The cost per mile, monetarily and socially, is the bottom line. Right now petroleum can't be beaten, but that's not an unassailable position. If cleaner technology is developed or the cost skyrockets, the picture could change drastically.

HLJ, back in the 70s I was heavily into Hi-Fi, and purchased a number of Hi-Fi magazines every month. I still remember an editorial in one, where the editor was dismissing digital music as being impossible to achieve, and that we would never see it in our life times. How funny is that? I cannot remember precisely, but I think he was reacting to Philips announcing the development of the CD.

about technology, there are hard problems and there are easy ones. (first of all i cant predict the future im just telling my perception) Notice most of these false predictions have to do with information technology. I think information is one of the more tractable problems. i wont be surprised by anything that comes out in the next few years as far as that goes, better and better virtual reality, cheaper faster computers, even real AI. Now what about all those technologies that were predicted in the 50's that we would have? Flying cars, moon bases, traveling around the solar system in space ships, energy to cheap to meter. Fusion energy has been "just around the corner" for the past 50 years. Just because someone says it cant be done does not mean that science will find a way to do it around the corner. Thats way to optimistic. So what i am saying is that with energy i think we are really up against the limits dictated by the nature of things. I was promoting biofule here, and thats an option but whats hard to realize is the shear scale of our energy use. It is beyond what you can grasp in an intuitive manner. I was doing more research on biofuls and at a site supporting biofuel it was showing how even if we plant all our cropland with switch grass and assuming our best idea of what we can do in processing that once the technology is mature we can still only offset 25% of our gasoline use!!! Now that came as a surprise to me. (cant find the site i saw that at but this one gives similar numbers 30% by 2050) But this is WITH drastic efficiency measures such as reducing urban sprawl and congestion and mandating 50 MPG cars!!! biofuel
Im starting to think maybe even biofuel is not going to do much. I think electric cars are better than most people think. The Tesla car looks good. Electric car doubters check that out and tell me what you think?

maybe the only way to really get serious about global warming is to build 100's of nuclear fuel plants now? I dont support nuclear but right now it looks like the only real solution and i think we are better with nuclear than the CO2.

tw, you've picked the bits out that you wanted to argue and that's fine. Nowhere did I stipulate that mass production was the only way to reduce costs. Generally, in order to 'mass produce' something from a prototype it is necessary to innovate, so I would have thought that someone with your superior intelligence would have taken that as a foregone conclusion.

As to hydrogen fuel cells.

I'm not a scientist so I'm not able to argue the figures with you. All I'm trying to suggest and demonstrate is that real life trials are being run and they're working. Of course they're expensive. All trials are.

Are you suggesting that scientists should stop trying to provide new forms of energy? What alternatives would you like to discuss, as opposed to simply denegrating suggestions made by others.

First, I solve problems by zeroing in on the irrefutable fact. Fact remains that hydrogen must be manufactured from other fuels, is so inefficient as to cause massive energy losses in transport and storage, and therefore costs a hundred times more.

You may call that selective reasoning. But I have targeted the irrefutable fallacy in your reasoning by thinking like an engineer - not like an MBA or fiction writer who failed to first do research (sometimes called an english major).

Second, you claimed costs could be reduced by mass production. Fine. Your numbers (which I had to provide) don't work. Now you claim something else can solve the problem? Fine. What? What, using basic science theory, will solve that cost problem? Problems are not solved just because you believe they can be solved or because somebody throws money at it like a grenade. That would be junk science reasoning.

If you are so sure that hydrogen costs can be reduced, then you have (at minimum) a proposal or the outline of a concept. If not, you only have what George Jr routinely uses to know Saddam had WMDs - a feeling.

Third, I am trying to separate fuel cell technology from hydrogen as a fuel. They remain different topics. For example, a fuel cell may be possible as a battery. Hydrogen has potential as a battery. That is completely different from what George Jr, et al were promoting - hydrogen as a fuel.

As The Eschaton accurately notes: As the Sydney bus program demonstrates, hydrogen is not a viable fuel. So why are some promoting hydrogen as a fuel? Look at who is doing it - George Jr. Rick Wagoner of GM. These men have near zero grasp of reality, MBA degrees, and a long history of running unsuccessful operations.

The bottom line again: we will remain a petroleum dependent economy for many generations. No way around basic science. Petroleum simply has too much energy per pound. What else can supersede these numbers? Again, you cannot arbitrarily ignore science facts. Ignoring creates junk science reasoning which also causes the stifling of innovation.

