New Scientist had a recent issue devoted to answering the climate change objections. Nothing new but its well organized.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Yes, but even if it was ready to go technology, to build a fueling network and the cars, would take some time and a ton of money.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, although you would probably welcome it down there, I'm just looking at the practical application aspect. It is a breakthrough, though, and a new direction for development.

What we really need is a way to store electricity, so we could utilize the generating capacity we're wasting. Also a way to catch and store lightning would be great, but the power companies wouldn't be happy.

everytime I see this thread, the term "global warmists" gives me a smile.

More fun than the topic, surely, which is a serious one, no matter which side you're on.

The that fact that you think that we pose no threat and that we shouldn't try to stop in case we are doing something is ignorant.

The fact that you think it is impossible for humans to screw up the enviornment is ignorant.

The fact that you think we are arrogant is arrogant.

I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you? :whofart:

bluesdave - don't you think it's a bit discriminatory to expect one to have an understanding of the topic of debate before posting an opinion to that debate?

But seriously, do you know what the level of consensus is among climate scientists on the issue of human-caused global warming? I've been to several meetings in the past few weeks that were sponsored by and attended by people who are very concerned about this, and who are committed to taking action. At an ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) meeting last Friday, the President of ASHRAE, Terry Townsend, gave a very dramatic speech about working to reduce the energy footprint of buildings in the US and around the world.

He said that he was talking to the leaders of China about how the Chinese could reduce their energy consumption. They stopped him and said "Don't tell us what to do. Don't tell us. Show us." I assume by this they meant that they want to see the US take action before they will.

Three days ago I was at a ConocoPhillips meeting called "A Conversation About Energy" and they are also concerned about global warming. There were some skeptics in the audience, but when a vice-president of one of the largest oil companies says, "We want people to use less oil," it gives you some feeling, if you're not too much of a skeptic, of the seriousness of the situation.

There seems to be a group of scientists who are not convinced that human activities are contributing to climate change, but I don't know if the doubters represent 80% or 50% or 10% of their peers. And I don't know if they are sincere, or if they have a financial interest in convincing people, like duck_duck, that nothing we are doing, or can do, will have any influence on the Earth's climate.

Of course I do not expect everyone to have the training, but they should at least have the sense to do some reading before posting outlandish comments (not you, I mean duck). Bruce is a prime example of what people should be doing. He reads as much research as he can, and has reached an opinion. I disagree with some of his opinions, but I highly respect him for at least putting the effort in.

You will never obtain 100% agreement between large numbers of people, regardless of the topic, but by far the majority of scientists who actually work in the field of climate change research, believe that man has contributed to global warming. The whole planet is still coming to terms with climate change, and there is going to be debate for years to come. As you obviously know, we cannot design an experiment that will prove the extent of man's contribution - I have said this many times before. Cleaning up our act will at least make our natural environment a more pleasant place to live in.

I agree Bruce. I do not think that "we" have found the answers yet. As you point out (and I did too in my post), the cost of current alternative technologies is too great to be practical. This does not mean that we should stop looking for solutions.

I think hydrogen is a very bad idea. Hydrogen is not free, its very energy intensive. Its only a energy transport and the most inefficient one you can get. Its not an energy source.

This article by zubrin is a very good one and explains why this is so.

The Hydrogen Hoax

I think biofuels and ethanol is the way to go. If anyone knows a different point of view on hydrogen i would like to hear it.

Oh, hell no. Even after they have come up with a cheap, clean, doable solution, they shouldn't stop looking. There's always room for improvement in any invention/discovery/thing.... 'cept you and me.

Robert Zubrin is relying on the readers of his article to be untrained in chemistry. It sounds impressive to those readers. His costings do not reflect potential savings in mass production if hydrogen was widely used in our day to day lives. Do not forget that plasma televisions were several times their current price, only a few years ago. The same economic principle applies to nearly all manufacturing.

Every means of providing energy is going to involve the use of energy in the production of the base materials. Until we find some magic energy cell, that will always be the case. Some of the waste recycling prototypes that I have seen, produce hydrogen as a byproduct. This could be compressed and marketed. Obviously these methods would only produce large quantities of hydrogen if they were implemented on a large scale. I am simply saying that it does not have to be an expensive exercise.

That is the sentence that is a death knell for hydrogen as a fuel. You have now defined a fuel that is thermodynamically inefficient.

We don't need a 'magic bullet' fuel. Somehow, what we need gets confused with 'magic bullet' solutions such as hydrogen. We need efficiency. We need solutions that maintain those efficiencies on much smaller scales.

