THE Second Law

The second law of thermodynamics states that when using energy to accomplish work some will ALWAYS be lost to inefficiency as waste heat. In other words, the entropy or degree of disorder of that energy increases.

Hydrogen fuel cell technology is often portrayed as being the panacea that will save us from oil fossil fuel dependency woes. (If only we could make building the things cost effective).

The problem is that elemental hydrogen does exist anywhere on earth in the form usable in fuel cells (H2). It is bonded to other things like oxygen in water or carbon in pretty much every combination imaginable. We already use a lot of C-H combinations in the form of oil, coal, natural gas. That pretty much leaves water. Getting the hydrogen from it is fairly easy. You can do it w/ a 9 volt battery and a glass of water. The clutch is the battery. It takes an input of energy to get the hydrogen to separate from the oxygen. That energy has to come from somewhere, which more than likely is fossil fuels. Hydrogen would actually use more energy because there are more energy transfers involved in which energy can be lost. The only reason oil works so well is that there is a net gain of energy. Some is also lost in preparing it to be fuel, but it still comes out ahead. Essentially fuel cells are a very sophisticated and expensive battery.

As for fusion, good luck trying to get something to happen that only occurs naturally at the center of stars at pressures and temperatures beyond comprehension.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

}

I was following you until the point of when mentioned that, that the energy needed to break the O-H single bond had to come from somewhere, more that likely fossil fuels...Depends how you look it I guess, but no, fossil fuels are not a neccessity to break O-H bond. I think you are looking at it the wrong way.

-O-H (hydroxyl functional group), also an alcohol when in a hydrocarbon chain, can be broken up quite easily. Your body does it when glucose is oxidized to pyruvate by glycolosis , where as a reaction that you are talking about could be accomplished with a lot of different mechanism, starting at a broad one: Acid Catalyzed Nucleophilic Addition Mechanism where a hydrogen (H+) is given off as one of the substrates. The reason has to do more with the partial charges or full charges created on Oxygen and the double bond that would be created with the Carbon. Those charges are influenced and raved up in this mechanism by the pH of the acid. The more acidic the solution used to react, the faster it will react and more (H+) given off. For example, even though carboxylic acids are not the most reactive substances out there, they are still quite reactive and do give of (H+). There are tons more ways to get an (H+) to seperate. But now you are starting to really get into chemistry.

The techonology which you are talking about is quite difficult, although the mechanism might not. If it were easy to understand, we would all know it by now .

I know I might not have explained much

[Hippie3]

it also bears mentioning that fusion occurs in the hydrogen bomb,
which is a far cry from being at the center of the sun.
we already know how to make hydrogen fusion occur,
what we are working on are methods to contain/sustain it
that do not use more energy than is created.
we're getting closer to the break-even point, too.
i would not be too hasty in proclaiming that
"it will never fly"

[vrooota]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

it also bears mentioning that fusion occurs in the hydrogen bomb,
which is a far cry from being at the center of the sun.
we already know how to make hydrogen fusion occur,
what we are working on are methods to contain/sustain it
that do not use more energy than is created.
we're getting closer to the break-even point, too.
i would not be too hasty in proclaiming that
"it will never fly"

Fusion is the ultimate goal I guess and I think that someday we may get there, but not soon. The fuel cell thing really is only as effective as the methods we use for cracking the Hydrogen from the water. Until we can do that with solar and hydro power, or some other renewable resource, the whole exercise is pointless, like electric stoves and water heaters, energy is lost in the transmission and you burned something to make the electricity to begin with so...... what's the point?

[Bromius]

Hello again, this is Will Hecks. Had to change my handle due to the board change. It recognized my email address but never sent anything to my other address. Anyway..

Hippie, good point about the hydrogen bomb. I totally forgot about that. I know w/ conventional nukes they induce fission by using high explosives to either blast one chunk of fissile material into the other or encase a nucleus of it and the explosives cause it to compress to the point where it causes a nuclear explosion. I don't know where the hydrogen figures in but it is still would be subjected to extreme heat and pressure. It may be possible to harness that somehow, but I think it's a pretty long shot to count on it. All the same, I do think it should be explored. I think a second Manhattan Project is in order, this time to making a working fusion power plant. I'd rather have our best and brightest minds working on that than for DARPA or some defense contractor trying to figure out better ways to kill people. Total energy self sufficiency would also allow us to stop meddling in the affairs of nations sitting on top of oil as well.

Superhigh, getting hydrogens loose is fairly easy, especially in H+ form. Any time you dissolve an acid in water you are essentially liberating hydrogen ions. If you are using acid as a catalyst the reaction usually ends with a H+ being emmitted but it winds up regenerating the catalyst, not forming H2 gas. That is why it is considered a catalyst and not a reactant. I know if you react certain acids with metals that will generate H2 gas. For example magnesium with HCl. It produces the H2 and magnesium chloride as product. Pure metals are not naturally occuring though and require lots of energy to mine and smelt.

[Hippie3]

they're using high energy lasers to trigger near-fusion reactions,
instead of explosives.
a bit easier to contain/control

[lukester]

In Grenoble, France they built a super collider and it uses very little electricity and it produces a lot. The problem is it cost 4 times a nuclear power plant and it produces less then a nuclear. However, it is clean and needs little maintenance. Plus, there is no risk of it blowing up.

My family is in the car business and stays up to date on these kinds of things. Car engines will be gas powered well beyond the next 100 years. The hybrids are going to take over, son. The interesting thing will be if a government mandates that all cars must be both gas and electric. I really want to see what happens to SUV’s and muscle cars.

One of my professors said something interesting. He has a Phd from MIT. He said that if civilization does not send a manned spaceship to mars soon it may never happen because we will not have enough energy to send a ship there. It got me thinking. I do not know what he meant by SOON. He is too smart to put a number out there that might not be true.

[Hippie3]

i think that professor is full of BS
a ship using a nuclear reactor to superheat plain water could make it to mars,
and we're in no danger of running out of either plutonium or water for
another several thousand years at least.

[lukester]

He knew that we will have the physical energy, but in the America we have been reducing NASA’s funding since landing on the moon. It is way down. His point is, which I don’t know as well as him, space exploration is not at the top of any countries list. Thus, when it may be needed it will not happen because we will have pretty much screwed ourselves, humans, out of all our resources and it will be too late.
Just remember how much money and time it takes to research a project like that. I know that some of the more simpler projects like sending probes to the moon take more then 5 years of development. Not to mention how many thousands of people that would be involved. It is not only building the shuttle, you would have to send pre shuttles towards Mars for the shuttle to get re-supplied with perishable items such as water, food, fuel, oxygen, and I don’t know. I can not imagine what would go into it.
All I said is it got me thinking. I thought about it and he knows a hole shit ton more about the subject then anyone I have ever meet in my life. He is a SPACE NERD, I make fun of him alot in class for wearing his jean short up to his belly button.
I dont think that you were being serious about a nuclear reactor in space, but all you want is burst of energy to propel you. One quick burst will send you off, after that you are not going to slow down, unless you pretty much hit something. You also need thrusters to slow you down some before starting to orbit.

[Hippie3]

i'm dead serious about using a nuclear reactor as a propulsion system in space
and so is NASA.
and it's not exactly true that one wouldn't need to accelerate/decelerate,
that depends on how fast one wanted to get to mars.
i still think that professor is full of BS
what resources will we run out of,
water, air ?
the only resource we're even close to exhausting is oil,
and even that can be sythetically made.
as long as we have energy
which means as long as the sun shines
we'll never run out of resources.

[vrooota]

thank God for that. Its the slowness with which alternatives are being developed that worries me. Dependence on one resource and letting OPEC monopolize it is just bad news. I agree that for now hybrids are def gonna be the thing of the next few decades, but after that? Hopefully by then...world energy crisis would suck w/ like 10 billion people.

