I really appreciate the straightforward (and first-hand experience) answers you gave, especially as they relate to hydrogen and natural gas.

I agree with you 100% about avoiding hydrogen or natural gas for transportation or (baseload) electrical generation. The only disagreement I have with you is regarding photovoltaics (PV).

Solar irradiance at Earth’s upper atmosphere is approximately 1.37 kW/m^2. At Earth’s surface, this value falls to 1 kW/m^2.

For the sake of convenience, let’s assume we could convert 100% of that energy (at the surface) to electrical output, which we can’t.

Currently, we can convert (using commercially available solar panels) at most 30% of light to electricity, but like I said, for convenience, let’s assume 100% conversion efficiency.

We’re only going to get 1 kW/m^2 from solar for about 4 to 5 hours per day (between 10 AM and 3 PM) in some latitudes.

Now, compare this to either a coal-fired plant or a nuclear reactor:

— Nuclear and coal plants have footprints that are typically 600 m x 600 m to 700 m x 700 m – inclusive of material handling AND switchyards.

— Nuclear and coal plants (typically) have generation capacities ranging from 1 GW to 4 GW per those areas mentioned above, and are available 24/7.

— Therefore, Nuclear and Coal have energy densities between 3 kW to 11 kW per square meter depending upon size and configuration of plant. That’s 3 to 11 times more power per square meter than Solar can provide – again, assuming we could convert 100% light to electricity.

— Nuclear and Coal become even more impressive using real-world values that only allow for 30% conversion of light to electricity with solar. Nuclear and coal’s power footprint (kW/m^2) skyrockets to 10 and 36 times more power per square meter than Solar.

The United States (as I imagine Canada does) possesses 300 years worth of coal reserves. Likewise, the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s uranium, that’s enough to run our current land-based reactor fleet (105 reactors) for an estimated 20,000 years.

Of course, we would be happy to trade with Canada for their HUGE uranium reserves, of which Canada and Australia combined possess over half of the world’s uranium…assuming nuclear fusion doesn’t become viable anytime soon.

Of course, my money is on Polywell fusion (Santa Fe, NM) or Dense Plasma Focus Fusion (more simply, Focus Fusion in Lawrenceville, NJ). These two forms of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion are entirely aneutronic.

IEC fusion is the only form of fusion to NOT utilize a heat transfer step required with Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) or other forms of Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF).

IEC fusion is a DIRECT nuclear to DC electrical conversion. The only byproducts of the p-B11 reaction are (3) He4 atoms + 8.57 MeV – no neutrons.

I’ve also been following some of the work being done by General Fusion, Inc. in Burnaby, BC. You might want to have a look at them as well. Think of General Fusion’s effort as the “steampunk” approach to fusion.

Regardless, coal, fission, or fusion electrical generation is the way to go.

Those are reliable, efficient, and inexpensive electrical generation methods…or some will be very soon, and I haven’t even touched on how horrendous the costs associated with solar are compared to nuclear, gas, or coal generation.

Hi Guys, I’m going to step into this firestorm about Natural Gas by stating I’m from Alberta, Canada. And no, I’m not a greenie or environmentalist. And yes, that’s right, I live where most of you folks (I’m assuming most of you are Americans) get your oil from, and yes I know that AB produces ever-increasingly ‘heavy, dirty’ oil. We also have pretty good amounts of Nat.Gas from what I remember last time. For those advocating for Nat.Gas, I’ll tell ya right now, you’re better off going for Solar (PV or thermal) or some other novel technology. The fact of the matter is, though AB gov’t doesn’t want to let the cat outta bag (and no I’m not a conspirary theorist lol), the conventional oil deposit in my province has peaked a long while back…don’t ask for quotes & references since I don’t have any. This is a feel that I get plus what I’ve seen happening over 16 years of living here, as well as general sentiments & comments from people living here. Same things has been happening with Nat.Gas, too. As the time goes on, I’ve seen more & more Nat.Gas installations trying to pump out to the last bit of gas, as if they know the END is near. We are currently developing more of the oil sands, but I personally don’t put a lot of faith in it. A lot of folks here are acting like ostriches, sticking their head in the oil sands and pretending it’s business as usual, but the reality is, our environment is totally getting raped. We once boasted pristine lakes & rivers, but because of oil sands, our beautiful northern landsape is turning into big mining pits & toxic tailing ponds, which are btw leaking into surrounding water systems, destroying all components of the ecosystems in the area. Yes, we get money from it but at what expense? I personally want to move to British Columbia, once I save up enough money & secure a job since I really don’t see a future in my province. And I’ve practically grew up & lived here all my life. Yes, you can quote all the quotes you want, but if an all-my-life Albertan (me, plus I know a host of others) want to move outta here and wanna bet our future in some other place, should you place your bets on AB & its fossil fuels for your future?