For every 100 units of energy put in hydrogen, well less than 20 actually arrives to perform productive work.

There is no way around fundamental theories such as thermodynamics. No solution is found in political posturing - for hydrogen or for ethanol. Start instead by identifying the problem. GM remains a classic example of the problem. Technology of the late 1960s was overhead cams. Late 1980s - 70 Hp/liter engine. Late 1990s - hybrids. So what does GM have? No engines with overhead cams. Missing 70 Hp/liter engines meaning their products require more cylinders. And no hybrids.

So GM accountants promotes hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution. Top GM management are business school graduates - and not from where the product is developed. Problems and innovations get ignored. No wonder they promote 'magic bullet' solutions while ignoring something more fundamental - principles of thermodynamics.

In both energy and global warming, both share the same problem: doing more from less. It is called innovation. And innovation is routinely stifed when top management does not come from where the work gets done. Same naive management then promote 'magic bullets' such as hydrogen to replace petroleum. Total nonsense.

One need only look who was promoting hydrogen to know hydrogen was not a viable solution: Rick Wagoner of GM and Geroge Jr. That summarizes why problems are not being solved.

I forgot to mention that methane is also a byproduct of waste recycling (I am talking about household vegetable waste and sewerage). And water. Don't forget water. We are running out of supplies of fresh water. Sewerage recycling can supply at least near drinking quality water - and if you spend extra dollars you can obtain water fit for human consumption. At a minimum, sewerage recycling would supply water for our parks and gardens, thus reducing the strain on our existing town water supply.

tw, the price for environmental improvement is not cheap. No one said it is. You are correct, in that in order to reduce pollution, and clean up our environment we have to spend money. Lots, and lots of money. You are also correct about ethanol. I started to say this before, then cancelled it. Ethanol still takes resources in order to refine it, and ship it. People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.

Sometimes, doing something "cleaner" does not mean "cheaper" nor easier - at least in the short term. We have to accept this. We cannot give up. Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same. :eyebrow:

To beat that dead horse again, America has a serious innovation problem. Mostly because America still has a bad habit 'business school' attitude that stifles innovation.

Some tributes to those who fear innovation. A paper $1 bills. The penny. A 'buy American' concept. SUVs and V-8 engines. Purpose of a business is profit. Illegal immigration creates violent crime waves and economic downturns. Man to Mars and the ISS. Cost controls on quantum physics research. Intelligent design complete with swearing on a bible to tell the truth and then lying.

The history of America is about innovation. Innovate is what every great American patriot did. Just like in the 1970s, a solution to both environmental and energy problems was the same solution. Solutions today would solve both global warming and energy problems. Money is not even mentioned.

What is fundamental to stifled innovation? Every problem was "created and stifled" or remained unsolved due to 'fear and loathing'. Same people then assume big bucks will create innovation. Because some innovations require more dollars, then more dollars will create more innovation? Of course not. That business school mentality also perverts innovation.

Same mentality also promotes hydrogen as a 'blue steel' solution. Our problems start with too many lawyers, MBAs, and communication majors believing they can create innovation - only because they feel it must be so or because throwing money at it will create a solution. Throwing money like a grenade at a problem does not create innovation. Solutions are not always expensive. But solutions are routinely stifled by too many 'experts' who don't come from where the work gets done. Those same people promote hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution.

Not all environmental improvements are expensive. The SUV is a classic example of something that costs so much more and yet only makes things worse. One need only learn from early 1970s when the Apple Macintosh sat stifled and unsold in a Xerox lab. A solution to worldwide productivity that would remain mostly stifled for another 20 years. Why? Top management had no grasp of what that product really was. Its value did not appear on any spread sheet. Therefore it was not innovative.

More money would not solve that problem either. My post said nothing about more money to solve the problem. Money is rarely the problem. Too often, the naive promote money as a solution.

So what happened to that $100million given to GM in 1994 to build a hybrid? Where is that hybrid?

We need to get the Chinese and Indian governments on board with the same standards for reducing CO2 emissions before we talk. It does not mean we can't do things here in the US, because there is certainly enough that we can do at home. Just don't tell me I have to be constrained when some of the worst polluters get a pass.

bluesdave - you can burn pure sugar in your car right now. And to prove it, I just poured a bag in my wife's gas tank.:stickpoke
[What's that? Your car won't start? That's very strange. ]

Someday our kids or grandkids will come to us and say, "You knew this was happening? Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?"

