Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, international
politics & civilization.
Saturday
Lagniappe
“ Think
Beyond Petroleum”
By
E. Ralph Hostetter
"Think beyond petroleum" is
a lofty thought. Sidewalk pundits endorse it. It smacks of
high-tech. And that got my
attention.
Think of
fusion. That's the energy-producing concept which uses the
hydrogen in heavy sea water. In other words, sea water
becomes the fuel for the process. But fusion was not on the
list "beyond petroleum." Windmills were high on the
list, as they are with most people, except Senator Edward M.
Kennedy, who suffers from the NIMBY syndrome. It seems strange
to me that windmills were high on the list. My first reaction
was that windmills were high-tech in Biblical times and that
was before petroleum.
Solar energy was identified as a source to think about. Solar,
like wind energy, is limited by location. The Southwest desert
areas provide a greater opportunity for the use of solar power,
which in these regions may be used to advantage.
However,
like wind power, solar solves only a small portion of the
energy equation. Biofuels also were identified. One
of the commercials of the major oil company the name of which
matches the first letters of the words "Beyond Petroleum" demonstrates
a farmer's approval of the biofuel concept. The farmer explains
the advantages of converting one year's food crop to biofuel
to provide a portion of the energy for the next year's food
crop. Hydrogen also was mentioned.
British Petroleum (BP) and General Electric (GE) reached a
preliminary agreement in 2006 to form a global alliance to
facilitate the development, demonstration and full integration
of gasification and power-generation technology into at least
five hydrogen power projects.
A hydrogen power project takes a fossil fuel such as coal
or natural gas and converts it into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
The hydrogen-rich gas is used as fuel to generate electric
power from turbines in a power plant. The carbon dioxide is
captured, transported and stored safely and permanently in
deep geological formations such as oil and gas fields. Ninety
percent of the carbon dioxide is captured so that it does not
enter the atmosphere.
BP already has announced it is developing two 500-megawatt
hydrogen power plants, one in southern California at a cost
of two billion dollars and another in western Australia, at
a cost of $1.5 billion. Both plants will capture four million
tons of carbon dioxide each. The southern California carbon
dioxide would be stored in an offshore deep geological formation.
The costs for the capture of CO2 from the power projects were
not given. An indication of the costs follows:
In March
2007, the world’s largest prototype carbon-capture
coal plant opened in Esbjerg, Denmark, for the purpose of developing
technology to capture and store CO2 from conventional power
plants. The present cost for capturing CO2 is $68.00 per ton
average. This should provide an indication of the capture cost
GE and BP can expect. Add to this the cost of gasification
of coal to create hydrogen for GE’s gas turbines for
the production of electricity and the final cost of disposing
of the captured CO2 would no doubt create a substantial increase
in the price of electricity to the consumer. Government subsidies
to close this gap doubtless are expected.
Although
not mentioned in “Think Beyond Petroleum,” the
use of hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles has gotten widespread
attention recently in discussions regarding fuel economy.
The U.S.
Department of Energy fuel economy bulletins explain that
fuel cells are used in FCVs (fuel cell vehicles) and "like
battery-electric vehicles, FCVs are propelled by electric motors." But
while battery-electric vehicles use electricity from an external
source and store it in a battery, FCVs create their own electricity.
Fuel cells on board create electricity through a chemical process
using hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air. FCVs fueled with
pure hydrogen, stored on board in high pressure tanks, emit
no pollutants, only water and heat.
A simple explanation is: the automobile must be an electric-powered
vehicle complete with very efficient storage batteries. The
fuel cell produces enough extra power to run a generator that
keeps the batteries charged.
The same thing could be accomplished less expensively by placing
a separate, cheap, gasoline-powered generator in your car,
according to Joseph Romm, manager of energy efficiency programs
at the Department of Energy during the Clinton Administration.
General Motors has produced a fuel cell automobile, the Volt.
It is powered for the first 40 miles by energy stored in a
battery pack that can be recharged by plugging it in. The cheap
gasoline or ethanol-powered, on-board generator mentioned above
would keep the battery charged, allowing for an additional
600 miles of range without the necessity of an expensive fuel
cell.
A simple
summation of thinking beyond petroleum is that all avenues
end at one point — the generation of electrical
energy. For some strange reason, no mention was made of a 50-year-old
technology that has proved to be the safest, cleanest, cheapest
means of generating electrical energy to have come from the
mind of man — atomic energy.
The electrical energy needed to power all land vehicular traffic
will require billions and billions of additional kilowatt hours
of electricity. Atomic plants would provide this energy and
eliminate all CO2 as well. The good news would be that America
would be no longer be dependent on foreign oil.
E.
Ralph Hostetter, prominent businessman and publisher,
also is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the
Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors. He welcomes
email
comments at eralphhostetter@yahoo.com. Petroleumworld
do not necessarily share these views.
Editor's
Note: This commentary was originally published by The Conservative
Voice.com, on the September 06, 2007. Petroleumworld
reprint this article in the interest of our
readers.
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld,
do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed
in the comment
as
an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed
are private comments and do not necessary reflect
the
view of this
website. All comments are posted and published without
liability to Petroleumworld.
