$100 barrel - US Oil Industry needs to start helping instead of hurting people. The best example of energy independence and cooperation is Venezuela’s Citgo who initiated the heating oil program late last year, in an effort to help low-income families in the U.S. to cope with the cold winter and high oil costs.
The Venezuelan government says the program costs Citgo relatively little because the oil is being supplied directly, without middlemen, who usually make substantial profits. Also, Chavez proposed a new phase of the program, which would help provide employment opportunities in beneficiary communities..
Chavez said that the program was not designed to buy support in the U.S., as many critics claimed, but it is rather an example of corporate responsibility because Citgo, which is now making large profits in the U.S., is now giving back to communities in which it does business.
“Citgo has done good business in the U.S. We believe companies, along with making a profit need to have social responsibilities for the people they sell to,” said Chavez. Chavez pointed out that in the 20 years Venezuela has owned Citgo, it never paid dividends to the Venezuelan state. Only in 2004 and 2005 has it begun to repatriate some of its profits to Venezuela.
Also, the program is an example of his government’s efforts to move towards socialism, in which countries relate to each other on the basis of cooperation, solidarity, and complementarity.
If everyone were allowed to divide all their expenses by 10 including their paychecks or just move the decimal point one place to the left then we would just go back in time to 1972.
In 1972: AVG NJ Homes $40,000.00 Movie ticket $1.00 Candy Bar $.10 Gal of Gas $.30 Avg Salary $75.00/Wk
Today 2006 AVG NJ Homes $400,000.00 Movie ticket $10.00 Candy Bar $1.00 Gal of Gas $3.00 Avg Salary $750.00/Wk
Gasoline prices are in their prospective order. It is all relative!!! History repeats itself so stop crying. If many people are driving in these huge trucks with $3.00 + gal of gas prices, then what will they be driving if gas prices went down to a buck. A Mack truck? Gas under $3.00 is cheap.
"Americans should be prudent in their use of energy during the course of the next few weeks. Don't buy gas if you don't need it." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1, 2005
I agree that calling driving whatever you want is your choice....but it is definitely not a right. IT is a choice of life. Many people have turned their backs on cars...and live without having to deal with cars and its associated problems. I am not saying that all people can make the switch now...but it should be on the back of all our minds...at least to decrease usage.
I agree on your post about blame...where you correctly pointed out that it is easier to blame car makers for our choices.
YOu offered a good frugal solution too....
keep up the good proactive mentality.....
but it is OK to vent too.....there are problems in all aspects of this problem.
That's interesting but based on historic inflation adjustments for that time period what cost $1 in 1972 should cost slightly less than $5 today. I am also skeptical about average wages increasing 10x in this period.
I do agree that given the increased demand for gas it is still surprisingly affordable. Not to mention there are far more fuel efficient vehicles today than there were in 1972. The most troubling figure you've listed is average home price. I think that our manipulation of the housing market has made it a lot tougher for a first time home buyer.
Interesting stats. I don't see any decline in wages corresponding to free trade events like NAFTA or our relatively recent huge trade imbalance with China. My guess is that the period where real wages eroded was a result of women entering the work force en masse.
The fact remains that wages haven't kept up with the real cost of living for your middle american. I couldn't imagine living in California or the NE making only $60,000. I'd have to get one of the gimmicks called a interest only loan just to own a home. :sick:
The problem with fuel prices is that we pay more for everything not just the extra dollars to drive. Everything in America is fuel dependant, every company, every job, every bit of store bought food. Here is a farmer talking about his fuel prices on NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5349318
How much have we spent on our war on oil er.. terror. Say 1Trillion= 1,000 gal fuel per person US= say $3,333. What is we had put all that money into photovoltaic? We would have been 1/15 the way to solving our problem. We would be on our way to using H in combustion motors.
If we seriously power down we may get a few more years, but the problem will not go away. There will continue to be growing demand and shrinking supplies and prices will continue to rise.
It's a good time to start gardening. PS if you think ethanol can keep you driving, forget about it. Growing corn= 10 calories in, one calorie out. You would have a better chance getting gas from sand tar. brah ha ha!
Individual wages may not have kept up but I believe household income has more than kept up as a result of most families becoming dual income over the past 30 years. For the single guy/gal at least you have the benefit of not having to pay for kids, hopefully.
Gas is $3 a gallon and the politicians are competing for Whiner of the Year honors. There are too many nominees.
Here in Michigan, we've got Gov. Jennifer Granholm, whose election-year solution is a petition drive that calls for capping the profits of Big Oil even as the state continues to collect more dough on each gallon of gas sold.
In Washington, we've got U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, whose election-year solution is to revoke the tax breaks for Big Oil and offer rebates to taxpayers pinched by rising fuel bills.
Across the aisle, we've got a Republican congressional leadership that spies a mid-term campaign cudgel for Democrats so it's pledging the full force of the federal alphabet agencies -- DoJ, FTC, FBI, you name it -- to ferret out price gougers. Good luck.
At the White House, we've got a president who laments America's "addiction to oil" temporarily suspending deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and easing environmental restrictions on boutique gasoline formulas so American drivers can keep feeding their addiction to oil.
Fingering the culprits
Are there any grown-ups in government willing to tell voters how the world really works?
Lee Raymond, the retired chairman of Exxon Mobil now swimming in his $400 million pot of black gold, didn't wake up one morning, decide to fleece the American public and make his industry a political whipping boy. He had lots of help.
Credit the president of Iran, whose nuclear brinksmanship should scare the wits out of anyone reading his outrage of the day. If I was trading oil futures and the president of one of the world's largest oil producing nations kept sounding like a messianic Frankenstein of anti-Semitism and nuclear scare-mongering, I'd bid the barrels higher, too.
Blame Hurricane Katrina, whose destruction of the Gulf Coast still has key parts of the nation's refining capacity offline. Adding to the strain is a congressionally mandated shift to ethanol additives from MBTE, a move ethanol producers cannot quickly meet, especially in densely populated coastal cities.
Welcome to the future
Denounce the Chinese, whose gangbuster economy and hyper-industrialization are sucking on global oil supplies at record rates. You think it's bad now? Just give ol' General Motors and its rivals a few more years to pump more cars into the burgeoning Chinese middle class. It'll give a whole new meaning to the term "global demand."
All of which raises several points you won't hear from timorous politicians because it would mean telling would-be voters what they don't want to hear.
