Really? More than mining, refining, and distributing crude oil all across the world? Wow. I don't know all that much about it other than "smart people are working on this".

I always assumed that the local mining and distribution of hydrogen through competitive firms in various countries would be a big plus in setting up the infrastructure.

Work those hydrogen mines, baby!

Heh. Okay, I've been doing a little more research on this. Very fascinating stuff. Apparently, there's quite a few different methods of storing hydrogen: freezing it is one proposed solution. The smaller, high-pressure stoage systems seem to have merit for SR even if they are inefficient by comparison.

Apparently, the increased cost of hydrogen storage is based on the price of a Lithium engine, about 20 times the current cost of steel. If we can adjust the price of lithium, a hydrogen economy becomes a little more possible. Perhaps more companies get involved in its production? More sources of lithium are found/made? Materials better than lithium have been composited?

I guess I have to study up on lithium now...


(P.S. The concerns about the safety of hydrogen tanks seem to be a pretty valid concern, although I can't imagine this issue being at least partially sidestepped by either adjusting the hydrogen concentration or improving the material in which it is stored. In any case, one of my Golden Rules of Shadowrun is that profit comes before safety.)

This is true, but it ignores the economic and entrepreneural factors involved. Many people with significant resources are LOOKING to create new infrastructures. Under this argument, the Matrix itself would never have been created. Either would the traffic grid.

Startup costs now for future profits later is a basic fundamental law of corporate economics.

Okay, so we need nuclear power plants to creat energy. We have that now. In the future, they will be better. But the problem is that the energy isn't always used so when the energy isn't needed, we reduce the output of the generators. We don't have a way of conviniently storing the energy. Batteries only take us so far.

So we insert this hydrogen economy. Now, the unused electricity produced by the generator at full power is allocated to the production of some sort of hydrogen-concentrated chemical we'll call Fuel. This Fuel can be stored in Lithium Fuel Cells at a cost of about 20 times what steel engines cost today.

I don't know how this works on the end-user's side. Does he have to install the new engine every time he refuels? Can some sort of transfer system be arranged, like tubes transfering gas at gas stations today?

When hydrogen is used, the non-hydrogen waste products of the Fuel are left behind. If the Fuel was pure hydrogen then there would be no waste, but initial Fuel cells will likely only be partially hydrogen due to safety and transport concerns and technological limits.

So the byproduct is this chemical without hydrogen. It will have to be taken to a Fuel Station. The collected Fuel Waste will be moved in large amounts from the Fuel Stations to the Power Generators, where the Waste will be recycled through a process requiring electricity to transform re-hyrdrogenate the Fuel Waste into usable Fuel. This Fuel can then be distributed to Fuel stations again.

I could see this working...

We need a material better than Lithium to build the engines and transportation techniques though. We have to assume that we have adequite nuclear power systems that produce a surplus of electricity that can match demand in both the electricity markets and the fuel markets. I imagine this means we need more power plants overall, perhaps created by multiple companies in cutthroat competition. And the question of what happens when a car crashes DOES need to be addressed, but I think it can be with a little thought and technological assumptions. I think Lithium replacement/improvement is the biggest concern for this hypothetical hydrogen economy to work (or at least have initial investment toward development).

Oh. Sorry. I thought we were talking about whether or not to assume Shadowrun could have a hydrogen economy and what technical/social obstacles would exist. My mistake.

I don't think microwave energy has much in the way of comparative economic advantages for large-scale power distribution. (I say this without having done much of the research yet on current progressin the field...) My money's still on Fusion.

Edit: Okay, nevermind. I see what you're saying. A hydrogen economy would be vital, perhaps even necessary, if Microwave energy distribution was to be considered a viable economic investment. However, it still strikes me as a niche market. Improvements in fusion power will render it obsolete, and the fusion tech will be far more transportable if we decide to expand to other planets. Microwave energy transfer becomes a viable power source only at a certain point in our historical development.

And at the end of the day, isn't that what's important?

It is called using a bunch a of magnets to accelerate the mass to escape velocity. Ahh... don't have to worry about nothing blowing up then.

Ultimately a hydrogen economy would provide the same function. Small, highly compressed, very heavy fuel cells could be installed in people's homes and provide power for years. It would be far easier to transport than the car-versions, with safety and weight being the main issues.

Also, microwave isn't a power source. It's power distribution. It's fully compatible with the fusion reactors.

We essentially have the same situation today, replacing fission power plants with these "supercells".

Edit: It's just worse. People would get used to it. I imagine they would be installed by professionals underground. Or they'd be small and hidden somewhere. Or built right into the walls.

Fox news would have a field day with that one:
"There's something in 20% of homes capable of exploding with enough force to level half a block. Is your house a ticking time bomb? Is your neighbors? More at 11:00."

To be honest, I shouldn't have posted that. I edited my comments above.

But yeah, there's nothing more dangerous about this than a shadowrunner actually physically carrying a tank of hydrogen somewhere and setting it on fire. So what if its already there? Plus, like we said, this is mostly an alternative for those people out in the boonies or who otherwise, for whatever reason, can't or won't be setup on the city powergrid.