Why do the military academies graduate everyone as an engineer? They need people who can deal with reality - not junk scientists. If hydrogen has potential as a fuel, then you can cite technical reasons why. Hydrogen cannot be a fuel only because you 'feel' it can. Provided were damning numbers based in real science. You did not even dare to touch them. Then how do you know hydrogen will work as a fuel. Business school optimism?

Ed Esber also thought optimism could solve anything. Therefore in four years, he bankrupted the nation's largest PC software manufacturer. He 'felt' rather than learn irrefutable facts.

lord tw, you are flogging a dead horse. I think most of that is repost. I think everyone here realizes that hydrogen is not going to help the CO2 problem. It is however an energy technology. It does have zero pollution at the point its used at. Arguable it can be used to keep cities clean. Biofuel would still pollute where as hydrogen, at its user point is clean.

PS. tw we are both curious as to your solutions.

This is a test
 

I'm curious, can we agree on these 6 points, not listed in order of importance?

1-Hydrogen is not going to be the replacement for oil. It will however be used in some places for it's attributes, how much depending on the improvement in technology.
2-Electric vehicles will most likely be a part of the transportation mix, and improvements in battery technology will be pivitol in the size of it's share
3-We will probably end up with a bunch of different axillary transportation solutions in different countries and cities just because of politics. 4-Because there is no single solution (yet), the economies of scale won't be as big as they could be.
5-The first and formost solution is to conserve the oil we have and reduce emissions, for our health and it might help, but certainly can't hurt, the environment.
6-Hybrids are probably the best short term solution to achieve #5 while research continues on multiple technologies.

The interesting thing is that some of the people quoted (e.g. Ken Olson, Thomas Watson, Lord Kelvin) were in a position to really know what they were talking about, and would have had a strong influence on what others were doing in their field.

I think the biggest danger is to just say "It can't be done," and discourage others from trying.

Sometimes engineers think that they have all the answers. But it's necessary to be able to work with MBAs and politicians and mechanics and marketers and english majors, and all those other people who are necessary to run a successful enterprise.

Engineers and scientists sometimes forget that they are just one little link in a long chain.

i agree with those points bruce. Nice summery. After reading up on the problem ill just restate that i think what no one realizes is the scale of the problem. The amount of energy we consume. This might be controversial for a lot of people but i think conservation will be the main way to cut emissions. All these other power schemes cant come close to replacing the energy we use from fossil fuel. Im not saying they arnt important to develop, they are. With the amount of energy we use there is no foreseeable way to replace that in the next 100 years.

PS. except maybe nuclear and that would mean hundreds of plants built starting now.

The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is working on a project to produce hydrogen using a wind turbine. At first it sounds like a dumb idea. The turbine creates electricity, then uses that to produce hydrogen, then incurs all the efficiency losses of compression, etc. as mentioned above by tw. Why not use the electricity directly? It seems much more efficient.

There's enough wind potential in Wyoming to power half of the country. They could put up turbines all over the state. The problem is that the places with the best wind don't have transmission lines, and transmission lines cost about $1 million per mile.

Another problem with wind is that it's not dispatchable, meaning it's great when the wind is blowing, but it can't be turned up and down to match the load. (Coal-fired power plants are called base-load, or firm, power. Firm power is valued more than intermittant resources, like wind and solar.)

If there is too much wind-power in a generation portfolio, the system becomes unreliable (above about 20% of generation), because there is too much production variation. This requires the utilities to have stand-by power, which are generators (e.g. natural gas) that are ready to ramp up very quickly if the wind dies.

Using wind (or solar) power to create hydrogen, instead of feeding directly in to the grid, can make wind power into a firm source; or the hydrogen can be bottled and used for transportation fuel.

This is an example of a creative solution that might not be obvious at first glance.

Thanks HLJ good post, good point. i had not thought of that.

Just to emphasize what you have all said before:

Without conservation and energy efficiency all is lost.

It sounds like a good plan, but when you figure a turbine is about $1000 per kilowatt to buy, the losses in the electrolysis creation of hydrogen, the 'bottling plant', the infrastructure to make this all work, it won't be cheap.

Now consider the pressure Al Gore is putting(indirectly) on the plants that produce half our electricity. The cost of transmission lines is peanuts compared to finding alternative power generation sources that will pass pollution muster.

I can see, when sufficient wind power is available, using excess(off peak) capability for other things like hydrogen production. Unless, of course, battery technology have increased to the point of making it a more viable method of storing that power.

