of agreeing with modern conservative political philosophy (or you could read that sentance backwards and get closer to the truth).

    Either way you read it, SA, NG, PS, and pretty much every publication I read these days seems to have a bias that couldn't be described as conservative by any stretch. A lot of conservatives choose to rail against the media, organized science, etc. As usual, I think there is probably a happy middle ground at which the solutions- and the truth- exist. On the conservative end, there is no doubt we need to start considering things that may not be profitable in the near term (or perhaps the long term) if it can be proven that our quality of life will increase as a result.

    On the scientific side, there needs to be a bit more "reality" into the P&L side of things. Like it or not, economies have to run and the world is not a place where universal ideal solutions are likely. So, perhaps we can get businesses to work harder at finding ways to make a profit and clean up our consumption at the same time. Maybe scientists can work on ways to cooperate with business to bring ecologically friendly fuel to market in a manner that is economically realistic.

    One thing we all have to realize is that the easiest fuels to use (fossil fuels, which are rather easy to convert into usable energy) are going to eventually have to give way to fuels that are not as efficient. This is going to affect the fossil fuel lifestyle to which we have grown accustomed.

    Another issue we haven't even delved into is the toxic waste generated by used computers. There are a lot of nasties in your computer and there are a LOT of used computers out there (regardless of whether the computer was used by a conservative or a liberal).
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. career in optometry and future...
    By janelle6991 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-19-2004, 10:42 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2003, 02:57 PM
  3. Carl Zeiss Optical, Inc. Holds First-ever Expert Panel Discussion
    By Newsroom in forum Optical Industry News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2003, 03:19 PM
  4. The Future of Independent Wholesale Labs?
    By Steve Machol in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-18-2001, 04:59 AM
  5. The Future Of Opticianry? Part 2
    By Joann Raytar in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-03-2001, 11:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •