I don't know of anything to contradict what Bill Jones is saying as to the desire of Big Oil to reform Petroleum, but I don't think they're that afraid of Hydrogen. Certainly I could be wrong and their apparent recent support for H2 could in a way be a ruse.
In the near-term, they would benefit since Hydrogen is generally (more than 90% at present?) made from Natural Gas. To be sure, installing Hydrogen technology throughout society would put folks one step closer to sourcing it in non-Big-Oil-related-ways, but at present Big Oil is the one who will be selling us the Hydrogen. Heck, Honda has a Natural Gas powered vehicle that no longer has to be charged at some special place. If I understand it correctly, you can now get such a vehicle and get a special device installed in your garage that will compress the Natural Gas and put it in your car. I have spoken to one industry person who pointed out that the experience of driving this particular vehicle is not unlike owning a fuel cell vehicle of the future. The range is somewhat limited (200 miles) and you recharge at home or at some special station. I have sat in a lecture a few years ago where a Texaco person said point-blank that they liked Hydrogen for its ability to raise the inherent value of their NG assets. Now, that was just one person's opinion. So, like I said, Bill may be on to something with his emphasis on the petroleum-to-H2 angle, but I'm just saying that I've always seen Big Oil as somewhat liking H2, at least compared to some of the alternatives. I think the history of the matter going back about 5-10 years is that Exxon didn't like H2 and made this clear (in such areas as their NYTimes OP-Eds. Other Big Oils did like H2 and said so. There was disagreement. At least, that's my recollection. But more recently I think Exxon and pretty much everyone has sort of jumped on board and embraced H2. That's why I see President Bush's myopic focus on H2, to the exclusion of even discussing many other alt-fuel-related issues, as perfectly logical, by the standards he has set. He's made no bones about setting energy policy, *and energy policy discussion*, according basically to what will sit well with certain companies. Another thing I want to mention is there was a quotation from about four years ago when VP Candidate Cheney visited Avista Labs and praised their fuel cell technology. The language he used at the time was something like ...This is excellent... Your fuel cells are devices that make use of hydrocarbons to better our lives and energy supply. I can't put it in quotations because it's nothing approaching word-for-word but the gist of it was that he was willing to praise it *based on its relationship to using hydrocarbons*. I was frankly shocked to see him make such a bald-faced admission that he'd praise something on those grounds but not on another. Are we the "United States of American Hydrocarbons"? Was something slipped into the Bill of Rights demanding that no activity is sanctioned unless it benefits fossil-derived fuels? Ridiculous, I say. At one time a GM CEO said something about What's good for GM is good for America, and this claim now seems somewhat transformed to "What's good for Exxon-Mobil is good for America". I don't think you'll get anyone to admit to thinking this, but it seems to be an idea implicit to some of our policies. I disagree with the idea. On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:20:17 +0900, you wrote: >Fwd from the Homestead mailing list: > >>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:14:40 -0800 >>From: Bill Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Homestead mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Fuel Cells: What's In It For Big Oil >> >>The oil companies are really pouring money into finding ways to >>strip hydrogen off petroleum molecules using machines that would fit >>inside a vehicle. Devices that do this are called "reformers" and >>are pivotal to understanding where all this is leading. The key to >>reformers lies in the nature of liquid hydrogen, which requires a >>strong pressure tank to contain it. It even leaks slowly right >>through metal, so it should never be stored for long, and the tank >>must have a ventilated housing. >> >>Liquid hydrogen is really bulky compared to hydrocarbon fuels, >>requiring a car with a 100 gallon pressurized gas tank in order to >>have the same range as a regular car. Having this much pressurized >>hydrogen on board would be somewhat more dangerous than gasoline in >>the event of a collision, but I don't think modern city drivers >>really need to have such a long range from a single fill-up. >> >>If the hydrogen atoms are stored in molecules like ethanol or octane >>then the same number of hydrogen atoms can take up much less space. >>This is the idea behind reformers. By heating the fuel with >>catalysts like platinum, these miniature chemical factories produce >>hydrogen as needed. >> >>As long as we're willing to accept either a larger, fortified >>hydrogen tank or a car with a shorter range, we can use hydrogen >>produced by "a variety of means" in our cars. There's a process for >>producing hydrogen by splitting hydrogen iodide that can use waste >>heat from a nuclear reactor as the energy source. Individuals could >>use solar cells to power electrolysis right at home. There's no >>limit to possible ways to produce hydrogen that don't involve the >>oil companies at all. But all of these options require a hydrogen >>tank. >> >>If they can only succeed in frightening people into turning against >>the idea of a hydrogen tank, then there's a future for the oil >>companies in a hydrogen-powered world. That wouldn't be hard at >>all. I think the 100th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster isn't >>far away. What a great opportunity for yet another generation to >>learn that you should never carry hydrogen with you, but rather >>should invest in a horrifically expensive refinery-in-a-box that >>will produce hydrogen from things like ethanol, methanol, or >>hydrocarbon fuel, or even sugar syrup. >> >>This is why I sometimes come down hard on posts glorifying reformer >>technology. If we allow ourselves to think that you must have a >>compact reformer in your car, whether for convenience or safety, it >>will forever eliminate every really neat method ever invented for >>producing hydrogen, and we'll be forced to make a Hobson's choice >>among a tiny set of options. It's not hard to see that the fossil >>fuel option will be the cheapest, just as it is now, and the oil >>companies will be re-enthroned at a higher level. >> >>If they succeed in banning IC engines, which run fabulously on >>hydrogen or virtually anything, and they succeed in banning hydrogen >>tanks too, then we'll be locked into a system that puts more new >>carbon in the air than we do now, since people will inevitably >>choose the cheap fossil-fuel reformer from the tiny palette of fake >>options. >> >>Bill >>S. Oregon coast > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