And what will we tell them?

Notice how constrained TheMercenary is because he cannot burn leaded gas. But when hyping fear, TheMercenary forgets previous examples of innovation and resulting jobs created by addressing environmental and energy problems. Instead he promotes fear of a 2 year old - "They won't let me do that ... wa-a-a-a-a-h."

Meanwhile countries who address global warming early will be getting rich selling those products to other nations who will eventually also have to use that technology. Those who are patriotic American - love to innovate - understand the resulting rewards. Those who are wacko conservative - fear any change - instead fear they might have to change; might have to use innovations.

What TheMercenary posts were exact same 1970 reasons for removing pollution control laws from all cars. I tired of those fools then and the silly TheMercenary today who never learned why those 1970 2year olds were also fools. It’s called being a good extremist conservative - fears innovation - fear being a patriotic American. Smart people instead will advance mankind by innovating - developing new products that all others will have to consume.

TheMercenary - you again ignore the repeatedly posted example - oxygen senors. Or why Germans earn profits from cars all over the world because the Germans innovated - addressed pollution and energy problems.

I thought that I had already made that same point. :banghead:

You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.

I will tell your grandchildren, I did more for them than your grandfather did for me.

Unlike an offical document or scientific report, points are fleeting here. That must be why tw repeats himself so much.
You aren't engineers or designers but you understand their speak, as well or better than most.

tw, when you mentioned GWB I assumed that you were singing your usual song about misspent government funds. I apologise if I took your comments out of context - although it is interesting that you then sang that song in your next post. :rolleyes:

I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine. Some fellow Aussies are involved in this research, and also here. Here is a press release from a few years back that summarises some of their research.

The CSIRO is also involved in hydrogen research.

And then of course there is this link that I posted a few days ago, and you guys chose to dismiss as nonsense.

So guys, you surely can see that there are people out there trying to find some answers, and it seems to me that they are making progress. It is going to take many years of research before we see really solid results.

I think it's important to keep in mind there is and never will be a magic bullet. There has to be many parallel solutions, tailored to the local, for energy conservation/production.
Looking for a one cure fits all is the surest way to kill progress because as soon as they find a solution that's economically viable, research money starts to dry up.

Thanks Bruce. I could not have put it better myself. :)

wait, for an answer you simply character attack zubrin? No, i dont think zubrins trying to fool people and i dont rely on him for my information. Its a simple reasoning and all the information is elsewhere. I just pointed out the article because he puts it all together in an easy to understand essay. Since you did not read the article i will restate the point.

Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.
Hydrogen is made from steam reforming natural gas or from electrolysis. The current cheapest and most efficient method is through reforming natural gas but that does not solve anything. You are still have more energy wasted and produce more carbon than just simply burning the natural gas. Using electrolysis is much more expensive and you can only get about 50% of the energy converted.

The reason people think hydrogen is the fuel of the future is that they see a fuel cell, you put hydrogen in it and you get out water and energy. No wast and no carbon. But considering the whole problem including production of hydrogen and its the worst and most inefficient method. The only way to get a hydrogen economy is to massively increase electricity production and the only reasonable way to do that is to start building 100's of nuclear fuel plants now. If you do build the excess electricity production hydrogen still does not make sense. Its more efficient just to have a pure electric car and just charge it.

Here is the information from a nuclear industry paper May 2007. The whole paper is worth reading its very clear and not to technical.

So for alternative fuels there are really 2 choices, hydrogen which will take decades to implement, hundreds of nuclear power plants, and a whole new infrastructure plus some break through in storage. Or you can use biofuels which can be done now, use all the same infrastructure and combustion engines and be close to carbon neutral. The only reason hydrogen is pushed is because big energy companies would control the production of power plants and and the infrastructure. With biofuels entry costs are much lower and small players could compete with big energy so there is little interest. Ethanol from corn is probably not a very good idea but the farm industry supports it so its popular in the US.

I dont know how you could have missed to problems with a hydrogen economy. Just look anywhere on the internet for information. Even wiki has picked it up.

This is a good place to read about it here and here. It explains better than i can and in a very short format. Please read it before answering.

Nope, you won't make mileage, refueling time, or performance targets to make them acceptable to the public. That said, they should keep trying. The problem there is they have yet to discover how to do the biofuels, anywhere near efficiently or economically without using corn, cane or some other high sugar plant. High sugar plants are energy intensive to produce and end up being energy storage/transfer systems rather than an energy source.