Plus, like I said, it's one of my Golden Rules of Shadowrun that profit is more important than safety.

Faelan, my suggestions are not incompatible with yours. But Biodiesel fuel is a power SOURCE, not just an improved method for power DISTRIBUTION like hydrogen. You can use biofuels to make hydrogen and recieve all of the benefits of a hydrogen economy... not just the ability to power cars with 60% less pollution.

edit: removed comments regarding scarcity of biofuel. Apparently biofuel can be produced with solar power if you have large amounts of land and optimum environmental conditions. It does, however, seem that biodeisel is highly inefficient, requiring large quantities of land. Widespread use would require significantly more plants and animal fats than are available today. Essentially, we have the distribution infrastructure in place, but some work would need to be done to get the proper production infrastructure. (Not as much as with the other solutions proposed, however. There seems to be much speculation as to whether or not its even POSSIBLE for any given country to generate enough biofuel to power its country's vehicles.)

edit: In regards to crackerjack's comment before, it could make a lot of sense for Future Land to have a variety of power sources, but its not necessary for energy distribution to be different for every power source. Hydrogen still seems like the best method of storing and distributing power. Or storing it, at any rate, even if you relied on a different distribution system. I could see competitive markets building up in all three areas.

It's called natural gas. You might have heard of this.

Natural gas burns? OMFG RUN!!!!!1

Wow... I could so picture Shadowrunners being hired against these small time "energy freelancers" trying to move in on Mr Johnson's market... there might be a few operating out of some not-so-abandon warehouses in Auburne.

The question isn't whether we can produce biodeisel. The problem is whether or not we can produce ENOUGH. At best, we can produce partial diesel-fuels for wide distribution, or pure biodiesel for light distribution. Even at optiminum conditions, U.S. energy surveys have put biodiesel solar-power conversion at only a net gain of 1%. That means 1% of the sun's energy is being used and successfully harnessed when you take into account the energy needed to create the biodiesel. Compare that with solar cells out in the desert that can convert about 20% of the sun's energy into electrical power.

And even solar power itself is considered rather inefficient for the resources-to-output ratio.

All biofuels suffer from the same basic problems when looked at in a large scale. They all function the same way... converting from solar energy from the sun into chemical energy. Some plants convert better than others, but even at its most efficient biofuel isn't a very efficient power source considering how much agriculture is required.

A country can't produce enough biofuel for its vehiclular needs. It can produce small amounts of PARTIAL biofuels or small amounts of pure biofuels, but not large amounts of pure biofuels. It just can't. There's not enough land. Only countries that have large tracks of land and little to no industry would have any net gain at all, and those gains would be small and would take production away from other alternatives to that land such as food production.

As Spike and I both mentioned before, it works good on a small scale though, recycling waste or unused biomass into fuel for smaller niche markets. Which is essentially its function today. These aren't technical issues to be surmounted... it's just the way that particular technology works out.

The report goes on to mention that while significant land is required, significant land can produce significant fuel and so the resource limitations are no where near as bad as those for oilcrop biodiesel.

So poor people would have to starve so rich one could drive SUVs?
..somehow, this sounds sooo SR...

That idea is not imcompatible with either hydrogen fuel cells or biodeisel engines. It doesn't cover the method of energy distribution. You still need a way to get that energy to the consumer, his work, his house, his vehicle, and his toys.

One can concievably simply "beam" this power to a central power station, distribute it through copper wires or whatever to local power grids and from there to homes and work. You still need to cover toys and vehicles.

(Oh, and by the way... a large, efficient solar will function just as long as it only takes and converts the UNUSED energy from the sun. A dyson half-sphere or a dyson plane maybe. You don't want to terminate all the sunlight going to Earth. We need that energy for other things... like living.)

I'm not an expert, just a Shadowrun nut that loves these kind of discussions and has been scouring the internet for an hour and a half so that I can be equipped to contribute to this discussion.

You're covering a few different ideas here, so let me address them:

1) Pollution. Petrolium is our primary pollution baddy for use-pollution. Current nuclear technology is a baddy for waste-pollution. Fusion could clean up both. Biomass-oil fuels are not considered use-polluting. They still cause pollution when they are burned like any other oil but because the oil came from plants that absorbed pollutants during its lifespan, the net pollution factor is considered 0. Biodiesel is considered 60% less use-polluting than current petrolium-based products. Discussions of microwave power transfer open up a whole new category of potential pollution, but don't involve the others. Hydrogen fuel cells have little to no use-pollution, but leave waste material behind. However, that waste material can be recycled back into a fuel source. Ultimately, the waste product isn't necessary if you're willing to use pure hydrogen, but I haven't seen anyone recommending that for near-future widespread use.

2) Biofuel isn't limited to simply requiring energy, but ALSO resources. The most significant resources are land possessing certain environmental qualities. All the amount of available land on Earth is pretty much fixed. We can't even expand into outer space for that at the tech-levels and time periods we're looking at.

3) Microwave power is a type of power distribution, but I don't really see it having great strides until it becomes a cheaper alternative to conventional energy transportation - i.e., copper wiring, fuel trucks, and fuel cells/batteries. When we need to re-allocate power across great distances (say, to Mars) then I can see this becoming an issue because the cost to transport fuel and batteries would be extraordinarily expensive and inefficient. Until then, though, the demand's not that high.

