Looking for Non-polluting alternatives to Fossil Fuel For years scientists have been looking for a way to create cheap hydrogen. They would love to be able to make enough of it on the go to power a car for example. We have been deluged with stories about inventors who managed to do this, and yet, nothing as come to pass. There were even stories about some of these people disappearing and other stories about how they were just hoaxers. Recently, the search for a cheap way to make and maybe use hydrogen has progressed. It is said almost all the hydrogen today is produced using fossil fuels which dims any advantage to using it. There is a method being worked upon which is clean. It is taking hydrogen from water, but it has to be made economical. Scientists in Australia have found a way to get hydrogen from seawater using a method which is not only cheaper, but is also more efficient and produces more energy. The method takes ordinary seawater and takes the hydrogen from it. Scientists have shown there is a way to produce hydrogen using sunlight. In 2003 President Bush said we were going to have a future which hydrogen would play a major role. This has been said for a long time, way before that president muttered those words, an yet we have not found it practical. It reminds me of nuclear fusion. We have been talking about that for decades, and even though we are getting closer, most scientists believe it will still be a long time before that ever happens, if it happens at all. The problem with these ideas is we need major breakthroughs before they can happen. Yes, we are getting closer to producing hydrogen cleanly, but we are not there yet. It is not enough to be able to produce hydrogen cleanly, we also have to be able to do it very economically and be able to make enough of it at a time. We haven’t been able to do this even with using fossil fuels as a source. On top of all this a clean atmosphere depends on all countries doing their part and presently two of the most populated, and others are not cooperating with this mission and even trying to take advantage of us. China has so much pollution some of their cities are smothered in smog. When and if hydrogen takes hold as a fuel, it will probably start in cars. Our World in Data website claims transportation contributes a large part to carbon emissions and of this cars and buses contribute about 45.1% of that figure. Trucks carrying freight are said to contribute 29.4% of the travel emissions. They go on to say if we consider the effect of the entire transport emissions, they are 15% of the total CO2 emissions. They also claim aviation contributes 11.6% of travel emissions and shipping about 10.6%. While the numbers do not seem to reach 100% the difference is trains and pipelines. Its funny, but every energy source we have considered so far has its drawbacks. Some require breakthroughs in technology and others have had technology announced which would solve some of the problems, if not all, but these solutions are yet to be introduced. Take nuclear fission reactors, it was announced a couple of years ago we could switch to ones using salt instead of water and even the waste would be contained in salt and rendered harmless. Have we seen one of these new types of nuclear generating stations be put into use yet? Not that I know about. In 2019 it was announced Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were going to build one in Wyoming. It was a relatively small reactor and seemed to be more of a test model. An announcement was made in 2021 TerraPower, a company owned by Gates said it was going to build the small demonstration reactor. The governor of the state made the announcement, so it seems it will finally get started. A lot of eyes will be on it and not only how it performs, but how easy it will be to get rid of the waste and render it inert. If this succeeds, will it slow the work on fusion reactors? After all one of the major advances in them is the fact there is no waste and they shut down if something goes wrong. Since the salt or sodium reactor is also said to be as safe, is there still a need for a fusion reactor? When we talk about clean fuel, nothing beats the fuel an Indian Company uses in some of their cars. Their fuel is air. Yes, you read that correctly, some of their cars run on compressed air. The cars haven’t reached production yet and may never. Peugeot, the French auto company also showed a demonstration model which ran on air. It is said the problem is, its not efficient among other things. As the cars get heavier, they lose efficiency and the light cars were only getting about 80 miles per tank. It was said however they could be refueled in about 2 minutes. The experts are betting on the air cars never coming into the market place. I had read years ago the air car could use a standard gasoline engine and it would run on compressed air. I have to wonder if air and some other type of non-polluting gas could be mixed together to increase the range? When electric cars are listed as the most non-polluting cars, it is not true. They are far more polluting to build than gasoline cars because of the batteries. You would have to run an electric car for about 13,500 miles according to some experts before it becomes less polluting. Other reports I have read say you have to run the car for over two years. Then there is the exposure to all the electromagnetic radiation coming from the huge battery pack you are sitting over. Some people believe this might not be good for the people in the car. The third problem is the battery pack disposal. Battery packs are very bad for the environment and can’t just be dumped to get rid of them. They are just too dangerous to the environment to do that. A way has to be found to dispose of them safely. Lastly, electric cars are more expensive than gasoline ones and on top of that there have been reports of people having to wait in line for hours at charging stations. If California is any indication, hours are being limited when people can charge their cars at home. Will this idea spread?
|