Pure electric car yes, you are right, they not ready yet. I was saying given 30 years and unlimited electricity, you might just want to electrify everything, i was comparing that to the hydrogen car option. I think what makes sense now and for the foreseeable future is hybrid electric/ethanol. That car would be electric for short drives around town and you would use the ethanol for between city driving. They already have user modified cars that will do this.

There's a place for ethanol produced by corn, sugar crops are better. I think the corn gets more support than it deserves for political reasons and its probably not the best way to make biofuel but certainly doable for now. There are going to be lots of ways to make biofuel. Food crops for now, in the long run maybe algae and bacterial digestion of cellulose.

We should never say something(hydrogen) will never be feasible and we're wasting resources by continuing to work on that. Innovations can't be scheduled, and not only a breakthrough in the direction your going, but an entirely new avenue to pursue might be discovered.
Look how many things have been discovered accidentally.

Further, the research should be open, reports published, then peer reviewed. That way no hanky panky, or suppression of discoveries. If peer review picks it apart, there may be others that feel the bad review is not justified, or even agree with the review but spot a nugget in the report that jibes with something they found themselves and sets them off in a new direction.

Now keep in mind, I'm coming up with this as an outsider, just from the bitches I've read, from researchers, about the system. The politics and egos involved in funding keeps them from being too daring in their requests or conclusions.
How far do you think $2 billion a week would go to solve that problem?

bluesdave - I was actually reinforcing what you said. I was just trying to express it from a different point of view.

(I don't even plan to have kids, much less grandkids. I think that that is the single most environmentally damaging thing that the average person does or can do.)

Eschaton, I provided links to university departments, and well respected academic research institutions, and you supply web sites written by individuals. Now before you go off in a huff, just hear me out. For a start the people who argue against hydrogen cells are basing their arguments on existing production methods of hydrogen. I have said several times in this thread that people are working on extracting the hydrogen from waste recycling plants, ideally using solar cells as the power source. Yes, the initial building of the plants will be expensive, but once they are up and running, they are relatively cheap to operate.

Electric cars are a great innovation, but what people forget is that if you live in a country that relies on coal powered electricity generation, you are not using clean energy to top up the batteries. Also, if your country or state uses hydroelectricity, and you are in a drought, that is also a problem.

I am glad that you said sugar crops, rather than sugarcane, because sugarcane is a lousy method of producing ethanol. It is a lousy method to produce sugar. Sugarcane strips the soil of all nutrients, and requires huge volumes of water, and fertiliser. Because it is typically grown on the coastal strip, the excess fertiliser is washed into rivers, then into the sea. This is causing a tremendous problem here, in our Great Barrier Reef.

If you are prepared to wait 30 years for the perfect electric car to be produced, why are you not prepared to wait that long for hydrogen research?

I agree with both you and tw, that today, using current technology, hydrogen cells are not going to be common place. I am putting my faith in the researchers I have cited, and others, and hope that they will find a solution. You say that you are looking to the future. Well, try it. I don't want to fight with you, because we both have the same goal. To clean up our environment.

As Bruce said, maybe one day a researcher will find something new that will cancel out all of our arguments. I will not be unhappy if this is the case. I want a workable solution. I do not own shares in a hydrogen cell production company. If hydrogen loses out to something much better, that is great. So be it. Let's be friends, and not enemies. :)

Here is the pdf of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
This summary, approved in detail at the 9th Session of Working Group III of the IPCC, Bangkok – Thailand, May 2007, represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning climate change mitigation.

I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.

Yeah, im not trying to fight either. I respect what researchers are trying to do with hydrogen. It was the same where i went to college. There are a lot of departments here excited about working with different parts of the problem. I worked with a professor that was just studying different materials for gas adsorption. But the big picture is missed. I do belive hydrogen is being pushed ahead of more workable options because of politics. Same with corn based ethanol, its probably the worst and most expensive way to produce ethanol but it has a lobby. Its disappointing.

So you believe the IPCC and drive around with hybrid cars and buy carbon offsets like other dumb suckers? You did this based on your own research project concerning climate change? Or just suck down what the IPCC said?

duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.