Higher gas prices are likely to stick around because Middle East instability and a growing China don't mix with arbitrary rule making in Washington and blanket environmental opposition to domestic exploration for more oil.
Second, oil companies aren't the only ones who profit from higher gas prices. Government does, too, until falling demand offsets the rise in tax revenue.
The choice: Suck it up or buy less and take the bus to avoid getting hosed at the pump. In the real world, there's no human right to cheap gas -- even in America.
China, India and other economies are growing at a very fast phase and increasing the global demand for the "black juice". USA, China, India, France, Russia, and other large countries are fighting for control over the oil reserves. This of course is very strategic for all of them, since they do not think about oil for civilian vehicles - believe me!
How come nobody mentions the maintenance and demand that all the "very inneficient" war machinery requires. Think about the millions of gallons of oil being wasted daily by tanks, battleships, submarines, war planes, etc.
Perhaps people is looking at the wrong places for blame !
Made the right decision 14 years ago to stretch myself and buy a house in the city. I had to settle for a smaller and older house compared to spacious and newer home in the suburbs. Today, I can drive or take the bus or subway to work. I have many options and don't actually care if I no longer can afford a car. In a family of four we only have one vehicle that is shared. Everyone goes to work, school and university with public transportation and we are all within 20 minutes from our destinations as well.
Sometimes you have to plan and spend more today to gain later.....
you: My guess is that the period where real wages eroded was a result of women entering the work force en masse.
me: I don't have any data on that; but I did want to say is those wages over the years were for individuals. As you point out many more women work now, and thus family incomes are much higher than during the 1960's.
Very few of my family and our neighbors bought new cars, took cruises and jet-vacations, or even ate out as much as people do now. People are living a more affluent lifestyle now, and have come to expect that as some sort of birthright as an American.
you: Think about the millions of gallons of oil being wasted daily by tanks, battleships, submarines, war planes, etc.
me: The military uses quite a bit whether they are patrolling in iraq or training in the desert, or just giving pilots flight-time. Submarines and carriers are mostly nuclear.
Congratulations though on disproving the theory that you need gas and a car. People say they have no option to commute many miles, but never admit they could have lived closer, or decided against taking the job. Many people CHOOSE long commutes because they LIKE their current residence, and don't want to compromise. In the last year, I've read articles on people living in the Poconos (PA) and commuting to Manhattan. The reasons they give is because housing is more affordable and they get a rural lifestyle. Great, except you are using energy and congesting the roads , trains, buses, and subways unnecessarily. All those modes of transport use energy. I'm sure these people could find an apartment somewhere in NYC for what they pay for their house in the Poconos + all those transport costs. This is all optional choices that many (not all) make for they want to live in a certain area or house, or don't want to get another job closer to home.
Personally I'm going to reduce my 60 mile commute to 3 miles in a few months. I'm selling my house and moving into the closest apartment complex to work. I'll have the option to drive, or bike.
I am surprised that "NOBODY" has commented on the post below:
We are getting screwed by big business and by a few ultra wealthy families who belong to a secret society who own and control the big banking houses and big businesses here in this country and abroad. These same individuals also have influence and control the U.S. economy and the world economy, and the world's banking system. Their ultimate goal is to "control" everything and everyone and to make all people their slaves for their own financial gains. These individuals only believe in accumulating "money" and "wealth" for themselves. It's all about the money. These individuals want to wipe out and to bring down the middle class to their knees to the verge of extinction for their own financial gains. They will do anything and everything to attain this goal. Their contribution to society has only been to cause financial turmoil around the world by bankrupting nations and their hard working inhabitants. Globalization is used as their secret weapon for the destruction and enslavement of mankind. They are damaging our great nation and the many other nations of the world. Their actions towards increasing oil prices will eventually lead to the destruction of our standard of living and financial well being and will eventually wipe us out as a middle class society.
you: We would be on our way to using H in combustion motors.
me: it is well understood how to make hydrogen. But hydrogen is not something that can be mined; it is manufactured. To manufacture the hydrogen that you are going to use for energy in your car, requires more energy than you get. Where do you get the energy to make the hydrogen? The only major (>10%) sources of energy we have now are coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear?
you: You would have a better chance getting gas from sand tar. brah ha ha!
me: How are the companies doing it, staying in business if it is not feasible. I think if you look at some of those companies they're returning a nice profit, with the current oil prices. The good news is that if prices stay as current or go up, there will be a LOT of investing in the oil shale/tar conversion. This will put a cap on how high, naturally occurring oil will go.
Ok. But I thought the plot was that this secret society of wealthy families was trying to make everyone else obese, by keeping the price of sugar and animal fat products low, so that we wouldn't care about anything except our next fix of bacon cheeseburgers and Frostees.
1 barrel makes 1.5, conventional 1:30, plus it's a stupid idea, just pie in the sky. even if their numbers could play out it would not be even a hint of enough to tide the rise of prices.
I remember back in 1972 gas prices were .30 a gal. Then in the next couple of years the prices started creeping up .40 a gal, then ,.45 & .50. People were squawking. So, they got rid of their big boat cars and settled for smaller economical cars. It is happening all over again. Every other car on the road today is a big truck.
Another story: I was paying rent in 1972 for $125/mo which by the way that same apartment is renting today for 10x that (1250/mo). I decided to buy my first home for $40,000. My neighbor in the apartment said I was crazy because prices were too high. He was going to "wait" until prices come down before he buys a home. Today that first home I bought is now worth $400,000. As for my neighbor, he is still waiting. He still lives in the apt. and paying rent. Could had have the house paid off. But my point is, is that history repeats itself. Gas prices are just relative to everything else. Sure we are going to have spikes in prices, like housing, gas, milk etc. but it all evens out. So everyone stop CRYING, learn from history and stop blaming the president whether it's a rebublican or democrat. It is just the way our economy works.
If everyone were allowed to cut and divide all their expenses by 10 including their paychecks or just move the decimal point one place to the left then we would just go back in time to 1972.
In 1972: AVG NJ Homes $40,000.00 Movie ticket $1.00 Candy Bar $.10 Gal of Gas $.30 Avg Salary $75.00/Wk Oil Co. profits 1/10 of what it is today
Today 2006 AVG NJ Homes $400,000.00 Movie ticket $10.00 Candy Bar $1.00 Gal of Gas $3.00 Avg Salary $750.00/Wk
Gasoline prices are in their prospective order. It is all relative!!! History repeats itself so stop crying. If many people are driving in these huge trucks with $3.00 + gal of gas prices, then what will they be driving if gas prices went down to a buck. A Mack truck? Gas under $3.00 is cheap.
me: sure there's energy there; but since those energy plants don't exist or may not be feasible, you might as well say we make the hydrogen from burning manure.
