What if there was a Manhattan Project for energy?

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2006-09-17 04:15pm

I was talking with my father recently and he had an interesting idea for the US's energy problem - he thinks that there should be a "Manhattan Program" to change the infrastructure of our economy.

What would happen if a national emergency were declared with regards to our energy situation with oil? A progressive tax could be slapped onto the cost of fuel, with shipping companies paying the least and rich/affluent people paying the most. The resulting tax dollars could then be used to fund research/develpment to a hydrogen-based economy to end our dependence on foreign oil entirely. Subsidies could be given to companies to build hydrogen gas stations. If our efforts were successful, we could pull out of the middle east entirely and end a lot of our diplomatic problems with one fell swoop. Would terrorists still have a reason to attack the west if the US were no longer meddling in the affairs of their governments?

Also, could our dependence on oil be ended entirely with moving to a hydrogen-based economy? Would we still need petrol for manufacturing of plastics and other products which require it?

If this is the wrong place, mods please move.

Rocker5150 · Post by **Rocker5150** » 2006-09-17 06:06pm

I've also thought there should be a "Manhattan Project" towards energy with the same kind of drive that led to the bomb. Too bad all the countries of the world can't get together on a project to focus on the future of our energy. The manhattan Project cost $20 billion in 2004 dollars. I don't know how much money such a project today would take if it was for energy, but it really puts the $300 billion that has gone to Iraq in perspective. The Hirsch Report (prepared for the DOE) concluded that such a crash program would really need to begin twenty years before world oil production peaks in order to "avoid a world liquid fuels shortfall". We better get started!

-Kevin

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-09-17 06:54pm

Hydrogen based economy? What the hell is that going to solve? Hydrogen is just a battery, a form of storage for energy produced at a plant. Our powerplants are still using fossil fuels, and it's more energy-intensive to produce hydrogen than an equivilent on oil.

If you're going to make our power entirely non-fossil (Ie, Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar and Geothermal), then I have no idea. That'd help with shrinking oil supplies. But on it's own, Hydrogen's worth jack all.

Anyway, comparing a reworking of the world's entire infrastructure (or at least the most well-developed country on earth's) is a lot different than getting some scientific minds to make a couple of bombs.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-09-17 06:58pm

Nephtys wrote:Hydrogen based economy? What the hell is that going to solve? Hydrogen is just a battery, a form of storage for energy produced at a plant. Our powerplants are still using fossil fuels, and it's more energy-intensive to produce hydrogen than an equivilent on oil.

If you're going to make our power entirely non-fossil (Ie, Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar and Geothermal), then I have no idea. That'd help with shrinking oil supplies. But on it's own, Hydrogen's worth jack all.

Anyway, comparing a reworking of the world's entire infrastructure (or at least the most well-developed country on earth's) is a lot different than getting some scientific minds to make a couple of bombs.

Za?

Hydrogen burning is the most efficient form of energy generation there is until you go nuclear.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-09-17 07:01pm

SirNitram wrote:
Nephtys wrote:Hydrogen based economy? What the hell is that going to solve? Hydrogen is just a battery, a form of storage for energy produced at a plant. Our powerplants are still using fossil fuels, and it's more energy-intensive to produce hydrogen than an equivilent on oil.

If you're going to make our power entirely non-fossil (Ie, Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar and Geothermal), then I have no idea. That'd help with shrinking oil supplies. But on it's own, Hydrogen's worth jack all.

Anyway, comparing a reworking of the world's entire infrastructure (or at least the most well-developed country on earth's) is a lot different than getting some scientific minds to make a couple of bombs.
Za?

Hydrogen burning is the most efficient form of energy generation there is until you go nuclear.

You need to get that hydrogen in usable form. That costs more energy to do than getting fuel. Ideally, an all nuclear electrical grid could do that nicely. Until then, it's like spending a dollar bill to get three quarters.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-17 07:23pm

If the original Manhattan Project was only $20 billion, that's not going to get us very far today. A single nuclear plant is $3-5 billion.

What we really need is a War on Fossil Fuel equivalent to the Iraq War, which is currently estimated at around $300 billion.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-09-17 11:23pm

There was an article in Car and Driver earlier this year on the energy costs of converting all the gasoline used for transportation to hydrogen. Using DoE and DoT statistics, it was calculated that the US needs about 16 Quads (quadrillion BTUs) worth of gasoline to keep all the cars running. If all the cars were run on hydrogen and did the same work as their gasoline equivalents, the energy used to produce & store that hydrogen works out to something like 32 Quads. The hydrogen economy ends up being about half as efficient as gasoline.