If you are somehow advocating that here is enough petroleum in the wells for another century or so, please read the latest petroleum fuel usage around the globe as well as NA. Please don’t use year 2000 figures; they are almost a decade ago. The fact of the matter is our gasoline & other petroleum usage has sky-rocketed since year 2000. And please don’t even think for a minute that recent economic slump around the world really cut down the usage. I don’t have time to look up the exact figures, but with some of the emerging economies like India, China, etc., the oil usage is up & WAY up and it’ll only continue to grow worse. And novel schemes like the microbes, great, I wish we can fund more efforts like that, but they are not yet mature enough techs to be used in large mass-scale settings, and honestly I believe or limited time & resources should be used for a bit more concrete & firm proven techs like Solar power generation be it thermal or PV.

What I’m trying to tell you all is, don’t bet your money in any fuel scheme this is based on fossil fuel or hydrogen (derived by electrolysis or from fossil fuel.) If some of you think well, we can harness the energy of the Sun to generate hydrogen, let me ask how you are going to store meaningful amounts of H2 generated. Pressurized or liquified, it takes up a LOT of energy…again that’s if you could generate any meaningful amount of H2 in the first place. Plus, it MIGHT (and that’s a big MIGHT) be able to satify a significant portion of your energy needs, but not completely. I don’t think you can have a better source of hydrogen to get over our addiction to oil from either straight from fossil fuel or electrolysis on a mass scale (honestly…you can’t think significant portion of NA households will adopt DIY H2 generation @ home). However, there’s a growing concern in not only AB but around the world about availability of fresh water. So electrolysis is clearly out of question & so is any source of H2 gas from fossil fuels.

If your goal is not to be a devout follower of your favorite tech but to ultimately solve the energy crisis, H2 in any form will be realistically too late, too expensive by a long shot. If we want to do this & transform our energy networks, we have to use not only mature or near-mature technologies that are also realistic & viable in short term, and by that I mean within the next 2 decades.

If you are somehow advocating that here is enough petroleum in the wells for another century or so, please read the latest petroleum fuel usage around the globe as well as NA. Please don’t use year 2000 figures; they are almost a decade ago. The fact of the matter is our gasoline & other petroleum usage has sky-rocketed since year 2000. And please don’t even think for a minute that recent economic slump around the world really cut down the usage. I don’t have time to look up the exact figures, but with some of the emerging economies like India, China, etc., the oil usage is up & WAY up and it’ll only continue to grow worse. And novel schemes like the microbes, great, I wish we can fund more efforts like that, but they are not yet mature enough techs to be used in large mass-scale settings, and honestly I believe or limited time & resources should be used for a bit more concrete & firm proven techs like Solar power generation be it thermal or PV.

What I’m trying to tell you all is, don’t bet your money in any fuel scheme this is based on fossil fuel or hydrogen (derived by electrolysis or from fossil fuel.) If some of you think well, we can harness the energy of the Sun to generate hydrogen, let me ask how you are going to store meaningful amounts of H2 generated. Pressurized or liquified, it takes up a LOT of energy…again that’s if you could generate any meaningful amount of H2 in the first place. Plus, it MIGHT (and that’s a big MIGHT) be able to satify a significant portion of your energy needs, but not completely. I don’t think you can have a better source of hydrogen to get over our addiction to oil from either straight from fossil fuel or electrolysis on a mass scale (honestly…you can’t think significant portion of NA households will adopt DIY H2 generation @ home). However, there’s a growing concern in not only AB but around the world about availability of fresh water. So electrolysis is clearly out of question & so is any source of H2 gas from fossil fuels.

If your goal is not to be a devout follower of your favorite tech but to ultimately solve the energy crisis, H2 in any form will be realistically too late, too expensive by a long shot. If we want to do this & transform our energy networks, we have to use not only mature or near-mature technologies that are also realistic & viable in short term, and by that I mean within the next 2 decades.