I got a great Idea. I worked at a Nuclear Power Plant before my current position and what gas do you think is produced from those Nuke Plants ?
If you guessed Hydrogen, Bingo you are correct. Their is enough wasted hydrogen floating out of those plants to power millions of automobiles and yes that gas could be captured and put to good use.
The by-product of boiling water turned into steam from fission (heat-source) isn't Hydrogen ? I guess I better take chemistry 101 again is what you are saying ? :confuse:
Or you could post a link that explains the process by which pure hydrogen is spewed from our nuclear power plants. That is not mentioned as a possible source in the following government site.
Almost all of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. today is by steam reforming of natural gas and for the near term, this method of production will continue to dominate. Researchers at NREL are developing a wide range of advanced processes for producing hydrogen economically from sustainable resources. These R&D efforts fall into five major categories:
Biological Water Splitting Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting Reforming of Biomass and Wastes Solar Thermal Water Splitting Renewable Electrolysis
People are living a more affluent lifestyle now, and have come to expect that as some sort of birthright as an American.
Yes, you are right but today it is done with smoke and mirrors. Today people are spending more than they are earning. Foreclosures and bankruptcy are at an all time high. Years ago people at least had a net worth, lived modestly and slept good at night.
>>sure there's energy there; but since those energy plants don't exist or may not be feasible, you might as well say we make the hydrogen from burning manure
Well how much renewable energy generation would 1 trillion dollars buy, because that's what we just spent going after a commodity that will become increasingly expensive. Maybe it would cost 15 trillion to have self sufficient energy build out, but what are we going to have if we don't?
on your other point, jobs are good. A lot of people had jobs at Enron too. We could debate shale, I see it as an avoidable environmental catastrophe.
That is a good site that refutes your claim that we are wasting hydrogen from our nuclear power plants. As you can see they will be building a new type that heats up enough to produce hydrogen by electrolysis. You can bet that nuclear power plant will not be in the USA. Probably Japan or the EU. Will not do US much good if we continue our non nuclear power plant course.
Producing hydrogen with the use of water-cooled, thermal nuclear reactors. The 443 nuclear power plants producing electricity at present around the world are water-cooled, thermal reactors. Off-peak electricity from these reactors could be used to power electrolysers on-site now and eventually off-site. The coolant water temperature does not rise above 400 degrees Centigrade, too low for high-temperature electrolysis or for use in the thermochemical process that directly splits the water molecule.
Producing hydrogen with the use of gas-cooled, high-temperature nuclear reactors. A demonstration gas-cooled, high-temperature reactor is expected to be operating by 2007. The coolant temperature will be around 900 degrees Centigrade, and the reactor is intended to produce hydrogen through high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting.
CLEAN HYDROGEN SOURCE – A new generation of nuclear power plants may provide an energy-efficient, greenhouse-gas-free source of hydrogen.
For more than 100 years, visionaries have periodically espoused the dream of an economy driven by hydrogen - an efficient fuel that emits only water when burned. Today, their vision may be on the verge of reality: Energy policymakers around the world are increasingly recognizing the potential of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation, which accounts for more than one third of the nation's annual energy consumption.
One key problem that must be solved first is to develop a source and distribution system for the massive amount of new hydrogen that will be needed. A number of new and existing technologies are under study, but one strong candidate for providing hydrogen in future decades is nuclear energy.
Heightened interest in hydrogen as a widespread fuel is driven by environmental, political and technological factors:
international concerns about the air pollution and greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels; the political vulnerability of world oil supplies; and advances in fuel-cell technology that have made hydrogen-powered electric vehicles a real near-term possibility. Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Their only waste product is water vapor. In the last five years, their power density - the ratio of power output to size - has increased ten-fold while their costs have decreased ten-fold. Every major automobile manufacturer has a program to develop fuel-cell-powered vehicles, and many experts predict that hydrogen-powered electric cars will appear on American roads in a few years.
But in the longer term, full conversion to hydrogen-based transportation will take decades, if only because of the enormous quantities of hydrogen required to fuel the dream.
"Americans drive nearly three trillion miles a year," said David Lewis, director of Argonne's Chemical Technology Division. "Even if you assume that electric cars will be twice as efficient as today's internal combustion engines, you'd still need 34 million metric tons of hydrogen to cover that many miles. That's a 70 percent increase in worldwide production just to handle this nation's current transportation needs. Add in the rest of the world, and the numbers become truly daunting."
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but hydrogen gas, the form needed to power fuel cells, is rare in nature and must be manufactured. Current world production is about 50 metric tons per year, mainly as a feedstock for the oil and fertilizer industries.
About 95 percent of hydrogen is manufactured with an efficient, economical steam-reforming process that releases hydrogen from methane or natural gas. But a key goal for hydrogen power is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and here steam reforming has a problem: to create steam, the plants burn natural gas, which emits carbon dioxide.
"Using steam reforming to produce hydrogen for transportation," said Argonne engineer Leon Walters, "would eliminate some carbon-dioxide. But wouldn't it be better to manufacture hydrogen without making any greenhouse gas?"
Splitting water One possibility is electrolysis, the use of electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Electrolysis has been used for more than 100 years to manufacture pure hydrogen and oxygen.
"If electric cars will be twice as efficient as cars with internal combustion engines, then electrolytically produced hydrogen is already close to competitive with dollar-fifty-a-gallon gasoline," said Walters. "Centralized hydrogen electrolyzers could be installed at corner gas stations and a home refueling station could soon be as close as the electrical outlet in your garage."
Large electrolysis units are operating around the world in demonstrations of central fueling for public transportation and auxiliary energy for large buildings.
But to displace the nation's automobile transportation fuel with electrolytically generated hydrogen would require 241 gigawatts of new generating capacity. "That's the equivalent of 241 modern 1,000-megawatt power plants," Walters said. "Clearly, it won't happen in only five or 10 years."
Where would all this additional electricity come from?