Notice: if politicians have there way all bets are off.

which brings us to the point of those that oppose taking action against global warming. They seem opposed to it because they think its all a plot by those socialist communist bastards to impose heavy handed government control on us. (said ironically tounge in cheek) But im realizing they are right. I had just thought it would take some good pushes in alternate energy technologies and we would be home free, but thats wrong. it is going to take some heavy handed government action and some new enforced conservation rules. its going to take mandating higher efficiency standards. And now this makes me worried. I think its the one thing americans wont take. We would take our suvs to hell with us. The people will not allow the government to take conservation measures that might impact there lifestyle in the slightest. I think we are lost :(

I like this a lot. I've heard a few (sometimes goofy) ideas to balance output with loads but this looks quite sensible. There are folks who oppose wind power because of the bird blender effect, but over-all it is a much better pro-environment power source than just about anything I've seen. You could also harness this to existing dams...

You cannot support Wind Power without consciously accepting the reality of innocent bird deaths!!! :::head explodes:::

I prefer to think of bird blenders as a potential cheap source of protein. :yum:

Ahhh...synergy! We collect the "processed" birds for use as cat food!

I am, right now, working on a (top secret) wind farm perimeter security system, which will completely eliminate bird deaths from wind turbines.

It consists of a series of high-powered lasers that will detect and instantly fry any bird that tries to enter the wind farm's air space.

Now I just need a clever name, like Clear Skies Initiative.

I think most people who oppose wind power just don't want the ugly windmills in their back yard. They use the birds as a "reason," but really it's simple NIMBYism. Can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want them in my view either if they can go somewhere else instead.

I'd say that you're right on the NIMBY deal. I think windmills are beautiful in form and function, powerlines are another story though.

A good site I just ran across. It is squarely against global warming skeptics, but each question and answer page allows comments, so the skeptics can try to pick holes in the argument.

What is a Global Warming Skeptic? Anyone that doesn't buy Gore's Dog & Pony show?
I don't think the arguments on that page are particularly strong. There's a lot of vague references and generalizations although it might work on Grandma if she trusted the person telling her. Anyone with real skepticism would need much more than I see there.


I was looking at some Ariel photos of Europe and noticed this caption under a picture of an Airbus field in France.

Ariel? Is that the part around the nipple?

Spelling Nazi.

The other problems with wind farms (over here) is the high price landowners are paid for the lease on their land. This causes reverse NIMBYism problems.

You really just can't win when you're trying to save the world.

tw, you're trying to make it seem like I've said something I didn't. you just go your own way with your rant matey.

Not what you said, what you didn't say.

Wind Farms and Birds:

http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/...ered-wildlife/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...more_letha.php

Yes well, it's very unfortunate that birds are killed because of windfarming. I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think anyone else does either.

The fact remains that it's a technology which works and is relatively inexpensive to run once it's set up.

Reconciling the cost to wildlife against the benefits to humans is difficult in all such situations however in this case, I believe the cost is not as high as that which will be paid if we don't explore this technology.

As one of the articles TheMercenary linked to said, there are many human-related bird deaths due to other factors, such as tall buildings, windows, cats and cell towers. To put things into perspective, here are some statistics from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Some numbers:
Building window strikes: 97 to 976 million/yr
Communication tower strikes: 4 to 40 million/yr
Cars: 60 million/yr
Cats: hundreds of millions/yr

Another source said "According to the Bird Conservancy, the 15 000 existing US wind turbines kill 10 000 to 40 000 birds per year, which compares with 50 million US bird deaths per year due to transmission towers and 200 million worldwide due to avian flu in 2005. Extrapolating to 5 million 5-MW turbines needed to satisfy all electric power and energy needs worldwide gives 3 million to 13 million bird deaths per year, much less than transmission towers in the US alone."

There is obviously a lot of uncertainty in the numbers, but if people are truly concerned about bird deaths they would get rid of their cats, their cars and their cell phones.

I you cannot correct how your post is interpreted, then I have clearly interpreted what you have posted correctly. Meanwhile, the numbers do not lie. Aliantha does not dispute the numbers.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. Those claiming otherwise - and that would include Aliantha because she does not dispute it - have no idea why hydrogen as a fuel is a promotion by the naive - such as George Jr and Rick Wagoner of GM - to the naive.

tw...you suggested that I was an advocate for hydrogen fuel. All I did was provide you with information. As I have previously mentioned, I'm not a scientist so can't argue the pros and cons.

The only thing I do acknowledge with regard to hydrogen as a fuel source is that human beings need to explore all options because we're running out of oil. That's it. The sum total of my point.

If you're some kind of oracle and can tell that in the future there'll never be a feasible way to use hydrogen as a fuel source, then I bow to your superior knowledge.

Basic science cannot be denied. Laws of thermodynamics don't change. There is no other fuel - even speculated - that can replace petroleum due to fundamental numbers such as energy per kilogram.