You might be correct. I said in an earlier post that the whole climate change debate had been hijacked by politicians. You have no idea how many presentations we did to various politicians in the 90s, and even into this century, trying to convince them that climate change research is important. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to spend 1-2 hours explaining how global warming is going to be a problem (forget about who, or what caused it, for now), only to have a room full of blank faces looking back at you? Then, to add insult to injury, they then hijacked the whole thing on us in the last year or two, and then became "converted" to climate change. :mad:

Yes, hydrogen may have usefulness as a battery. For example, some use hydrogen stored at low pressure to collect solar energy. Whether efficiencies can be improved upon is unknown. Promising but completely unknown. But hydrogen was obvious never an energy source. Obviously if only because George Jr said otherwise.

Hydrogen even in a car (as a battery) may have potential. Fuel cells were never an energy source. The concept has potential as a battery. But the naive promoted fuel cells as some kind of fuel. Some are experimenting with hydrogen storage materials. However restrictions such as excessively high temperatures and weight have made those technologies currently completely impractical. The point remains - hydrogen never was a viable fuel. However many who heard a president say otherwise in his State of the Union address therefore should have immediately known it must be a lie - and believed that lying president anyway.

Any potential solutions based in hydrogen are at least a decade away. Today we should be implementing what can work - that has potential proven in prototypes. GM - the classic example of failure - could not make a hybrid even when paid to in 1996? Again, directly traceable to the many who still believe in 'magic bullets' rather than identifying or addressing a problem.

The problem is not about 'magic bullets'. The problem is about *efficiency*. Some who promote or deny either global warming or energy problems simply forget where this entire discussion and solution lies: doing more with less. No communication major, lawyer, or business school expert can even guess how that solution might be implemented. Solutions must be defined by those who come from where the work gets done.

Who is the enemy of innovators? They are lead by George Jr and his band of anti-Americans. No exaggeration. No song. No political agenda. Just solid science fact. Just blunt and politically incorrect reality. This problem was identified repeatedly with numerous examples in Perverting science for politics.

Why did so many forget what we need - efficiency? Notice who was perverting that reality with his 'message' - also called propaganda, spin, lies, or preachings of Rush Limbaugh. Promoted hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' caused others to ignore the real question: "how do we increase efficiencies?"

There is no way to avoid a major reason why this hydrogen myth was promoted – George Jr. At best, hydrogen may help solve another serious problem - short term energy storage - a battery. There is no viable alternative to petroleum fuels.

tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK. I am also not sure of how many there are - I know it is only a small number. At least it is a start. I'm not saying it is the final solution.

I don't blame you Bruce. Some of this stuff can be heavy going. The effect on GDP is a problem. This is why so many politicians back away from taking positive action. This is why China and India take their stands. They are just starting to reap the benefits of industrial growth, and do not want to risk damaging economic growth. The Australian Government is the same. At least they have given us some funding for research (they are playing both sides, of course).

Is that a yes or a weak attempt at an insult? I'll take it as both.

When I was ranting about the evils of sugar cane, I forgot to mention that before they harvest it, the crop is set on fire, thus throwing huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just another reason to hate sugar cane, and be angry that the Australian Government continues to subsidise its production. I'm not against sugar, just sugar cane.

See tw, I'm learning. :cool:

You are confusing 'working OK' with 'working efficiently'. How many times did I use that word 'efficient'? Also a question that demands numbers.

Bus can work inefficiently to be working OK? Did you grasp references to 'thermodynamic efficiency' in multiple posts? What is hydrogen's pressure in its tanks? Did you read the part where less than 2 out of 10 units of energy are available for productive work? How many miles on a 'tank' of hydrogen? Even GM's EV-1 electric car worked OK. So what happened? Why was EV-1 a complete disaster if it worked OK?

Why do I post this concept repeatedly - and must now repost it again?

Where are those cleaner cars operating on natural gas? They also worked OK. Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car. What happened to another technology that was working OK? Or was everything OK except the technology?

The Challenger also worked OK everytime previously. Therefore Challenger was safe to launch? Nothing wrong with that reasoning either? We are killing Al Qaeda in "Mission Accomplished". Therefore that war is working OK?

Defined was a larger problem about George Jr supporters who fail to think logically AND who avoid the fundamental problem - 'efficiency'. How many times was the word 'efficiency' referenced?

Do we use ten gallons of gasoline to get less than 2 gallons into a car? And then only 0.3 gallons does productive work? Do you call that increased efficiency? Welcome to your bus example. Did the english major who reported on those buses forget to think like a patriotic American - provide important facts - especially numbers? Why did she forget to provide basic numbers? Maybe she was reporting for Murdoch meaning that shorting of facts to promote an agenda is acceptable? Or maybe we can blame it all on her? But when she does not provide underlying facts and numbers - just like George Jr - then who is to blame for believing her?