"Renewable energy technologies - wind, solar and geothermal - can make an important contribution," he said. "These technologies tend to be too intermittent to provide reliable base-load electricity, but they can generate hydrogen and store it when the wind is blowing or the sun is out. On the other hand, they are too diffuse to generate 241 gigawatts of new capacity. You'd need 640,000 windmills, for example, which would occupy a total land area of 71,000 square miles - nearly the size of Ohio and Indiana combined.
you: Well how much renewable energy generation would 1 trillion dollars buy, because that's what we just spent going after a commodity that will become increasingly expensive.
me: I assume you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. First Afghanistan has no oil to speak of. So hole #1 in your theory. And iraq was already pumping oil with Saddam in power, which we could buy. We still buy the oil that is produced from Iraq, and we are not going to occupy Iraq forever. Iraq is not becoming the 51st state like Texas did years ago. The war was about preventing Saddam Hussein from using the oil revenues to rebuild his military and to exact revenge on his neighbors at some point in the future; which might have endangered oil supplies to the world.
As for how many renewable energy plants could be built with $1 trillion; a lot I guess. But at least here in New England, no one wants one. You've heard Nantucket Sound is no good for a windfarm? Mountain tops are no good? Both ruin the view and are dangerous to birds. Solar power is of little use being this far north, and when its cloudy for 10 days or so what then? And I would guess electric companies would be putting up all sorts of tidal-energy stations since there is no fuel cost. Explain why electric companies would want to have higher costs instead of using the tides if this is practical.
That's a real problem, better get started. In ten years maybe we could have a .25 what we needed. Better than buying 1 million dollar munitions. Or sitting around saying everything is business as usual, just big corporate greed ripping off little old me, prices will go back down like they always do.
Thanks for the article. It supports what I just said that you need to use a lot of energy to make the electricity to create hydrogen. Hydrogen is nothing more than a fluid-battery. You can never create more energy than you start with. If you want to create an amount of hydrogen = 1,000 joules, the laws of thermodynamics state that you will have to use > 1,000 joules to create it.
If we want to run hydrogen factories around the country every day which is what the economy requires, since storage is difficult and expensive, you can't use wind and solar which may not be available for days. Plus the land needed would be immense. You burn coal, oil, or natural gas, or use nuclear plants to produce that amount of electricity day-after-day.
Hydrogen is nothing more than a liquid-battery of energy which is created by using a larger amount of energy. It is a conversion of energy from 1 form to another (with a net loss due to entropy), not a creation of energy!
If we want to make good use of a trillion $'s, we could do a Manhattan project on fusion energy, rather than go at the pace where we will have it in 50 - 100 years.
Personally I'm going to reduce my 60 mile commute to 3 miles in a few months. I'm selling my house and moving into the closest apartment complex to work. I'll have the option to drive, or bike.
I see we are in agreement over the gas usage issue. Last July, we moved closer to the kids schools...so eliminated a 3 hour ( 2 round trips) communte per day....now it is only 3 minutes to the school. My commute increased from 20 minutes to 30 min...but it is all freeway....so we still win.
I am thinking about buying a sports car that saves gas (oxymoron ?) , a rebuilt 944 turbo....but may settle for a Prius...?? decisions ....
wife says the prius drives lousy. I like the 944 turbo....and it does get up to 20 mpg city, 26 highway...but the prius does better.
>>Explain why electric companies would want to have higher costs instead of using the tides if this is practical.
Actually if they are run like public companies they are by law only able to do things in the share holders interest, so they can't do it if it is more expensive (not practical.) That's why they are not going to save us, I can tell you. Ditto the oil company.
How's it gonna look up your way with no heat? That's what I want to know. We should try and take care of our environment, our home. Hmm, if I was a bird, beat down by a prop or smeared to death in oil.. that's a toughie.
Oregon state has impressive wave power generation working. You could only see that with a telescope I reckon. Regards
you: ... just big corporate greed ripping off little old me, prices will go back down like they always do.
me: Or as Highender and I and others have inferred and stated explicitly: 1) there is not enough oil/gasoline available for everyone to have as much as they want, 2) because everyone can't afford gasoline but wants a car and that gasoline, there's competition.
So if 500 million people out of the 6 billion people in the world have enough $ to buy gas regularly, you have to make sure you stay in that group of 500 million people. There are already many Americans who aren't in that top 500 million. If your income is not going up as fast as others in the world, or someone in China is willing to pay $3.25/gal even if they only make $10K, and you're only willing to pay $3.00/gal, you're out of luck. Someone complaining about their need to commute long distances because they don't like the housing near work isn't going to bring much sympathy.
One of the things that isn't discussed much here is that the strength of our currency affects the price of gasoline. When the $ is getting weaker as it has over the last few years, that means people in other countries have more buying power for oil. If the dollar loses 10% against the Euro or Yen, and OPEC sells in $'s they are going to want to raise prices 10% so they sell their oil for the same number of Euros, Yen ...
I work for a company that researches energy and particular new energy. Generation 4 reactors fusion, biodiesel, ect. While your post is insightful electrolysis is a horribly inefficient way to produce hydrogen and it does not have the benefit of the economy of size. With most manufacturing plants the more of something you make the more efficiently you can make it. Not so with electrolysis.
In order to produce enough hydrogen to satisfy the fuel hungry american society we would have to build new reactors and dedicate them specifically for the production of hydrogen. Stay with me for a minute.
The efficiency of a nuclear power plant is at best and most of the losses are due to excess heat 50% efficiency of electrolysis is approximately 85% I have not idea the what the transportation of hydrogen will be but it will probably be stored in a solid either ceramic beds and hydride bed (lets just say for ever 10000 units produced 1 is used to transport it to your filing station) 99.99% I have no idea what the efficiency is for a fuel cell but i know that there is not way that is is better than a reactor so lets just say 49%
That brings the entire system to a grand total of about 20% efficiency and those are really really conservative estimates.
Here is the basic concept. All nuclear reactor produces heat not electricity and that heat is used to boil water which turns a turbine which makes electricity. The newest reactors work hotter than ever, because maximum effiency is equal to 1-th/tl. The hotter your hot temp the more efficient you can be.
So your reactor produces huge amounts of heat instead of using this to boil water you use the really hot stuff to run the sulfur-iodine cycle, which produced hydrogen at approximately 50% effeicincy. After that is finished you use the lower grade heat to run a steam turbine to make electricity. Now you have a reactor system that produced electricity at about 50% and hydrogen. You will not get as much electricity out of this reactor as you would one that was dedicated to electricity and not as much hydrogen as an electrolysis plant however people are not going to stop using electricity.