This time you posted what your point was; said something I can comprehend. Yes, alternatives must always be explored. But one does not go exploring by violating well proven concepts such as conservation of energy. We also cannot burn seawater no matter how many times fiction has claimed otherwise.

There are no miracle solutions. But obvious problems could be solved. For example, how much of 10 gasoline liters actually perform useful work? Probably less than 2. Automobiles are that grossly inefficient. Do we know how to improve these numbers? Yes, and without magic solutions. One technology stifled for so long that the Japanese finally refined it is the hybrid. Hybrids were even in pre-WWII locomotives. Stifled so long because fear of innovation has been especially strong in the American auto industry.

Solutions exist. So these same industry executives who stifled innovation suddenly proclaim a miracle solution in hydrogen? Not only is hydrogen not a viable fuel, but it is being used to protect executives who really need to be burned at the stake - with hydrogen.

Chrysler studied hybrids in the 1980s. It was too complex. Why? Well Chrysler, et al suffered through development of other technologies such as fuel injection. A technology found even in 1937 German WWII planes. It was not that hybrids were too complex. It was that Chrysler, et al had so stifled innovation as to not have time for the more innovative stuff. Fuel injection that finally became standard in the mid 1980 (and not properly implemented in GM until after 1990) was originally standard in German ME-109 fighter planes.

Numerous ideas exist that only require development. So instead we waste time on a technology that has near zero promise? Hydrogen?

What might be the next major advance in automobiles? A future generation hybrid may not even use piston engines. We use pistons today only because we know them - for the same reasons that transistors were once made of germanium. Hybrids now make practical tiny turbines in conjunction with new tech batteries. Turbines could even utilize 4 or 5 of those 10 gasoline liters in useful work. Theoretically, it is possible - which we cannot say about hydrogen as a fuel. Nothing here from an oracle. It is a simple technical possiblity. Hydrogen as a fuel - not. Hydrogen as a battery - maybe.

Notice how we solve global warming and energy problems. We get energy from 4 or 5 gasoline liters. Doing more with less.

Yes we need to explore viable possibilities. But that means we need executives who know what reality is - who come from where the work gets done - and therefore don't hype mythical solutions. Hydrogen is promoted where innovation is again being subverted. Did it ever bother anyone that GM's chief engineer was a student of graphics art - not a mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineer? Could he see fallacies in something that violates thermodynamics? Of course not. He would have never taken a thermo course. Therefore he would be a perfect reason why innovation is stifled - why hydrogen is promoted at the expense of innovation.

Bottom line: hydrogen is being promoted as a fuel by those who stifle innovation and have a history of doing so.

GM has many chief engineers. Dr. Mohsen Shabana is chief engineer for the GM Sequel (fuel cell car) project (General Motors chief engineer: hydrogen as transportation fuel will shape the rest of the century).

You can read more about GM's fuel cells and advanced technology vehicles here.

Finally, AutoblogGreen has some interesting articles about technologies under development, including a 6-stroke cycle "steam" engine.

There are a lot of innovative projects going on around the world in the areas of energy efficiency, alternative fuels and CO2 reduction.

We have nothing else that can match it's performance, doesn't mean it can't be replaced. It just means the cost of replacing it would be astronomical right now. Politics, however, could force that expenditure, so it would be wise to continue working on as many options as possible.

The AutoblogGreen site that I linked to above has an article about a process that makes hydrogen "by adding water to an alloy of the metals aluminum and gallium."

Hydrogen has energy content, by weight, competitive with oil. And then it must be compressed. Suddenly all advantages are lost.

What is the source of energy when water is added to alunimum and gallium alloys? We also do this with carbon rods in water. But that also does not make hydrogen energy.

Hydrogen could be manufactured and stored in large low pressure tanks. Energy stored for short term use that is useless for transportation - in essence a battery. Hydrogen is not a fuel. No viable technology exists even in theory to make it useful. So what technology with promise is GM working on? Notice how its top management - business school graduates - have thrown most all their eggs into one hydrogen basket. How many other technologies are therefore sitting stifled?

But again, its about doing more with less. Where are the programs to increase thermodynamic efficiencies in their piston engines. Or where are their programs to replace piston engines with something that is even more thermodynamically efficient? Government gives them millions of dollars in 1994 to build a hybrid? Eleven years later they still don't have a hybrid? What genius did that R&D?

YOu might like to have a look at this site. It's a new way of running motors which use alternative fuel.

I don't see anything there after 2004.

Yeah, they couldn't get it to work. They're still working on it though.

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think the theory of changing the mechanics is probably a good one. Conventional engines need something to 'fire' to make them work (in general). Maybe that's the problem.

There's more info about it online if you care to do a search.