Nothing is politically correct anywhere in this post. Instead it is blunt honest. Asked are some damning questions. If those buses are working OK, then where are these numbers? Why are they doing what no one else has been able to accomplish? GM's EV-1 electric car also worked OK. Where is it today? In piles. GM eventually bought them all back. But EV-1 also worked OK.

They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

I could be wrong, but I believe there's less than 5% of cane crops being burned in Australia these days.

Aside from that point, you're right about everything else you've said about sugar cane dave. ;) (and I bow to your superior knowledge)

Here's a good link-for-dummies about the sydney project.

tw's call for efficiency rings hollow when you look at the efficiency of posts. Now Aussie busses are Bush's fault.

Did someone say there are no magic bullets? Then why would an experiment to run city busses on hydrogen, thereby reducing greenhouse gasses in the city, have to be justified as sufficiently efficient? There's no reason to believe that down the road it can't be made sufficiently efficient.
It's a pilot project to see what hiccups will develop in a practical application. A PR experiment that will help get people thinking there are alternative solutions, not to convince them hydrogen is the answer for them.

"Most every" is actually less than 2/3 have gas service. The ones that do, have this ever scarcer fuel coming in at less than 3 psi. How far do you think your car would go, with the biggest tank you could carry, at 3 psi?

It would have to be compressed... high pressure and low temperature, by the same people that start fires just filling their cars with gasoline. No, best leave that to a filling station attendant that's been trained and tested handling high pressure connections.
Even so, the gas won't last forever so we have to keep plugging at different solutions, use gas for stationary uses, industrial and residential.

Gasoline is wonderful stuff, beyond compare...so far.

Hey, guess what... I know how to eliminate 6 Billion tons of CO2 being added to the air, every year. That's 6,000,000,000 tons... every year.

Over 20 years ago, Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. Everyone had a good laugh and life went on.

When Michel Barsoum, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, heard Davidovits claim he laughed too. But when he was told nobody ever checked it out, he decided to disprove it with a few hours of electron microscopy.

Egyptian born Barsoum's daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s, so he's no amateur.

Wow, if we could eliminate Portland cement for everything not poured underwater, what a tremendous energy savings and CO2 reduction.

bruce, i think you have something there....

As to the bus program, i read the slide show from the link, there was not much information there. Basically they said they would see how it works. I support the development of the technology to make cities cleaner but it does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

Current hydrogen and most foreseeable hydrogen production is from natural gas, so of course fossil fuel companies are big on hydrogen.

At the end of the slide they had the cost analysis:

Hydrogen Costs - Today
Ex Refinery: $6/GJ
Delivered (truck): >$20/GJ
Gasoline: $6/GJ)
On-Site Electrolysis: $60/GJ ($0.07/kWhr electricity)

What's that? Making it at the point of sale with power off the grid? And what the hell is GJ?

Clicking on the bus link, I was a little taken back by that slick dog&pony show that BP had made. I was expecting something more along the lines of a typical government/municipal web site. That presentation is clearly not designed to inform, but to sell the concept and pat themselves on the collective back, as one of the good guys.

Well, whatever technology wins, BP will have a jump on the infrastructure.

xoB, a GJ is a gigajoule or 10^9 joule. It's approximately 1 million Btu.

1 J = 1 kg*m^2/s^2

1 Btu = 1055 J

Yes, but not all burning has ceased:

That was taken from a CSIRO link, which I admit is now quite old, but the page has not been removed or updated, so I assume that it is still correct information. It is good to see that the sugar industry is trying to clean up its act. I found many links at the CSIRO, and the Sugar Institute, that show they are serious. That is good news.

tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme. I have no control over whether the people involved, release figures - I said that I tried to find some information, and could not.

I have said repeatedly that the solution will come out of current and future research. How can anyone produce figures on technology that does not exist yet? I also said that I do not mind if hydrogen does not end up being the solution. If someone finds a better solution, then that is great.

Save your breath Dave, he doesn't want to hear anything but, "Yes, tw", "You're absolutely right, tw", "Whatever you say, tw", preferably with a lot of genuflecting.

He'll seize on a point from TV or magazine, put on the blinders and write 8 paragraphs talking about everything but the point he's found. Then he'll get pissed because you didn't understand what the hell he was babbling about.

If he wasn't warm and fuzzy, we'd have lynched him long ago.

