Then neither ethanol nor hydrogen are fuels. You might want to make that claim but if so you are using the word differently than anyone else out there. So farmers don't grow the corn, and Monsanto does not create the seed? Corn neither grows wild nor just appears spontaneously without seeding. It is planted intentionally in order to capture sunlight and convert water, carbon dioxide, potassium in the soil etc into sugars and starches. Solar panels are manufactured and installed to capture sunlight and convert it into electricity. In both cases, you are intentionally collecting sunlight to do your bidding. Yes, which is why both corn ethanol and solar hydrogen are poor fuels. The intermediate form (food, electricity) is more useful directly. I agree; we will never have a hydrogen economy. If we do have efficient electrolysis/solar in the future we are better off using the Sabatier process to change that hydrogen into methane (natural gas) which we already have pipelines and uses for. Add that to the output of digesters for farm waste and you'd be able to create a significant amount of remewable methane for local use. (And natural gas would continue to be a fuel in that case as well.) Only if you neglect solar input. And if you do, solar hydrogen is also net positive. Including it in one fuel and ignoring it in another fuel is intellectually dishonest. Please be consistent. Here's an article on the efficiency in converting solar energy to hydrogen fuel: ============================================================= Record efficiency for converting solar energy to hydrogen without rare metals By Helen Clark December 8, 2014 Using solar energy to split water into its component parts, thereby allowing the solar energy to be stored as hydrogen fuel, generally involves one of two methods: using photoelectrochemical cells to directly split the water, or using solar cells to produce electricity to power an electrolyzer that separates the water molecules. . . . The team from EPFL's Laboratory of Photonics and Interfaces, led by postdoctoral student Jingshan Luo, achieved a solar energy to hydrogen conversion efficiency of 12.3 percent. ============================================================== And ethanol isn't produced from sunlight, either. It is produced from food, specifically sources of HFCS and starch. That is grown in corn, which is planted in order to convert water, CO2 and soil minerals into sugar. Agreed! You don't need sun-grown sugar to make ethanol; you can synthesize the sugar directly, in which case making ethanol is a purely energy losing proposition. Just as you can make hydrogen from electricity obtained from burning coal, which is also a purely energy losing proposition. And per Billy T's suggestions, corn ethanol isn't a great choice as the feedstock to make ethanol, sugar cane is better.
Basic economics. Supply and demand. http://www.businessweek.com/article...-fracking-boom-survive-with-oil-65-per-barrel Oil is a fair market price. It is not being held artificially high by limiting production. These are the costs of producing a barrel of oil 2007-2009: United States – Average $33.76 On-shore $31.38 Off-shore $51.60 All Other Countries –Average $25.08 Canada $24.76 Africa $45.32 Middle East $16.88 Central & South America $26.64 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6 The reaction if oil stays at this price will be to mothball off-shore production.
The development of shale oil should keep the price of oil permanently below $100. At todays value. One conspiracy theory, possibly true, is that Saudi Arabia is trying to pull the rug from under the shale industry by deliberately reducing the price of oil. Other theories blame the USA or even Russia, with convoluted logic. It is probably none of them, but simply a matter of market forces. There is enough shale oil and gas to supply the world with its energy needs for at least another century. At this moment, the Green River deposit in the USA is not cost effective to exploit, and shale companies must be squealing. But with oil at $100, it could supply the US for hundreds of years. I believe the break even is about $60. Technological improvements will improve on that.
I don't think that this price suits anyone. China possibly? Or manufacturers of gas guzzlers. If it doesn't suit the USA, then their "friend" Saudi Arabia could see the other side of America if they don't agree to cut production. It could be: "Hey, something's just occurred to us. You support radical Islam, don't you? And all those people who killed Americans on 9/11, they came from your country. Why didn't we notice that before?"
No, an experiment comes long before a feasiblity study. But yes, the experiment had a positive outcome. However, I doubt it will ever prove feasible and don't see it ever being deployed.
Well by Saudis, who want Syria and Iran out of the political picture as well as a halt of a Russian support
We (i.e. The US) did notice that. But there is a vast difference between the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the terrorist who carried out 9/11 and those who finance them. The Saudi royal family has something like 15,000 members. And actually, lower oil prices benefit all oil consumers regardless of geographical location. Our "friend" Saudi Arabia has always acted in their best interests regardless of what the US wants or doesn't want. The Saudi's are sophisticated players. They are no one's fool. The US doesn't dictate oil prices. Lower oil prices are very beneficial to the US economy as a whole. But lower oil prices will mean trouble for domestic oil producers.
It's difficult to say. As price go lower consumption will increase. Goldman Sachs thinks oil will average in the low 40's. We are there now. If Iranian sanctions are lifted, potentially a million more barrels per day could eventually hit the market. That would be about 1 to 1.5 percent of global demand. It will take some time to ramp up production and begin exports. Iran thinks it will take 2 month to be back to pre-sanction oil production levels. I think that is overly optimistic. I am thinking more like 6 months to a year.
Oddly enough, the question of whether the 9/11 attack was financed by prominent Saudis came back into the news yesterday. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/w...-9-11-families-lawsuit-back-in-spotlight.html