4) Your analysis into static and mobile power sources is apt and so are the reasons this is so. However, remember in the hydrogen economy there doesn't have to be a distinction between the two. Fuel cells could just as easily operate a car as it does a city grid. These fuel cells are not a power source, but a method of power storage from conventional power sources that usually waste unused energy or lower production when energy demands are low. Essentially, you are taking "static power source" and producing a "mobile power source" out of it without needing another fuel type. The fuel cells also work to store unused energy far more efficient than batteries or capacitors with less space and materials used (making them easier to produce and transport than equivilent-powered capacitors).

*) Our discussion on biomass have, of course, ignored any potential SR advancements in bio-engineering beyond present day standard, especially regarding awakened biomass. If we could have plants that grew on mana instead of sunlight...

Why insist on a stop-gap measure when alternative technologies could eliminate the problems altogether?

Ultimately the issue comes down to a single question... how can we convert Solar power into something more usable like fire, calories, or electricity? Petrolium use fossil fuels that have collected energy over hundreds of years. Plants collect that energy throughout their life and use it to grow more biomass... the biomass can then be converted back to energy. Solar collectors could... well, you get the idea.

The factors involve include the source of power (solar, geothermal, nuclear), the efficiency of power collection (fossil fuels, hydrogen, solar mirrors, etc), the storage of the power collected (batteries, capacitors, chemical), the transportation of the energy (wires, chemicals, microwaves), the use of the energy (burning it, using electricity, chemical reactions, etc.), the byproducts of the energy transfer (pollution, heat and light, additional biomass, chemical transformation).


Hope this helps a little.

This is not a factor because these power sources are so inefficient. That's what inefficient means. If it was 100% efficient, it would instantly stop the wind or water, which is why I cautioned against saying "dyson sphere" so casually when you want to keep a life-bearing planet nearby.

Likewise, unlike prior applications, there's no need for all the energy to be consumed from one spot. Large dams, for example, are no longer considered necessary or desireable. Instead you want small tiny turbines and wind generators located all over the place.

Sadly, no. It's actually soooo real world.

BBC News

and from a more detailed source:

I see the use of biofuels as one of the reasons why everyone is eating Soy and meat is such an exclusive luxury. We need some justifcation for this in the setting.

Yes and no. No one knows what the health risks are.
But researchers at MIT are working on a microwave "tunnelling" technology that would prevent them from radiating outward. Essentially, it would function like a laserbeam does, projecting all of its energy to a single spot. You could stand right next to the beam and be completely unaffected so long as it didn't actually hit you. We're not really sure what happens if it hits you. The rats have been rather uncooperative lately.

The beam has no atmospheric effects. As far as I know the only problem with a missed beam is that the power will go somewhere else.

Good news. We have extra food to give you so that you don't have to starve anymore.
Bad news. Transportation costs are too high to get it to you. Sorry folks. Hey, you don't have some money to subsidize the transportation costs, do you? No, we didn't think so.
Good news. Hey, we've developed new Biodiesel fuel sources to curb our transportation problems.
Bad news...

/Fixed

Sounds like a MASER, which have been around longer than a LASER .

..while I too am really interested in H2 as a fuel you are correct in that society as a whole still has visions of the Hindenburg and STS 051-L (Challenger) in their minds.

(Actually, there is (was) a group that calls itself "The Hindenburg Society" which promotes H2 as a fuel)

One of the more physical hurdles I see is storage and fuelling. The most efficient state to handle H2 as you mention would be as a liquid, however this presents additional issues like cryogenic storage and the associated safety risks. There could be no "Self-Serve" since handling of cryogenic substances requires proper training. This of course adds increased labour cost to equation for these people wouldn't be your normal teenage "pump jockeys" working at the corner station after school.

Fuel Cells are designed to produce electricity instead of a combustible gas. While pure H2 is the most efficient fuel, FCs can also operate with a number of other sources including Methanol. True these optional fuels are less efficient, but when compared to pure battery systems, you have an electric vehicle that doesn't need to be plugged into a recharge station, has a greater operational range, and operate at a lower cell temperature (witness the recent cases of Li-Ion batteries in laptops overheating). It is still a step in the right direction. The other benefit of FC technology is will be easily adaptable to pure LH2 with little or no modification needed.

The system you mentioned sounds more like the Metal Hydrite concept which stores H2 and releases it as a gas for combustion. While considered very stable, it is more cumbersome and adds significant weight to a vehicle (fine for a heavy truck or transit bus but not practical for a passenger car). Also after a period, the entire storage unit needs to be removed and exchanged which would be a service nightmare unless every car by every maker were the same exact design.

In one interesting experiment years back, the Former Soviet Transportation Bureau actually refitted a TU154 airliner to operate off of LH2 as well to test its viability as an aviation fuel.

Yes, it will have an effect. It might slow down the cycle rotation of the earth a few seconds in a hundred years, but that's nothin compared to, like a two degrees rise in the global temperature.