Hey relax, I just saved you 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Hey Bruce, I think I have found a solution to tw's problem. He is always complaining about MBAs, and I just came across this link for the University of Phoenix. He can do his MBA online! Then he won't feel so left out.

BTW, thanks for the CO2. How about we split the carbon credits (and sell them), and deposit the money into our bank accounts? ;)

But before it was "I hate to rain on your parade, but ... they are working OK". Which is it? A pilot scheme that is vastly inefficient? Or a demonstration of something that is "working OK".

Aliantha offered a BP color glossy propaganda sheet with some numbers - vague numbers. It implies hydrogen costs at $6 per gigajoule. That comes to something like $5500 per megawatt-hour. Current technology electricity sells for about $40 per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market. Suddenly a pilot program that costs 140 times more is an example of greater efficiency? Only when rationalizing SUVs.

A gallon of gas is maybe $82 per megawatt-hour. Hydrogen costs may 70 times more?

BP's color glossy also claims CO2 outputs that apparently ignore CO2 generated to produce that hydrogen.

Numbers still make no sense for hydrogen as a fuel - which should have been obvious the minute George Jr promoted it. At 140 times more money for same energy, this is viable? This is "working OK"? Clearly not. Sydney's pilot program demonstrates that hydrogen is not a solution. Increased efficiency does not exist. Increased efficiency is what all solutions must achieve.

As Bruce notes: When extracting numbers, the color glossy's real conclusions are completely opposite of that presentation's 'feel'. If one reads it like an english major, then BP is doing good things. If a reader ignores personal biases (trageted by that presentation) and instead grasps the numbers, then that hydrogen program is a disaster.

Another interesting number - they are only using hydrogen at 4000 psi which keeps costs lower. GM has already stated that 10,000 PSI hydrogen is still insufficient energy for automobiles.

Bluesdave - there is no problem. You posted in error. The error was corrected. That bottom line conclusion is the only point made. So why do you impose you emotions into what was posted? As The Eschaton accurately notes: A conclusion in direct contradicton to what George Jr promoted in his State of the Union Address and in direct contradiction to those who believe that lying president. Hydrogen as a fuel - long ago obviously rediculous. Hydrogen is so bad as to even be a poor 'energy storage and transmission' medium.

We will remain a petroleum dependant society for probably as long as all Cellar dwellers live. Time to start burning the stuff using responsiblity - a comment also directed right at those who remain in denial and even promote obsolete technology in SUVs.

tw...this hydrogen thing they're testing here is simply a test. The link I shared with you is not a scientific document. It's a document for dummies. It's not really meant to prove or disprove anything. We can all see that. It was just something to give people a little bit of an idea what the go is.

Every new technology is expensive until it become mainstream. Think about cars. Think about computers. Think about planes. Think about telephones.

Now think about how much simpler they make our lives and why mass production brought the cost of these technologies down.

That's the point tw. First you have to find out if a technology works. Then you have to work out a way to mass market it so that everyone can afford it, not the other way around.

Here's some more info and education programs operating in Australia.

And here's more

And a little bit more

The presentation is intended to deceive - classic propaganda with no numbers. It provides near zero useful information - unless we go vindictively after its numbers. Anything that does not provide numerous numbers is typically promoting junk science reasoning - propaganda - fiction that only an english major could love.

The only way it can 'give people ... what the go is' is by providing basic numbers. it even ignores the massive carbon footprint to make hydrogen.

bluesdave represented the test as "working OK". No, it was not. The test demonstrated how bad hydrogen is as a fuel - confirming what underlying theories also suggest.

Moving on to the part you have not grasped. It was not just that telephone, transistors, etc would get cheaper with innovation (notice I said 'innovation' and not 'mass production'). Innovation could make mass production cheaper only because both the theory and experimental evidence suggested it could happen. Those technologies did not automatically get cheaper only due to 'economies of scale' - mass production. Innovation must be possible so that scale can create economies.

The problem with hydrogen as a fuel: even the theoretical numbers says those costs will not sufficiently decrease. Again, we cannot violate fundamental rules of thermodynamics that also involve conservation of energy.

The test was not "working OK". Test even violates a necessary condition - doing more with less. Hydrogen obviously is not a viable fuel. If you think otherwise, then what is the fundamental science theory that suggests otherwise? Where can innovation create such massive breathroughs. If you cannot say, then why do you assume 'economies of scale' will exist?