Keep in mind that the US uses about 100 Quads worth of energy every year, with about 7.2 Quads from nuclear. IIRC, there's about 100 nuke stations in the US, going all nuclear to make the hydrogen works out to something like 450 new nuclear generating stations. A couple billion for each station and that's almost a trillion bucks right there, then add in the hydrogen production plants, the compression and/or liquifaction plants, the fill-up stations, tanker trucks & other ways to transport the fuel, and you're looking at several trillion more. I'd ballpark a figure of $5 trillion or so if we're lucky. That's getting close to half the US GDP.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2006-09-18 12:31am

Or we could just go nuclear and electric. That would be a goal worthy of a revived Manhattan project. Of course, it's never going to happen...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-18 01:34am

Going all nuclear would cost a trillion dollars. Even the government takes that kind of money seriously, especially when were $400 billion in the hole annually already. Never mind the political wrangling it would take to build 450 new nuclear power plants.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-09-18 09:37am

Decided to check how accurate Car & Driver's stats were. From here daily US gasoline consumption is 383.3 million gallons a day. There's about 125400 BTUs of energy in each gallon so over a year that works out to 17.5 Quads or so. Car engines are about 25% efficient so that's about 4.4 Quads worth of work.

Current fuel cells are about 60-70% efficient, call it 65%. For 4.4 Quads of work that's 6.7 Quads of Hydrogen. Liquifying H2 which is the only practical way to transport it takes about 40% of the energy content of the H2, so now we're up to 9.5 Quads. H2 evaporates at 4% a day so add that in and let's round it off to 10 Quads. Current electrolysis methods are about 30% efficient so that's about 33 Quads.

450 nuke plants it is. It's going to be a multi-trillion dollar plan to convert to a hydrogen economy.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2006-09-18 09:44am

Well as far as I know, ITER seems like a step in the good direction

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-09-18 03:41pm

Seggybop wrote:What we really need is a War on Fossil Fuel equivalent to the Iraq War, which is currently estimated at around $300 billion.

I don't think a programme riven with rampant cronyism and totally incompetent management will solve the problem.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-18 05:28pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Seggybop wrote:What we really need is a War on Fossil Fuel equivalent to the Iraq War, which is currently estimated at around $300 billion.
I don't think a programme riven with rampant cronyism and totally incompetent management will solve the problem.

Equivalent in expenditure, not execution, obviously. The same resources that have been used on Iraq instead used by a competent government for a worthwhile goal.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-18 07:09pm

Nuclear power supplemented by burning Natural Gas (which yields hydrogen as a byproduct)
With Solar as a point of use supplement and Hydrogen/Solar/Plug-in running cars and other off-grid power needs.

I'll have to do some research+math on the cost/efficiency of that kind of set-up, but some focused research on nuclear and solar power should bring the cost down into a manageable range.
The biggest problem I see is the human element. Dern enviro-nutjobs will protest anything nuclear and have enough capital to make it stick, So on top of the cost of actually implementing a switch away from fossil fuels, we'll have to add the cost of a prodigious public education program to de-demonize nuclear power in the eyes of the public.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-09-18 08:07pm

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:Nuclear power supplemented by burning Natural Gas (which yields hydrogen as a byproduct)
With Solar as a point of use supplement and Hydrogen/Solar/Plug-in running cars and other off-grid power needs.

The last time I checked, burning natural gas produces a mix of CO, CO2, and water, it doesn't make free hydrogen. You can make H2 from natural gas using catalysts and steam reactions, but not by burning it.

As for full electric cars, let's assume the electric motor along with the power grid is about 90% efficient which is actually a bit better than average. The 4.4 Quads calculated earlier becomes 4.9, which works out to 68 new nuke plants, call it 70. Assuming of course that battery problems can be solved, and then there's the problem of upgrading the entire national power grid from the generating station all the way to every home and business. You'll need at least a 240V 50A outlet to charge a car in a reasonable amount of time. Assuming the battery capacity problem is solved it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than going to hydrogen.

DrMckay · Post by **DrMckay** » 2006-09-18 09:34pm

It's too bad that "Nuclear Power" has become a dirty word for the environmentalists, if they pushed for it, and began political "power brokering" (slight pun intended,) I believe more people would take them seriously.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-09-18 10:41pm

One massive problem with the idea is that with the amount of clout petroleum companies have with the US government (or almost any other government, for that matter), any such idea would be crippled before it even has a chance to happen.