[Bromius]

I think what that professor may be getting at is that when we are out of fossil fuels people the only source of energy will be the sun. At that point humanity will have to figure out how to allocate it. The amount of energy being received is determined by surface area. The first concern will be food, and if things keep going the way they have there will be a hell of a lot of us when the oil and coal run out. My guess is that most incoming solar energy will be diverted to our stomachs via agriculture. Then forests for heating fuel and construction materials. These uses would compete directly with solar power. Wind and hydro sites are limited. I guess what I'm getting at is that with a very high population and much less energy available for use, material standards of living are going to go way down. At that point I think the idea of shooting things into space will seem kind of crass with lots of poor hungry people around.

On a different note, our economy is based on growth. If you look at economic growth and fossil fuel use they are inextricably linked. Two consecutive quarters of the business year in which it doesn't grow is a recession. Things get noticably worse during these times. Worldwide oil production is expected to peak in this decade and the economies of China and India are just gearing up. Demand is going to increase while supplies decrease. I think that fact alone will eventually trigger a nasty depression. I hope by that time I own a significant portion of land so that if the economy tanks I can be assured of enough to eat. Which would tie into the Coming Holocaust thread in Lifestyles. Maybe I'll pick this up there.

[Hippie3]

there will always be the poor,
it would be folly to put everything else on hold
until there are no more hungry people.

when we are out of fossil fuels people the only source of energy will be the sun

again
not at all true.
there's the latent heat energy of the oceans and the earth's core,
there are nuclear fuels such as plutonium, uranium,
the wind, and other chemicals that combust ,
and renewable resources like animal/plant oils, wood, alcohol, methane gas, etc.

[Hippie3]

My guess is that most incoming solar energy will be diverted to our stomachs via agriculture

there is virtually no limit to the amount of energy that a civilization can harvest from its' sun.
already NASA is working hard on systems for use in near-orbital space where the sun shines 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, no clouds ever.
a system could be as simple as huge ultra-thin mirrors arranged to focus the sunlight onto boilers which would heat liquids to drive turbines which would in turn generate power which would be converted into microwaves for transmission back to earth.
if they ever figure out how to make the space elevator currently being developed
then our options for space-based energy plants increases exponentially.
where ever there's a will, there's a way.
the end of oil will be hard on many
but not all.
and there are plenty of options to tide us over as our motivation increases

[taoistshredder]

If wonder if when we were first using things like gunpowder, if there were people in court that were freaking out at kings and dukes telling them that the sky is falling because there's only so much gunpowder, and who knows what will happen when we don't have anymore gunpowder?!!! Or the steam engine - I wonder if anyone was ever worried we'd just use all that up. In case people haven't been paying attention, humans have gotten a little bit energy-happy in the last few hundred years, and a little thing like oil drying up isn't going to mean shit (except economically and even that will stabilize fairly quickly I'd imagine) in the big picture.

[Bromius]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

again
not at all true.
there's the latent heat energy of the oceans and the earth's core,
there are nuclear fuels such as plutonium, uranium,
the wind, and other chemicals that combust such as coal,
ans renewable resources like animal/plant oils, wood, alcohol, methane gas, etc.

Like oil, natural gas and coal, uranium and plutonium are fossil fuels. There aren't making any more and the amount extractable for a net energy gain is limited.

Oceans, geothermal and solar have very low ratios of energy returned on the energy invested in using it. Renewable oils, wood, alcohol and non fossil methane are all derived from the sun and soil. Alcohol is a good fuel but you get a net loss if you make it from corn and try to power cars with it. They tried it in Brazil and realize they were getting out less than they put in. Like hydrogen fuel cells, biological energy sources are like batteries. The total influx of solar energy determines how fast that battery recharges.

The ratio of fossil fuel energy used in the United States to other sources is large. Looking at a graph, oil and natural gas make up most of it, with coal being the other significant source. Of the total non food energy used 95% or so is fossil. It will run out.

My assessment of the future is based on what is already known to work. Technology is a wild card. Fusion may happen, orbital solar (w/ optional elevator) may happen. Both these options would be truly awsome and one of the crowning achievements of civilization. I want to see it happen and think we should try it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't. Any sound energy policy from this point onward should include MAJOR spending on this issue.

