Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Lots of information about supply, demand, types of energy sources,
vehicular consumption & pollution, including charts and graphs. HTML
and .PDF formats available:

www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_en ergy_outlook.asp

The company basically says that conventional sources will still
dominate in 2030.

Another prediction made is that hydrogen-fueled cars won't be better
than hybrids, whether in energy consumption or CO2 emissions.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Remember it is official Exxon-Mobil policy that there is no global
warming problem.

If radical changes in CO2 production are necessary, then the final fuel
picture could well change although I agree that solar, wind etc. are
unlikely to be more than 20%.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

In article <1gx7vli.8xstpz787p34N%>,
Neill Massello <> wrote:
>larry moe 'n curly <> wrote:
>
>> Another prediction made is that hydrogen-fueled cars won't be better
>> than hybrids, whether in energy consumption or CO2 emissions.
>
>The only way to get carbon from hydrogen is through fusion. The report's
>"Hybrid Vehicles Have Highest Potential" section uses a "well to wheel"
>approach that attributes "emissions that come from the manufacture of
>hydrogen from primary fuels such as coal or natural gas" to the
>emissions of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As there are lots of possible
>ways to make hydrogen and to capture carbon emissions at the
>manufacturing site, ExxonMobil's estimates about future technology must
>be taken with a spoonful of sulfur -- another of the pollutants that
>could be reduced by using hydrogen for vehicles.
>


It's very reasonable to include those emissions in the impact of hydrogen
powered vehicles-- that's how the hydrogen would be produced. It's fine
to talk about photovoltaics and hydrogen-producing algae, but none of that
is even close to powering a hydrogen-based economy. Solar-based would
require ten thousand square kilometers of solar panels or agriculture or
other conversion technology, according to my BOTE based on 130.7 billion
gallons of gasoline per year in the US, a kilowatt per square meter for
12 hours per day, and which doesn't include clouds or conversion
efficiencies, the energy cost of agriculture or solar panel manufacture,
or non-transportation energy needs.
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

In article <1gx84w6.kcyz41xtw19gN%>,
Neill Massello <> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>
>> It's very reasonable to include those emissions in the impact of hydrogen
>> powered vehicles-- that's how the hydrogen would be produced.
>
>Of course it is, so long as you specify your assumptions about how the
>hydrogen will be produced. The Exxon report doesn't. Some production
>methods produce essentially no carbon emissions. And it doesn't make
>sense to reduce all environmental consequences to carbon emissions
>alone, even though environmentalists these days seem to think -- or at
>least speak -- of nothing besides global warming.

Those other production methods will have approximately no economic impact.

>
>
>> It's fine to talk about photovoltaics and hydrogen-producing algae, but
>> none of that is even close to powering a hydrogen-based economy.
>
>Only fanatics talk about basing the entire economy on hydrogen. The OP
>was referring to transportation, particularly passenger cars, for which
>hydrogen could provide a practical "lingua franca" form of energy
>storage that could be produced from a variety of sources.

130.7 billion gallons of gasoline per year. How are you going to get that
much equivalent in hydrogen without cracking fossil fuels? Do the math,
man! Do the math!


--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1gx84w6.kcyz41xtw19gN%>,
> Neill Massello <> wrote:
>
>>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's very reasonable to include those emissions in the impact of hydrogen
>>>powered vehicles-- that's how the hydrogen would be produced.
>>
>>Of course it is, so long as you specify your assumptions about how the
>>hydrogen will be produced. The Exxon report doesn't. Some production
>>methods produce essentially no carbon emissions. And it doesn't make
>>sense to reduce all environmental consequences to carbon emissions
>>alone, even though environmentalists these days seem to think -- or at
>>least speak -- of nothing besides global warming.
>
>
> Those other production methods will have approximately no economic impact.
>
>
>>
>>>It's fine to talk about photovoltaics and hydrogen-producing algae, but
>>>none of that is even close to powering a hydrogen-based economy.
>>
>>Only fanatics talk about basing the entire economy on hydrogen. The OP
>>was referring to transportation, particularly passenger cars, for which
>>hydrogen could provide a practical "lingua franca" form of energy
>>storage that could be produced from a variety of sources.
>
>
> 130.7 billion gallons of gasoline per year. How are you going to get that
> much equivalent in hydrogen without cracking fossil fuels? Do the math,
> man! Do the math!
>
>
Even if you make hydrogen from oil, natural gas or even biomass, and
stop any associated carbon produced in the process from reaching the
atmosphere, it still takes about as much energy to split off the
hydrogen from whatever it is combined with as you will get back from
burning it later in a car engine. This energy still has to come from
somewhere, probably from electricity produced mainly by burning more
fossil fuels, and the carbon enters the atmosphere at the power station
instead. Wherever you get it from hydrogen is always an intermediate
fuel rather than a primary one and contributes nothing to the energy
shortage or pollution problem.

