Hybrids and why they may the be wrong idea...

It seems to me that a lot of folks seem to have a self-centered view with Hydrogen, but there is an area that has gotten very little notice or mention where it comes to the distribution process: how it's going to be paid for.

Remember, it took nearly a century to build the present petrol(Gasoline) distribution system, primarily by the oil companies, in many countries. Compare that to what it would take to mount this adventure, and realise that they (Big Oil) will not foot the bill, as it would take too long for them to recoup the cost.

So, guess who will be left to pay for it? Thats right, you the taxpayer, yet again. Why not, we already pay for many of these 'pie in the sky' dreams that are already in progress.

Also, there's the problem with either retrofitting present road vehicles for using hydrogen or having to buy new vehicles that burn the fuel, as the present flex-fuel systems would be out of the question. At an even higher initial cost than the Hybrids were when they began being produced, whom do you think is going to champion that? BMW and others are building such cars, but only as testing labs & Promotionals.

You stand a better chance with Natural Gas, as the infrastructure is already there, just the expansion of it is less costly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I did hear most of it was in Canada? But anyway you are right, there is lots and lots of oil left, the problem is getting at it, and then refining it once we've got at it.

We *can* use those sources and the technology is available but at a high cost, so we can continue running our cars on oil, but it'll be much more expensive than we've been used to.

---

There is, as you say, a fair bit in Canada. But the vast majority (75% aprox) is found in the USA.

As for cost. As with anything if the technology becomes widespread the cost will reduce. And even if it doesn't the article I read suggested a min price of $45 per barrel to make a profit. The min price for well oil was $7 IIRC. So, yes, it is more expensive but not prohibitively.

I'm all for new fuel sources, and hydrogen does look very promising, but whilst the technology catches up with imagination oil products from alternative sources combined with ultra fuel efficient vehicles is a far better stop gap than hybrid cars which, as has already been mentioned, is a dead end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

...
The problem with both of these sources is there is a price that will be paid for remediating the soil and terrain that may be too expensive. In the case of the oil shale, more research is required because I don't think levelling half the Rocky Mountain's is feasible nor ethical.

The oil sands of Canada however are proving to be financially viable. The companies up there are trying as things move along to be more proactive and careful with the damage and remediating the soil. There are areas where the oil just oozes out of the sand and nothing grows in patchs, so it isn't like mother nature doesn't have a dirty hand in this. Apparently the companies up there are replacing the cleaned soil (removing the oil) and planting trees and the like on the oil free sand. Now I haven't dug up all the links, but believe me, no oil company up there is getting a free ride from the public and the government on getting that oil out of the ground. There are standards to be met....

---

Cue schmenke...

The environmental regulations imposed by the federal government for the oilsands industry are some of the strictest I've seen in my career.
All depleted oilsands mines must be remediated back to their original state. This however, is a long term process as a typical mine is in operation for ~25 years, then the "pit" is used as a storage pond for the next (typically adjacent) mine. The "tailings" ponds that all the greenies are up in arms over are misunderstood. The contents of these ponds are 90% clean sand and water, with the other 10% being urecoverable bitumen that was existing in the ground in the first place. Most oil companies are currently looking at technologies to try to recover even more of the remaining 10% to make the entire process cleaner.

The oillsand is typically not more than a few meters below ground level. There are some areas in northern Alberta where your footprints will pool with bitumen once you've walked over the soil.

Current estimates of the recoverable bitumen in Alberta are greater than those in Saudi Arabia. The mines will continue to operate for the next ~100yrs.

Oh, and guess where currently 95% of the Alberta oilsands bitument is exported... Yep, the U.S. :mark: .

Fact: 95% of the world's current energy requirements ar provided by petroleum products and that ain't gonna change any time soon :mark: .

Hybrid cars, (like Toyota Prius) are boring and look stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

...As for cost. As with anything if the technology becomes widespread the cost will reduce. And even if it doesn't the article I read suggested a min price of $45 per barrel to make a profit. The min price for well oil was $7 IIRC. ....

---

The current break-even price-per-barrel for the capital investment of developing and commissioning an oilsands mine, including the "extraction" process is currently ~$40.00 which is comparable to the development and commissioning of an offshore oil platform from scratch (although this varies greatly with the location and especially the depth of water).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

The current break-even price-per-barrel for the capital investment of developing and commissioning an oilsands mine, including the "extraction" process is currently ~$40.00 which is comparable to the development and commissioning of an offshore oil platform from scratch (although this varies greatly with the location and especially the depth of water).