However, these do not yet exist and counting on the fact that they will is a mistake. Sound energy policy should also attempt to reach a point of stabilty and equilibrium, since barring a miracle an equilibrium will be established regardless of what we want. The big questions are how humanity will fit into that system and how much damage we do getting there. We should hope for the best and plan for the worst. As you said Hippie, there are a variety of energy resources still available and that will be for awhile. We should use that time to shift gears for long term stability. As supplies like oil run out, the transition to the next best combination of resources will probably be bumpy. Those that anticipate and prepare for this change will come out ahead in the long run because they will weather the bumps the best. That is what really irks me about hydrogen fuel cells, to bring this whole 360. They are ultimately still part of the problem and not the solution.

[Hippie3]

, uranium and plutonium are fossil fuels. There aren't making any more and the amount extractable for a net energy gain is limited.

first of all, friend
uranium and other nuclear fuels
are NOT fossil fuels.
that very term means a hydrocarbon compound formed
by the decay of lifeforms.
second
i take it that you've never heard
of a fast breeder reactor ?
we have more than enough nuclear fuel to last millenia
and can easily make more.

[Bromius]

Hmm. Checked out fast-breeders on Wikipedia. I guess you're right, they do actually gain fissile material. Go figure. I guess the juice will stay on indefinitely.

[Hippie3]

exactly.
equilibrium and stability are not viable options for living systems,
you either grow or you die.
in a universe of
essentially infinite resources and energy
the sky is literally the limit.

[taoistshredder]

Hippie, you ever watch Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t? It's on Showtime and DVD for the first two seasons (good ol' NetFlix); it reminds me of this conversation. I was discussing some things with friends last night, and they said something in relation to Iraq and the voting and how so many Shi'a who had fled Iran to come back to Iraq had influenced the election to make it like Iran and I said something to the effect of, "Persians don't like Arabs; an Iraqi in Iran is like a Jew in Beiruit - there are better places to be. You really think a bunch of people that were living opppressed in Iran, only because they Shi'a and wanted to get away from 'the crazy Sunnis' in power in Iraq, that now they want to come and impose the same style government as Iran?" I've found out so many things for this journalism article I'm writing, it's just insane, it's like everything I hear now about Iraq, even most of what I say, it's just bullshit. When I referred to this specific thing, I believe I even called it "Liberal Bullshit." I've been studying this conflict since I was in high school, and I still know nothing. But back to the point of the thread, Penn and Teller, had they been here, would have laughed at the whole fossil fuel thing. Yes, while we agree that we are quickly using fossil fuels, how can they not be regenerating, have things stopped dying? I had this professor a long time ago, English, 10th grade, and he had this sign that showed a squatting bull with a small pile underneath him and a large read circle with a slash through it; underneath was written "No Bovine Scatology." I should get you one.

[Hippie3]

lol
i do have a keen nose for BS
along with a low tolerance.
there are many myths being circulated
folks seeking their own [political/economic] advantage
by preying on the under-informed and the gullible.
like the old saying went-
believe none of what you hear
and only a little of what you see.
critical thinking is your only defense,
pick apart the argument, detail by detail,
to expose the underlying false premises.
knowledge is power,
even if it's untrue,
as long as it's believed.
so many have labored mightily
for so long
to convince everyone that we are doomed to fail
in the middle east, that we shouldn't even try,
blah blah blah.
but the more you dig into the hard data,
the more you contrast and compare that data set
to previous data gleaned from history
the more certain one becomes
that the tide is moving in favor of the usa/coalition.

[Bromius]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

exactly.
equilibrium and stability are not viable options for living systems,
you either grow or you die.

Not absolutely, you're right. Things do eventually change. Rapid growth doesn't always equate to success, though. For example in successional situations where a disturbance causes an ecosystem to change overtime, the species that intially thrive actually pave the way for other species to take over. It's called facilitation (apologies for jargon).