The immediate need to is get away from oil. Nuclear is an attractive alternative for power for our next generation but in another 100 years our grandchildren will be having the same conversation about what to do about the uranium shortage. After all the world only has so much radioactive uranium.
This debate will continue in one form or another until we as a world (americans particularly) decide to limit our use of energy and produce our energy from truly renewable sources ie fusion, solar, wind, agricultural, geothermal and so on.
Sorry about the long post but anytime that someone talks about electrolysis it aggravates me.
Comments
The Venezuelan government says the program costs Citgo relatively little because the oil is being supplied directly, without middlemen, who usually make substantial profits. Also, Chavez proposed a new phase of the program, which would help provide employment opportunities in beneficiary communities..
Chavez said that the program was not designed to buy support in the U.S., as many critics claimed, but it is rather an example of corporate responsibility because Citgo, which is now making large profits in the U.S., is now giving back to communities in which it does business.
“Citgo has done good business in the U.S. We believe companies, along with making a profit need to have social responsibilities for the people they sell to,” said Chavez. Chavez pointed out that in the 20 years Venezuela has owned Citgo, it never paid dividends to the Venezuelan state. Only in 2004 and 2005 has it begun to repatriate some of its profits to Venezuela.
Also, the program is an example of his government’s efforts to move towards socialism, in which countries relate to each other on the basis of cooperation, solidarity, and complementarity.
In 1972:
AVG NJ Homes $40,000.00
Movie ticket $1.00
Candy Bar $.10
Gal of Gas $.30
Avg Salary $75.00/Wk
Today 2006
AVG NJ Homes $400,000.00
Movie ticket $10.00
Candy Bar $1.00
Gal of Gas $3.00
Avg Salary $750.00/Wk
Gasoline prices are in their prospective order. It is all relative!!! History repeats itself so stop crying. If many people are driving in these huge trucks with $3.00 + gal of gas prices, then what will they be driving if gas prices went down to a buck. A Mack truck?
Gas under $3.00 is cheap.
Rocky
:mad:
Rocky
I agree that calling driving whatever you want is your choice....but it is definitely not a right. IT is a choice of life. Many people have turned their backs on cars...and live without having to deal with cars and its associated problems. I am not saying that all people can make the switch now...but it should be on the back of all our minds...at least to decrease usage.
I agree on your post about blame...where you correctly pointed out that it is easier to blame car makers for our choices.
YOu offered a good frugal solution too....
keep up the good proactive mentality.....
but it is OK to vent too.....there are problems in all aspects of this problem.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
I do agree that given the increased demand for gas it is still surprisingly affordable. Not to mention there are far more fuel efficient vehicles today than there were in 1972. The most troubling figure you've listed is average home price. I think that our manipulation of the housing market has made it a lot tougher for a first time home buyer.
1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers
Year
Real $
Change
1964
302.52
1965
310.46
2.62%
1966
312.83
0.76%
1967
311.30
-0.49%
1968
315.37
1.31%
1969
316.93
0.49%
1970
312.94
-1.26%
1971
318.05
1.63%
1972
331.59
4.26%
1973
331.39
-0.06%
1974
314.94
-4.96%
1975
305.16
-3.11%
1976
309.61
1.46%
1977
310.99
0.45%
1978
310.41
-0.19%
1979
298.87
-3.72%
1980
281.27
-5.89%
1981
277.35
-1.39%
1982
272.74
-1.66%
1983
277.50
1.75%
1984
279.22
0.62%
1985
276.23
-1.07%
1986
276.11
-0.04%
1987
272.88
-1.17%
1988
270.32
-0.94%
1989
267.27
-1.13%
1990
262.43
-1.81%
1991
258.34
-1.56%
1992
257.95
-0.15%
1993
258.12
0.07%
1994
259.97
0.72%
1995
258.43
-0.59%
1996
259.58
0.44%
1997
265.22
2.17%
1998
271.87
2.51%
1999
274.64
1.02%
2000
275.62
0.36%
2001
275.38
-0.09%
2002
278.91
1.28%
2003
279.94
0.37%
2004
277.57
-0.84%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Rocky
unfortunately, there will always be people stuck in dead end jobs....with no where to go and no pay increases once it reaches a max ceiling.
Gas , though about the same price in real terms as it was in 1982.....will still carry a sticker shock to many.
So tonys5 and you have correctly pointed out the problem....
Rocky
3.20 premium
oly WA
The problem with fuel prices is that we pay more for everything not just the extra dollars to drive. Everything in America is fuel dependant, every company, every job, every bit of store bought food. Here is a farmer talking about his fuel prices on NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5349318
How much have we spent on our war on oil er.. terror. Say 1Trillion= 1,000 gal fuel per person US= say $3,333. What is we had put all that money into photovoltaic? We would have been 1/15 the way to solving our problem. We would be on our way to using H in combustion motors.
If we seriously power down we may get a few more years, but the problem will not go away. There will continue to be growing demand and shrinking supplies and prices will continue to rise.
It's a good time to start gardening.
PS if you think ethanol can keep you driving, forget about it. Growing corn= 10 calories in, one calorie out. You would have a better chance getting gas from sand tar. brah ha ha!
Rocky
Here in Michigan, we've got Gov. Jennifer Granholm, whose election-year solution is a petition drive that calls for capping the profits of Big Oil even as the state continues to collect more dough on each gallon of gas sold.
In Washington, we've got U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, whose election-year solution is to revoke the tax breaks for Big Oil and offer rebates to taxpayers pinched by rising fuel bills.
Across the aisle, we've got a Republican congressional leadership that spies a mid-term campaign cudgel for Democrats so it's pledging the full force of the federal alphabet agencies -- DoJ, FTC, FBI, you name it -- to ferret out price gougers. Good luck.
At the White House, we've got a president who laments America's "addiction to oil" temporarily suspending deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and easing environmental restrictions on boutique gasoline formulas so American drivers can keep feeding their addiction to oil.
Fingering the culprits
Are there any grown-ups in government willing to tell voters how the world really works?
Lee Raymond, the retired chairman of Exxon Mobil now swimming in his $400 million pot of black gold, didn't wake up one morning, decide to fleece the American public and make his industry a political whipping boy. He had lots of help.
