Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5694)	3/26/2007 11:10:04 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 24210

Energy activists snipe at rivals Technologies vie for feds' funding By JEFF NESMITH The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 03/25/07 Washington — In what one industry representative calls a struggle for supremacy, advocates of various sources of alternative energy are beginning to point out the competition's warts. "Everyone wants to use the energy crisis as leverage to support his solution," said Bob Rose, executive director of the Fuel Cell Council. But with limited government research-and-development money available for ways to replace oil, any gain for one technology is a loss for the others. So the criticism is flying in all directions. Solar energy? A retired University of Connecticut physicist who advocates increased development of nuclear power calls solar energy "a fraud." Ethanol? Some critics say that at best it will swap food for fuel, at worst it will use more energy in the process than it yields. Rechargeable batteries for autos? Some call the current technology too expensive and environmentally suspect. Hydrogen? One advocate of ethanol fuel recently declared that the dream of a hydrogen-based economy is a "hoax." "Forget hydrogen. Forget hydrogen. Forget hydrogen," are the oft-quoted words of another critic, former CIA Director James Woolsey, who speaks for the Set America Free Coalition, an advocacy group that promotes oil independence. Woolsey says a hydrogen-based economy would require the installation of an entire national infrastructure to distribute and sell the fuel. And that infrastructure won't be cheap because hydrogen, nature's lightest substance and smallest molecule, is something of an escape artist. It would leak through the existing natural gas pipeline system, so special material would be required. Another problem critics are fond of pointing out is "embrittlement," the fact that when hydrogen leaks through metal, it causes that metal to become brittle and break. Woolsey favors the "plug-in hybrid," a concept spearheaded by the Texas utility Austin Energy in which rechargeable batteries would be added to hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles. A charge would allow the cars to travel up to 35 miles, more than most Americans drive every day. Advocates claim the fuel cost of driving such a car would be the equivalent of around $1 a gallon. But Rose, the fuel cell advocate, points out that the cost of batteries may be an equally stubborn problem for the plug-in hybrid. A Canadian company sells rechargeable battery kits that can be added to existing hybrid vehicles. They cost $9,500 each — if you buy 100 at a time, meaning that so far there have been few customers other than fleet managers. The company, Hymotion, says on its Web site that an overnight charge for batteries added to a Toyota Prius would cost only about 31 cents and would carry the car 30 miles. But if gasoline cost $3 per gallon and a Prius gets 45 miles per gallon, then the 31-cent charge would save about $2 a day in gasoline costs. At that rate, it would take 15 years for the battery pack to pay for itself. Rose also says that plug-in cars would increase demands on the national electric grid and do little to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Another hydrogen skeptic is consulting engineer Robert Zubrin, who in a recent magazine article titled "The Hydrogen Hoax" said the government should require carmakers to produce vehicles that can use fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. "That's what a serious energy policy would look like," he said. That idea has its critics, too. They say that like hydrogen, ethanol is expensive to transport. Since it contains small amounts of water, metal pipelines would corrode soon, so it has to be trucked. They note that it also takes a lot of fossil fuel, primarily natural gas, to produce the fertilizer and fuel required to make ethanol from corn. The most optimistic calculations are that for every calorie of fossil fuel energy going in, society derives 1.29 to 1.65 calories of energy in the form of ethanol. Some calculations for "cellulosic ethanol" made from grasses and plant wastes come out better, with energy returns of 4.4 to 6.6 calories per fossil fuel calorie going in. But cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercially viable. And scholars Tad Patzek of the University of California at Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., claim the return is negative. One technology already getting federal funding is solar energy. But it's "a fraud," says Howard Hayden, a retired physics professor at the University of Connecticut. "It's being promoted as the solution to problems it can't solve." ajc.com