Outward expansion is one option (that has yet to be proved possible). The other is slow death. Energy is not the only issue. Unless we find more space, the exponential growth we are experiencing will eventually have to stop. Biologists studying trends in natural population periodically observe crashes. Then the numbers goes back up. It's a cycle, a form a stability. It's like a thermostat except the degrees are in life and death. A range of a few degrees, but all in all it works pretty well. Knowledge (and abundant, cheap energy) may allow us to extend the cycle in our favor awhile, but ultimately I think it will correct itself and some humility will be in order.

[Bromius]

Originally Posted by taoistshredder

But back to the point of the thread, Penn and Teller, had they been here, would have laughed at the whole fossil fuel thing. Yes, while we agree that we are quickly using fossil fuels, how can they not be regenerating, have things stopped dying?

It is possible to use something up while it is still being created. An effective experiment would be locking oneself into an airtight room with a houseplant. Sure, it produces oxygen but I don't think anyone would want to stay in there very long. Their concerns about breathing would be pretty similar to my concerns about fossil fuel use.

[Bromius]

One other thought on the fast breeder reactor. Things may still wind up being based on total surface area if the return on the energy invested is greater for renewables. ( I'm assuming we use coal before either of these become the majority of the energy supply.)

[Hippie3]

Biologists studying trends in natural population periodically observe crashes. Then the numbers goes back up. It's a cycle, a form a stability. It's like a thermostat except the degrees are in life and death. A range of a few degrees, but all in all it works pretty well.

of course
what holds true
for non-intelligent species
does not necessarily apply
to intelligent ones like ours.
one cannot reason
from sea urchins to humans
and expect that the same
rules apply.

[Hippie3]

Outward expansion is one option (that has yet to be proved possible).

i think you are overlooking a huge area for expansion right here on earth-
the 2/3s of our planet that is underwater.
no space travel required either.
already we're hard at work
extracting resources, seeking energy sources,
even building habitats.
this will of course continue and accelerate,
again fundamentally changing
your equation of gloom.

[Bromius]

Hippie, During this thread you have brought up a lot of exciting possibilities. As a species we have taken some tentative steps in many of those directions. I have never ruled any of them to be impossible. In fact, I would like to see many of those potential options come true. Evolution captivates my mind, as do human capability and ingenuity.

In additon to exploration and expansion, I would like to see that ability directed towards current technology to make it more efficient and to reduce the overal impact of humanity on the environment. I think that is what you are mistaking as "gloom". Spreading to the stars will be a lot easier if we maintain a viable home base. I ultimately want to see humanity do well and prosper. That seems to me what you are hoping for too. We just seem to disagree on how that ultimate goal will be achieved.

[Hippie3]

reduce the overal impact of humanity on the environment

i don't see that happening
but rather the opposite-
humanity will soon define its' own environment

Hippie is quite right in his posts and I must say that I applaude you good sir!
We are in absolutely no danger of running out of resources anytime soon, and by soon I mean for the next few thousand years! While the power needs of the world are getting larger and larger, power generation equipment is becoming more and more efficient.
However, that being said, I think it would be wise to bring up a few things. For one thing, if you added up the sum total of raw energy that we receive from the Sun, even if we were able to utilize 100% of that energy 100% efficiently, it would still only meet roughly 20% of America's power needs today. Sounds pretty rediculous, no? Sad but true. You can easily work the power calculation, even assuming 100% of the area covered by the Sun is utilized, 100% of the incoming energy is used and convert the BTU's to Watts. The power, as it comes to the plant's surface, just isn't there. But I will not deny that it is a great supplement to our "power reserves", just as wind and hydro generation.
Hippie is right in that more solar power can be extracted using various equipment in space, but my mind begins to swim thinking about the logistics of that!
Our best bet is to go nuclear. The energy gain per amount of waste generated is so huge, fossil fuels can never compare! Nuclear plants are much much much cleaner than fossil plants will ever be. The problem is cost. There are simply too many uneducated eco-freaks out there, that only spout off about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. They don't take the time to learn that coal plants put more radium into the atmosphere than nukes (which put out 0). Not to mention the "greenhouse g