Also, if you only burn the hydrogen component of a hydrocarbon like oil
or natural gas you will only get a fraction, like a half, of the energy
available from burning the whole thing, carbon as well. This means you
will need about twice as much oil or whatever to meet your energy needs.
This is hardly a solution to the energy shortage, more another problem.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

I guess the only breakthrough here would be in the catalysis area: if
we could find a way to strip the hydrogen out of natural gas more
easily this could save enormous quantities of energy.

Nonetheless I don't think natural gas is going to be cheap in the next
few decades, nor is there a hydrogen distribution infrastructure in
place (and as I am very sure you know, David, hydrogen is a very messy
and difficult stuff to pipe around: the molecule will permeate through
any weak joint or barrier).

So maybe if we had natural gas into car fuel cells. But this
technology is prototype at best. And it only puts off the problem, as
natural gas is finite (and half the world's reserves, I understand, are
in Qatar and Russia, so a long way from the markets that need them).

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

In article <>,
darkness39 <> wrote:
>I guess the only breakthrough here would be in the catalysis area: if
>we could find a way to strip the hydrogen out of natural gas more
>easily this could save enormous quantities of energy.
>
>Nonetheless I don't think natural gas is going to be cheap in the next
>few decades, nor is there a hydrogen distribution infrastructure in
>place (and as I am very sure you know, David, hydrogen is a very messy
>and difficult stuff to pipe around: the molecule will permeate through
>any weak joint or barrier).
>
>So maybe if we had natural gas into car fuel cells. But this
>technology is prototype at best. And it only puts off the problem, as
>natural gas is finite (and half the world's reserves, I understand, are
>in Qatar and Russia, so a long way from the markets that need them).
>

Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport-- a significant portion of
the weight of a vehicle would be in storage tank. Assuming energy is
cheap, as a storage medium I'd prefer something liquid at room
temperature, like maybe methanol, the simplest of alcohals. That has its
own manufacturing and fuel cell problems. And, dang it, the carbon would
still probably come from fossil fuels.

--
"Will we be suturing the anus?"

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Neill Massello wrote:

> larry moe 'n curly <> wrote:
>
> > Another prediction made is that hydrogen-fueled cars won't
> > be better than hybrids, whether in energy consumption or
> > CO2 emissions.
>
> The only way to get carbon from hydrogen is through fusion.
> The report's "Hybrid Vehicles Have Highest Potential"
> section uses a "well to wheel" approach that attributes
> "emissions that come from the manufacture of hydrogen from
> primary fuels such as coal or natural gas" to the emissions
> of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As there are lots of possible
> ways to make hydrogen and to capture carbon emissions at the
> manufacturing site, ExxonMobil's estimates about future
> technology must be taken with a spoonful of sulfur -- another
> of the pollutants that could be reduced by using hydrogen
> for vehicles.

Apparently it's a lot more practical to extract hydrogen from
hydrocarbons than to use a clean method like electrolysis (even NASA
uses something else for its rocket fuel), and according to an article
in www.switchingpowermagazine.com, the whole cycle, from extracting the
hydrogen to propelling the car, is only 20-25% efficient, and a Honda
fuel cell car needs 132 KW-H for 170 miles of travel, compared to 50
KW-H for a battery-powered Volvo.