Philippine oil spill 'a calamity'

[straightalker]

LINK: -- Philippine oil spill 'a calamity'

The spill, near the central Philippines island of Guimaras, has affected hundreds of kilometres of coastline and threatens rich fishing grounds.

These reports make me cringe with the grief that yet another pristine environment on our Planet has been trashed by a major large oil transport spillage. 2 million litres of oil is enough to trash the entire middle Phillippine marine region. Look on the map. No matter which way the oil slick is carried by wind and currents it will cause a huge coastal island habitat disaster.

Meanwhile, it's a fact that one cup of water has enough enegy in it to power the city of London for an entire week. Thanks to the energy tied up in the atoms of the H2O molecule. We are all surrounded by vast energy.

E=MC(squared)

The energy in all matter is mass time the speed of light squared. A huge number!

Question: How do you feel knowing that humanity still burns so much filthy fossil fuel it is killing off the planet, when at the same time there's obviously no shortage of energy around us?

The Phillippine disater is just the latest case. Israel bombed a large coastal Lebanese oil storage facility recently and that resulted in the release of another huge oil slick in the Easterm Mediterrenean Sea.

 

[wazzledoozle]

OK, then why dont you tell us how to convert water into electricity that can be distributed through our power grid?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
OK, then why dont you tell us how to convert water into electricity that can be distributed through our power grid?

Hydrogen fuel cells

 

[ZeGermans]

fuel cells have to be created from an existing energy source; they dont' occur naturally. And the majority of the time they're made by "cracking" which frees hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e..... fossil fuels!) so that's not a viable option until we have a naturally occuring way to get energy that doesn't involve such fuels.

Also, any given material has enough energy in it to power a whole lot of stuff. The problem is, it requires a ton of energy to free that material. That's how nuclear reactors work. The sum of the mass present after the reaction is less than the starting material, with a tiny fraction being converted into pure energy. Not sure what the exact figure is, but it's way less than 1% I believe. The 60kg of uranium that blasted hiroshima released the energy of less than .6kg of uranium

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
fuel cells have to be created from an existing energy source; they dont' occur naturally. And the majority of the time they're made by "cracking" which frees hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e..... fossil fuels!) so that's not a viable option until we have a naturally occuring way to get energy that doesn't involve such fuels.

Sure it is, depending on what problem you are trying to solve. Sure, it doesn't fix our reliance on fossil fuels, but it DOES help prevent a lot of the polution resulting from burning those fuels like we do now.

But as far as why fuel cells use fossil fuels, why don't we just use water? There must be efficient ways of cracking water to get the H2 out...but I'm not a chemist, so I could be wrong.

 

[ZeGermans]

There are simple ways, known as electrolysis, which involves just sending an electric current through water that's strong enough. But it's much less effecient than cracking.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
fuel cells have to be created from an existing energy source; they dont' occur naturally. And the majority of the time they're made by "cracking" which frees hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e..... fossil fuels!) so that's not a viable option until we have a naturally occuring way to get energy that doesn't involve such fuels.

Also, any given material has enough energy in it to power a whole lot of stuff. The problem is, it requires a ton of energy to free that material. That's how nuclear reactors work. The sum of the mass present after the reaction is less than the starting material, with a tiny fraction being converted into pure energy. Not sure what the exact figure is, but it's way less than 1% I believe. The 60kg of uranium that blasted hiroshima released the energy of less than .6kg of uranium

Well one freaking reactor is all we would need for the hydrogen.

Excuses excuses excuses for the Sand Barons.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
fuel cells have to be created from an existing energy source; they dont' occur naturally. And the majority of the time they're made by "cracking" which frees hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e..... fossil fuels!) so that's not a viable option until we have a naturally occuring way to get energy that doesn't involve such fuels.

Sure it is, depending on what problem you are trying to solve. Sure, it doesn't fix our reliance on fossil fuels, but it DOES help prevent a lot of the polution resulting from burning those fuels like we do now.

But as far as why fuel cells use fossil fuels, why don't we just use water? There must be efficient ways of cracking water to get the H2 out...but I'm not a chemist, so I could be wrong.

Costs are too high at the moment.

 

[Jeff7]

It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to break the hydrogen out of water, and that energy is more than it took to form the bond. In fact, producing water from hydrogen and oxygen is exothermic - burn hydrogen sometime. Guess what you'll get.

Fuel cells are not a means of producing energy. They are a means of transporting it. Energy must be expended to obtain the hydrogen, and that energy must come from other sources - fossil fuels, renewables, or nuclear.
Even the fictional matter/antimatter reactors in Star Trek are not for producing energy. They merely provide a way of transporting huge amounts of energy across space. In that realm, antimatter production is energy-intensive, consuming considerable amounts of both matter and energy in the process. As I understand it, fusion is the principal means of energy production there.

Better means of energy production will be required here before hydrogen can really go anywhere. That will mean either moving to relatively dirty coal, more fission plants, or better renewables, at least to tide us over until, hopefully, fusion becomes a viable option sometime in the next few decades.

The tanker, the Solar 1, was carrying around two million litres of oil when it sank in heavy seas off Guimaras on 11 August.

The Solar 1???? Why does that just sound like some kind of sick joke?

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
OK, then why dont you tell us how to convert water into electricity that can be distributed through our power grid?

Hydrogen fuel cells

You have the split water first using electrolysis, and you arent getting any more energy out of the hydrogen than you use to split the water. So its not viable.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
fuel cells have to be created from an existing energy source; they dont' occur naturally. And the majority of the time they're made by "cracking" which frees hydrogen from hydrocarbons (i.e..... fossil fuels!) so that's not a viable option until we have a naturally occuring way to get energy that doesn't involve such fuels.

Sure it is, depending on what problem you are trying to solve. Sure, it doesn't fix our reliance on fossil fuels, but it DOES help prevent a lot of the polution resulting from burning those fuels like we do now.

But as far as why fuel cells use fossil fuels, why don't we just use water? There must be efficient ways of cracking water to get the H2 out...but I'm not a chemist, so I could be wrong.

Costs are too high at the moment.

No, Dick Cheney would never allow it. He and the rest of the crooks on Capitol Hill are going to milk ever last dollar out of fossil fuel.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
OK, then why dont you tell us how to convert water into electricity that can be distributed through our power grid?

Hydrogen fuel cells

You have the split water first using electrolysis, and you arent getting any more energy out of the hydrogen than you use to split the water. So its not viable.

Oh come, one Nuke plant is all we would need.