---

Thanks for the info. I didn't know much on the subject prior to reading up on it a couple of months back. And as the figure quoted in the article ties in closely with yours (and you are the expert) I'm going to assume the rest of the figures I saw were also on the money.

The oil age will have to end sometime but I don't expect to see it end in my lifetime - unless someone cracks warp drive ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeten

It seems to me that a lot of folks seem to have a self-centered view with Hydrogen, but there is an area that has gotten very little notice or mention where it comes to the distribution process: how it's going to be paid for.

Remember, it took nearly a century to build the present petrol(Gasoline) distribution system, primarily by the oil companies, in many countries. Compare that to what it would take to mount this adventure, and realise that they (Big Oil) will not foot the bill, as it would take too long for them to recoup the cost.

So, guess who will be left to pay for it? Thats right, you the taxpayer, yet again. Why not, we already pay for many of these 'pie in the sky' dreams that are already in progress.

Also, there's the problem with either retrofitting present road vehicles for using hydrogen or having to buy new vehicles that burn the fuel, as the present flex-fuel systems would be out of the question. At an even higher initial cost than the Hybrids were when they began being produced, whom do you think is going to champion that? BMW and others are building such cars, but only as testing labs & Promotionals.

You stand a better chance with Natural Gas, as the infrastructure is already there, just the expansion of it is less costly.

---

Natural gas is a great idea, but it is a finite resource, is far more efficient for heating homes, and creates CO2. Hydrogen wont. THAT is where the greenies are going to be more accepting to Hydrogen and THAT is why I still think it in the end will be the solution. Don't know how we are getting there, but I never discount the ability of science and engineering to make something happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Cue schmenke...

The environmental regulations imposed by the federal government for the oilsands industry are some of the strictest I've seen in my career.
All depleted oilsands mines must be remediated back to their original state. This however, is a long term process as a typical mine is in operation for ~25 years, then the "pit" is used as a storage pond for the next (typically adjacent) mine. The "tailings" ponds that all the greenies are up in arms over are misunderstood. The contents of these ponds are 90% clean sand and water, with the other 10% being urecoverable bitumen that was existing in the ground in the first place. Most oil companies are currently looking at technologies to try to recover even more of the remaining 10% to make the entire process cleaner.

The oillsand is typically not more than a few meters below ground level. There are some areas in northern Alberta where your footprints will pool with bitumen once you've walked over the soil.

Current estimates of the recoverable bitumen in Alberta are greater than those in Saudi Arabia. The mines will continue to operate for the next ~100yrs.

Oh, and guess where currently 95% of the Alberta oilsands bitument is exported... Yep, the U.S. :mark: .

Fact: 95% of the world's current energy requirements ar provided by petroleum products and that ain't gonna change any time soon :mark: .

---

Gee...you would think you worked in the business or something...lol.

Well it is going to fuel North America until we find something better from the sounds of it. At some point, we need a solution...and the hybrid car is a symbol that means little....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Gee...you would think you worked in the business or something...lol.

Well it is going to fuel North America until we find something better from the sounds of it. At some point, we need a solution...and the hybrid car is a symbol that means little....

---

Hydrogen production doesn't create CO2? :confused: OK I'll accept if it's produced with renewable or nuclear energy but that aint happening for a while, PLUS the last time I checked water vapour IS a greenhouse gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Hydrogen production doesn't create CO2? :confused: OK I'll accept if it's produced with renewable or nuclear energy but that aint happening for a while, PLUS the last time I checked water vapour IS a greenhouse gas.

---

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Yes...it also is part of nature. It will also cause it to maybe rain more often, AND cool the planet counterbalancing the CO2. Listen, why don't 5 Billion of us stop breathing, die, and go away? Will THAT not hurt the freaking enviroment? Oh right....

Face it Dan, you want no solution if I read this properly. Nukes will be the power source of choice as we phase out coal. The French power most of their nation on Nukes, and have no issues. IN the end, it is the only non-polluting source if you deal with the waste. So if hydrogen produces water vapour, then great, maybe we put a little collector on there to capture the WATER. IS THAT A POLLUTANT NOW?????????