Credit the president of Iran, whose nuclear brinksmanship should scare the wits out of anyone reading his outrage of the day. If I was trading oil futures and the president of one of the world's largest oil producing nations kept sounding like a messianic Frankenstein of anti-Semitism and nuclear scare-mongering, I'd bid the barrels higher, too.
Blame Hurricane Katrina, whose destruction of the Gulf Coast still has key parts of the nation's refining capacity offline. Adding to the strain is a congressionally mandated shift to ethanol additives from MBTE, a move ethanol producers cannot quickly meet, especially in densely populated coastal cities.
Welcome to the future
Denounce the Chinese, whose gangbuster economy and hyper-industrialization are sucking on global oil supplies at record rates. You think it's bad now? Just give ol' General Motors and its rivals a few more years to pump more cars into the burgeoning Chinese middle class. It'll give a whole new meaning to the term "global demand."
All of which raises several points you won't hear from timorous politicians because it would mean telling would-be voters what they don't want to hear.
Higher gas prices are likely to stick around because Middle East instability and a growing China don't mix with arbitrary rule making in Washington and blanket environmental opposition to domestic exploration for more oil.
Second, oil companies aren't the only ones who profit from higher gas prices. Government does, too, until falling demand offsets the rise in tax revenue.
The choice: Suck it up or buy less and take the bus to avoid getting hosed at the pump. In the real world, there's no human right to cheap gas -- even in America.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060426/AUTO02/604260369/- 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
phase and increasing the global demand for the "black juice".
USA, China, India, France, Russia, and other large countries are fighting for control over the oil reserves. This of course is very strategic for all of them, since they do not think about oil for civilian vehicles - believe me!
How come nobody mentions the maintenance and demand that all the "very inneficient" war machinery requires.
Think about the millions of gallons of oil being wasted daily by tanks, battleships, submarines, war planes, etc.
Perhaps people is looking at the wrong places for blame !
Made the right decision 14 years ago to stretch myself and buy a house in the city. I had to settle for a smaller and older house compared to spacious and newer home in the suburbs.
Today, I can drive or take the bus or subway to work. I have many options and don't actually care if I no longer can afford a car. In a family of four we only have one vehicle that is shared. Everyone goes to work, school and university with public transportation and we are all within 20 minutes from our destinations as well.
Sometimes you have to plan and spend more today to gain later.....
Instant gratification cost a lot of money !
By the way......who needs gas! LOL
me: I don't have any data on that; but I did want to say is those wages over the years were for individuals. As you point out many more women work now, and thus family incomes are much higher than during the 1960's.
Very few of my family and our neighbors bought new cars, took cruises and jet-vacations, or even ate out as much as people do now. People are living a more affluent lifestyle now, and have come to expect that as some sort of birthright as an American.
me: The military uses quite a bit whether they are patrolling in iraq or training in the desert, or just giving pilots flight-time. Submarines and carriers are mostly nuclear.
Congratulations though on disproving the theory that you need gas and a car. People say they have no option to commute many miles, but never admit they could have lived closer, or decided against taking the job. Many people CHOOSE long commutes because they LIKE their current residence, and don't want to compromise. In the last year, I've read articles on people living in the Poconos (PA) and commuting to Manhattan. The reasons they give is because housing is more affordable and they get a rural lifestyle. Great, except you are using energy and congesting the roads , trains, buses, and subways unnecessarily. All those modes of transport use energy. I'm sure these people could find an apartment somewhere in NYC for what they pay for their house in the Poconos + all those transport costs. This is all optional choices that many (not all) make for they want to live in a certain area or house, or don't want to get another job closer to home.
Personally I'm going to reduce my 60 mile commute to 3 miles in a few months. I'm selling my house and moving into the closest apartment complex to work. I'll have the option to drive, or bike.
We are getting screwed by big business and by a few ultra wealthy families who belong to a secret society who own and control the big banking houses and big businesses here in this country and abroad. These same individuals also have influence and control the U.S. economy and the world economy, and the world's banking system. Their ultimate goal is to "control" everything and everyone and to make all people their slaves for their own financial gains. These individuals only believe in accumulating "money" and "wealth" for themselves. It's all about the money. These individuals want to wipe out and to bring down the middle class to their knees to the verge of extinction for their own financial gains. They will do anything and everything to attain this goal. Their contribution to society has only been to cause financial turmoil around the world by bankrupting nations and their hard working inhabitants. Globalization is used as their secret weapon for the destruction and enslavement of mankind.
They are damaging our great nation and the many other nations of the world. Their actions towards increasing oil prices will eventually lead to the destruction of our standard of living and financial well being and will eventually wipe us out as a middle class society.
me: it is well understood how to make hydrogen. But hydrogen is not something that can be mined; it is manufactured. To manufacture the hydrogen that you are going to use for energy in your car, requires more energy than you get. Where do you get the energy to make the hydrogen? The only major (>10%) sources of energy we have now are coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear?
you: You would have a better chance getting gas from sand tar. brah ha ha!
me: How are the companies doing it, staying in business if it is not feasible. I think if you look at some of those companies they're returning a nice profit, with the current oil prices. The good news is that if prices stay as current or go up, there will be a LOT of investing in the oil shale/tar conversion. This will put a cap on how high, naturally occurring oil will go.
wind, solar, wave.
How are the companies doing it
1 barrel makes 1.5, conventional 1:30, plus it's a stupid idea, just pie in the sky. even if their numbers could play out it would not be even a hint of enough to tide the rise of prices.
Another story:
I was paying rent in 1972 for $125/mo which by the way that same apartment is renting today for 10x that (1250/mo). I decided to buy my first home for $40,000. My neighbor in the apartment said I was crazy because prices were too high. He was going to "wait" until prices come down before he buys a home. Today that first home I bought is now worth $400,000. As for my neighbor, he is still waiting. He still lives in the apt. and paying rent. Could had have the house paid off. But my point is, is that history repeats itself. Gas prices are just relative to everything else. Sure we are going to have spikes in prices, like housing, gas, milk etc. but it all evens out.
So everyone stop CRYING, learn from history and stop blaming the president whether it's a rebublican or democrat. It is just the way our economy works.
If everyone were allowed to cut and divide all their expenses by 10 including their paychecks or just move the decimal point one place to the left then we would just go back in time to 1972.