It is why we teach everyone science in school. So that you might understand what is necessary for achievement. Instead you are only promoting what junk science MBAs, lawyers and communication majors do. Somehow this magic idea called 'economies of scale' (also called mass production) will automatically reduce costs? Why does cost reduction not happen with drug prices? With age, a drug's price should decrease. Why do drug prices only increase even when production increases? Because 'economies of scale' is junk science reasoning by those who could not bother to first learn science details.

Do you really believe these myths about 'economies of scale'? If such existed, then GM automobiles would be the least expensive to build. GM cars are the most expensive cars - cost even more than a comparative Mercedes products. Your assumptions about 'economies of scale' are also why American steel manufacturers have costs sometimes double those of foreign manufacturers. Making a blast furnace bigger lowered costs? Guess what? No. Why are American steel manufacturers so inefficient? They also used your 'economies of scale' rationalization in places such as Sparrow Point, Fairless Hills, and Bethlehem. Now they run to government for protection.

The science does not work. That color glossy presentation is to intentionally deceive the naive. It was written so that people who judge by 'feel' will see a hydrogen future. Take the few numbers from that 'feel good' presentation. Then 'hydrogen as a fuel' experiment only confirms what the theory also says. It's just not viable.

Let's see. Suppose we make hydrogen from a petroleum based energy source at $80 per MW-Hr. By the time those 10 units of energy to make, package, and transport that energy to a car, then only 2 units remain. So now the hydrogen is $400 per MW-Hr. And these numbers assume 100% perfect 'economies of scale'. What were those costs for Sydney? About $5500 per MW-Hr. OK. With economies of scale, then the price might decrease 10 times. Even with a price reduction of ten times due to mythical 'economies of scale', prices still remain multiple times higher.

Notice the difference. I was not enthralled by a mythical 'economies of scale'. I used fundamental science concepts to optimize prices - and it still cost too much - does not increase efficiencies - does not 'do more from less'.

What have I demonstrated here? That assumptions of ‘economies of scale’ rather than learning the underlying science only results in junk science conclusions. You have zero reason to believe hydrogen as a fuel is viable. And yet you justified it by doing what junk science did to create the GM automobile. Due to ‘economies of scale’ reasoning, GM products are now the most expensive to build. ‘Economies of scale’ will not change the science of hydrogen.

The only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics tw.

That's about all I have to say on this one.

The point is "petroleum based" is not going to be an option in the future. The future is going to be expensive, very expensive. What we feel are logical solutions from past experience, may not be in the future.

To simplify it - 'economies of scale' only exist where innovation is possible. It is a symptom and not a solution. That is why GM threw money at problems like a grenade - and only made problems worst. They did not innovate. There solution was 'economies of scale' which only resulted in their higher costs.

Mass production does not automatically reduce costs. But then the numbers were even provided. Even with cost reductions, hydrogen is still massively more expensive. Aliantha has only done what I see often. As soon as I put forth numbers, then eyes glaze over. One common expression during that glazing is: "only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics".

Hydrogen is not a fuel. And yet hydrogen is being promoted by some here as if it were a fuel. Hydrogen in those Sydney buses is only working - not working OK - as prices demonstrate.

Semantics? We will remain a petroleum based economy in everyone’s lifetime. Some technologies will supplement petroleum. But there is no way around petroleum due to its high energy per pound numbers and other fundamentally simple and irreversible facts. Time to grasp that reality and deal with it. Both global warming and energy problems require solutions that do more with less. There is no 'magic bullet'. There is no 'blue-steel'. "Mass production" (economies of scale)does not automatically make the impossible possible. But there are solutions.

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than one and a half tons." —Popular Mechanics, Forecasting the Relentless March of Science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
—Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
—The Editor in Charge of Business Books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"But what . . . is it good for?"
—Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Divisions of IBM, commenting on the microchip, 1968

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
—Ken Olson, President, Chairman, and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

"I watched his face (Samuel F.B. Morse) closely to see if he was not deranged, and was assured by other Senators as we left the room that they had no confidence in it either."
—Senator Oliver Smith of Indiana, 1842, after witnessing a first demonstration of the telegraph

"Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit their voices over wires, and even if it were possible, the thing would not have practical value."
—Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865

"Radio has no future."
—Lord Kelvin, Physicist and President of the Royal Society, 1897

"The radio craze will die out in time."
—Thomas Edison, 1922

"There's a lunatic in the lobby who says he's invented a device for transmitting pictures over the air. Be careful, he may have a razor on him."
—Editor of the London Daily Express, commenting to a staffer on someone who had asked to see a reporter and was waiting downstairs