Re: [cdn-nucl-l] " Hydrogen Initiative Report "

[AtomicRod@aol.com]

Andy:
The petroleum industry loves hydrogen. They are the largest supporters of the initiative.   If that does not sound logical to you, please consider the following:

A huge portion of the hydrogen currently being produced and consumed is used in upgrading high carbon, low hydrogen fuels (heavy oil, bitumen, coal) to a more useful hydrocarbon form appropriate for internal combustion engines. This application is scheduled to increase significantly with efforts to lower CO2 emissions from heavy oil burning engines. Subsidizing H2 production subsidizes this product.

I agree that we will eventually solve the physical barrier problem, but it will never be cheap. Hydrogen is by its very nature less dense than existing fuels. Less density implies larger tanks and pipes. The existing hydrocarbon industry loves big tanks and pipes. A large part of their market dominance is due to their ability to raise capital for distribution systems consisting of tanks and pipes.

Hydrogen engines are not much different from hydrocarbon engines. Both depend on chemical combustion and there are really only slight modifications needed. Again, this does not hurt the prospects of petroleum at all.

If you read closely the projected path to the hydrogen economy, you will find that the source of hydrogen most likely to be adopted in the early stages is natural gas or gasoline from reformers. Again, why would the petroleum industry complain about a new market for their product. So what if water is the eventual goal, by the time that is reached they will have sold most of their reserves anyway and they will still own the distribution system of choice.

As a nuke, I am not impressed with hydrogen at all.

Rod

In a message dated 3/7/04 12:51:04 PM, english@webhart.net writes:


> Yeah, and we couldn't have refilling stations all over hell and creation for
> the horseless carriages.  And we couldn't take the lead out of gasoline.
> And we couldn't build smaller cars.  And we couldn't fly faster than sound.
> And, oh yes, if we sailed too far we would fall off the edge.  And so on and
> so on.
>
> And of course the petroleum industry doesn't like any of this at all.....  I
> wonder who they'll name the next supertanker after...
> Cheers,
> Andy