In 1972:
AVG NJ Homes $40,000.00
Movie ticket $1.00
Candy Bar $.10
Gal of Gas $.30
Avg Salary $75.00/Wk
Oil Co. profits 1/10 of what it is today
Today 2006
AVG NJ Homes $400,000.00
Movie ticket $10.00
Candy Bar $1.00
Gal of Gas $3.00
Avg Salary $750.00/Wk
Gasoline prices are in their prospective order. It is all relative!!! History repeats itself so stop crying. If many people are driving in these huge trucks with $3.00 + gal of gas prices, then what will they be driving if gas prices went down to a buck. A Mack truck?
Gas under $3.00 is cheap.
Oh it's not ? :P
Rocky
me: sure there's energy there; but since those energy plants don't exist or may not be feasible, you might as well say we make the hydrogen from burning manure.
The Rand Company has a fairly positive view on oil shale http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf I didn't read the whole article, but I believe this was only concerned with the U.S. Canada also has large, if not larger reserves of oil shale and sands. Here's a link to the industry in Alberta http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf It looks like a lot of middle-class jobs being created.
Rocky
If you guessed Hydrogen, Bingo you are correct. Their is enough wasted hydrogen floating out of those plants to power millions of automobiles and yes that gas could be captured and put to good use.
Rocky
:shades:
You have described George Soros to a Tee, and probably others.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Rocky
Or you could post a link that explains the process by which pure hydrogen is spewed from our nuclear power plants. That is not mentioned as a possible source in the following government site.
Almost all of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. today is by steam reforming of natural gas and for the near term, this method of production will continue to dominate. Researchers at NREL are developing a wide range of advanced processes for producing hydrogen economically from sustainable resources. These R&D efforts fall into five major categories:
Biological Water Splitting
Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting
Reforming of Biomass and Wastes
Solar Thermal Water Splitting
Renewable Electrolysis
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
Yes, you are right but today it is done with smoke and mirrors.
Today people are spending more than they are earning. Foreclosures and bankruptcy are at an all time high.
Years ago people at least had a net worth, lived modestly and slept good at night.
I'm with you all the way..... The only thing that keeps me up late is this Edmund's Forum :shades:
Rocky
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=265
Rocky
Well how much renewable energy generation would 1 trillion dollars buy, because that's what we just spent going after a commodity that will become increasingly expensive. Maybe it would cost 15 trillion to have self sufficient energy build out, but what are we going to have if we don't?
on your other point, jobs are good. A lot of people had jobs at Enron too. We could debate shale, I see it as an avoidable environmental catastrophe.
Producing hydrogen with the use of water-cooled, thermal nuclear reactors. The 443 nuclear power plants producing electricity at present around the world are water-cooled, thermal reactors. Off-peak electricity from these reactors could be used to power electrolysers on-site now and eventually off-site. The coolant water temperature does not rise above 400 degrees Centigrade, too low for high-temperature electrolysis or for use in the thermochemical process that directly splits the water molecule.
Producing hydrogen with the use of gas-cooled, high-temperature nuclear reactors. A demonstration gas-cooled, high-temperature reactor is expected to be operating by 2007. The coolant temperature will be around 900 degrees Centigrade, and the reactor is intended to produce hydrogen through high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting.
clean hydrogen source
CLEAN HYDROGEN SOURCE – A new generation of nuclear power plants may provide an energy-efficient, greenhouse-gas-free source of hydrogen.
For more than 100 years, visionaries have periodically espoused the dream of an economy driven by hydrogen - an efficient fuel that emits only water when burned. Today, their vision may be on the verge of reality: Energy policymakers around the world are increasingly recognizing the potential of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation, which accounts for more than one third of the nation's annual energy consumption.
One key problem that must be solved first is to develop a source and distribution system for the massive amount of new hydrogen that will be needed. A number of new and existing technologies are under study, but one strong candidate for providing hydrogen in future decades is nuclear energy.
Heightened interest in hydrogen as a widespread fuel is driven by environmental, political and technological factors:
international concerns about the air pollution and greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels;
the political vulnerability of world oil supplies; and
advances in fuel-cell technology that have made hydrogen-powered electric vehicles a real near-term possibility.
Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Their only waste product is water vapor. In the last five years, their power density - the ratio of power output to size - has increased ten-fold while their costs have decreased ten-fold. Every major automobile manufacturer has a program to develop fuel-cell-powered vehicles, and many experts predict that hydrogen-powered electric cars will appear on American roads in a few years.
But in the longer term, full conversion to hydrogen-based transportation will take decades, if only because of the enormous quantities of hydrogen required to fuel the dream.
"Americans drive nearly three trillion miles a year," said David Lewis, director of Argonne's Chemical Technology Division. "Even if you assume that electric cars will be twice as efficient as today's internal combustion engines, you'd still need 34 million metric tons of hydrogen to cover that many miles. That's a 70 percent increase in worldwide production just to handle this nation's current transportation needs. Add in the rest of the world, and the numbers become truly daunting."
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but hydrogen gas, the form needed to power fuel cells, is rare in nature and must be manufactured. Current world production is about 50 metric tons per year, mainly as a feedstock for the oil and fertilizer industries.
About 95 percent of hydrogen is manufactured with an efficient, economical steam-reforming process that releases hydrogen from methane or natural gas. But a key goal for hydrogen power is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and here steam reforming has a problem: to create steam, the plants burn natural gas, which emits carbon dioxide.
"Using steam reforming to produce hydrogen for transportation," said Argonne engineer Leon Walters, "would eliminate some carbon-dioxide. But wouldn't it be better to manufacture hydrogen without making any greenhouse gas?"
Splitting water
One possibility is electrolysis, the use of electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Electrolysis has been used for more than 100 years to manufacture pure hydrogen and oxygen.
"If electric cars will be twice as efficient as cars with internal combustion engines, then electrolytically produced hydrogen is already close to competitive with dollar-fifty-a-gallon gasoline," said Walters. "Centralized hydrogen electrolyzers could be installed at corner gas stations and a home refueling station could soon be as close as the electrical outlet in your garage."
Large electrolysis units are operating around the world in demonstrations of central fueling for public transportation and auxiliary energy for large buildings.
But to displace the nation's automobile transportation fuel with electrolytically generated hydrogen would require 241 gigawatts of new generating capacity. "That's the equivalent of 241 modern 1,000-megawatt power plants," Walters said. "Clearly, it won't happen in only five or 10 years."
Where would all this additional electricity come from?
"Renewable energy technologies - wind, solar and geothermal - can make an important contribution," he said. "These technologies tend to be too intermittent to provide reliable base-load electricity, but they can generate hydrogen and store it when the wind is blowing or the sun is out. On the other hand, they are too diffuse to generate 241 gigawatts of new capacity. You'd need 640,000 windmills, for example, which would occupy a total land area of 71,000 square miles - nearly the size of Ohio and Indiana combined.
Rocky
Rocky
me: I assume you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. First Afghanistan has no oil to speak of. So hole #1 in your theory. And iraq was already pumping oil with Saddam in power, which we could buy. We still buy the oil that is produced from Iraq, and we are not going to occupy Iraq forever. Iraq is not becoming the 51st state like Texas did years ago. The war was about preventing Saddam Hussein from using the oil revenues to rebuild his military and to exact revenge on his neighbors at some point in the future; which might have endangered oil supplies to the world.
As for how many renewable energy plants could be built with $1 trillion; a lot I guess. But at least here in New England, no one wants one. You've heard Nantucket Sound is no good for a windfarm? Mountain tops are no good? Both ruin the view and are dangerous to birds. Solar power is of little use being this far north, and when its cloudy for 10 days or so what then? And I would guess electric companies would be putting up all sorts of tidal-energy stations since there is no fuel cost. Explain why electric companies would want to have higher costs instead of using the tides if this is practical.
That's a real problem, better get started. In ten years maybe we could have a .25 what we needed. Better than buying 1 million dollar munitions. Or sitting around saying everything is business as usual, just big corporate greed ripping off little old me, prices will go back down like they always do.
If we want to run hydrogen factories around the country every day which is what the economy requires, since storage is difficult and expensive, you can't use wind and solar which may not be available for days. Plus the land needed would be immense. You burn coal, oil, or natural gas, or use nuclear plants to produce that amount of electricity day-after-day.
Hydrogen is nothing more than a liquid-battery of energy which is created by using a larger amount of energy. It is a conversion of energy from 1 form to another (with a net loss due to entropy), not a creation of energy!
If we want to make good use of a trillion $'s, we could do a Manhattan project on fusion energy, rather than go at the pace where we will have it in 50 - 100 years.
I see we are in agreement over the gas usage issue. Last July, we moved closer to the kids schools...so eliminated a 3 hour ( 2 round trips) communte per day....now it is only 3 minutes to the school.
My commute increased from 20 minutes to 30 min...but it is all freeway....so we still win.
I am thinking about buying a sports car that saves gas (oxymoron ?) , a rebuilt 944 turbo....but may settle for a Prius...?? decisions ....
wife says the prius drives lousy. I like the 944 turbo....and it does get up to 20 mpg city, 26 highway...but the prius does better.
gas is 5 cents cheaper today....$3.05 for reg.
but not in my backyard....
Actually if they are run like public companies they are by law only able to do things in the share holders interest, so they can't do it if it is more expensive (not practical.) That's why they are not going to save us, I can tell you. Ditto the oil company.
How's it gonna look up your way with no heat? That's what I want to know. We should try and take care of our environment, our home. Hmm, if I was a bird, beat down by a prop or smeared to death in oil.. that's a toughie.
Oregon state has impressive wave power generation working. You could only see that with a telescope I reckon. Regards
me: Or as Highender and I and others have inferred and stated explicitly: 1) there is not enough oil/gasoline available for everyone to have as much as they want, 2) because everyone can't afford gasoline but wants a car and that gasoline, there's competition.
So if 500 million people out of the 6 billion people in the world have enough $ to buy gas regularly, you have to make sure you stay in that group of 500 million people. There are already many Americans who aren't in that top 500 million. If your income is not going up as fast as others in the world, or someone in China is willing to pay $3.25/gal even if they only make $10K, and you're only willing to pay $3.00/gal, you're out of luck. Someone complaining about their need to commute long distances because they don't like the housing near work isn't going to bring much sympathy.
One of the things that isn't discussed much here is that the strength of our currency affects the price of gasoline. When the $ is getting weaker as it has over the last few years, that means people in other countries have more buying power for oil. If the dollar loses 10% against the Euro or Yen, and OPEC sells in $'s they are going to want to raise prices 10% so they sell their oil for the same number of Euros, Yen ...
Rocky
In order to produce enough hydrogen to satisfy the fuel hungry american society we would have to build new reactors and dedicate them specifically for the production of hydrogen. Stay with me for a minute.
The efficiency of a nuclear power plant is at best and most of the losses are due to excess heat 50%
efficiency of electrolysis is approximately 85%
I have not idea the what the transportation of hydrogen will be but it will probably be stored in a solid either ceramic beds and hydride bed (lets just say for ever 10000 units produced 1 is used to transport it to your filing station) 99.99%
I have no idea what the efficiency is for a fuel cell but i know that there is not way that is is better than a reactor so lets just say 49%
That brings the entire system to a grand total of about 20% efficiency and those are really really conservative estimates.
Take a look at the Sulfur-iodine cycle on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur-iodine_cycle.
Here is the basic concept.
All nuclear reactor produces heat not electricity and that heat is used to boil water which turns a turbine which makes electricity. The newest reactors work hotter than ever, because maximum effiency is equal to 1-th/tl. The hotter your hot temp the more efficient you can be.
So your reactor produces huge amounts of heat instead of using this to boil water you use the really hot stuff to run the sulfur-iodine cycle, which produced hydrogen at approximately 50% effeicincy. After that is finished you use the lower grade heat to run a steam turbine to make electricity. Now you have a reactor system that produced electricity at about 50% and hydrogen. You will not get as much electricity out of this reactor as you would one that was dedicated to electricity and not as much hydrogen as an electrolysis plant however people are not going to stop using electricity.
The immediate need to is get away from oil. Nuclear is an attractive alternative for power for our next generation but in another 100 years our grandchildren will be having the same conversation about what to do about the uranium shortage. After all the world only has so much radioactive uranium.
This debate will continue in one form or another until we as a world (americans particularly) decide to limit our use of energy and produce our energy from truly renewable sources ie fusion, solar, wind, agricultural, geothermal and so on.
Sorry about the long post but anytime that someone talks about electrolysis it aggravates me.
Me: I didn't
:P
Rocky
p.s.
Gas is $2.81 a gallon with a gift card
Rocky
P.S. I did like the rest of your post though