Why Original SCT Failed
Was it sold using science or on some myth that throwing money at a problem can overcome fundamental thermodynamics? ....

I have to believe that, at the beginning, Rick Maynes believed in his idea, his invention. I also must believe that, at some point early on, he realized that he was good at raising money. And I truly believe that, at some point very early on, Mr. Maynes decided to spend a fraction of the $100,000,000 plus raised to keep up the window dressing, and keep the balance for himself and his associates. I believe that at some point, he made the decision that raising the capital and taking it was a hell of alot easier than taking the money, developing an engine, and throwing the dice. [/quote] That is also how hydrogen has been promoted as a fuel. As stated before, one most drive right in with belligerence at the irrefutable fact - IOW why everyone needs a science education to grasp reality: What is immediately obvious in its design pictures? Massive surface area compared to combustion volume. This is also why the rotary engine was so difficult to operate efficiently - to do more with less. Maximizing volume per surface area even was an alegbra problem we had to solve in high school math class.

Nothing posted here is nay saying. The devil is in the details. Those details were immediately evident. Therefore the patent holder’s claims must address those obvious flaws. It does not. These realities are why innovation is so hard. These realities are why GM could be so innovative when separate divisions did the innovating rather than now - all innovation from two 'central bureaucracy' design centers. The split cycle engine was an admirable attempt to accomplish what the Sterling engine was also supposed to do. But to see what can and cannot work, one must first have a basic grasp of reality - such as Conservation of Energy. Burning seawater also will not work as a fuel. And yet some have also proposed that 'solution'. Again, it is why the world needs all students with basic science courses every year while in school. Otherwise people will even believe George Jr.

Darn cosmic rays!






They don't have clouds though do they? The martians that is... Still the sun is more active. Good article in Discovery this month on the Dane doing the ray research. Whether or not he's on to something, it shows that politics are not real good for science.

OK, that link is 4 years old. Seen any updates on the data?

Here is one
andandIt's worth reading the whole article. It's obviously bias but he makes some interesting points.

Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate

One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.

"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The influence of these plumes on climate is complex because they can have both a cooling and a warming effect, the scientists said. Scientists are convinced these plumes contain so many cooling sulfate particles that they may be masking half of the effect of global warming. The plumes may block more than 10% of the sunlight over the Pacific.

Asia is the world's largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tian Shan Mountains 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it. Only the dust escapes.

The team detected a new high-altitude plume every three or four days. Each one was up to 300 miles wide and six miles deep, a vaporous layer cake of pollutants. The higher the plumes, the longer they lasted, the faster they traveled the more pronounced their effect.

Until now, the pollution choking so many communities in Asia may have tempered the pace of global warming. As China and other countries eliminate their sulfate emissions, however, world temperatures may heat up even faster than predicted.

Wow what a great article - I especially found this part compelling

"Yes, but you have to give the sun a role. If you include the sun in the right way, the effect of CO2 must be smaller. The question is, how much smaller? All we know about the effect of CO2 is really based on climate models that predict how climate should be in 50 to 100 years, and these climate models cannot actually model clouds at all, so they are really poor. When you look at them, the models are off by many hundreds percent. It’s a well-known fact that clouds are the major uncertainty in any climate model. So the tools that we are using to make these predictions are not actually very good."

This is the biggest whodunit, ever.

It's all part of normal temp flexuation. Weirder stuff was happening in the 1920s.

Fluctuation.

Fluc you white people too!

Does this mean Al Gore can pack up, admit he was wrong, apologize to millions and go home now?

Not likely, considering we don't know that he's wrong, yet. Neither do we know if he's right. I suspect it's somewhere in the middle and I'd suggest we stop playing politics and redouble our(collective) efforts to find the truth.

If there is things that will truly help, make a significant difference, we should nail them down and implement them.... rather than siphoning off effort and money into feel good measures that are a waste.

I agree that we should do what we can, but for him to make as many UNFOUNDED claims as he has is rediculous and he should be called out on them. If we, as a collective, can make a difference, then by all means let do it. But if we are having virtually no impact on the situation - why then should we spend time, energy and resources on something that we have no control over. That is an even bigger waste. Lets put those resources toward something we actually can do that will make a difference in the world.

All of his claims are well founded. Nothing in science is certain, but he does have good science on his side.

Since I didn't see his movie, I'll take your word for it. But that doesn't apply to all the rest of the claims I've seen presented in the press and on the net... even here in the (french horns) Cellar.

His claims belong in the science perverted for politics thread. He has outdated rather poor science on his side. That has been discussed also - the facts as they are coming out show that his science did not take into account certain factors which negate his claims. Sun flares and the cloud issues are just two of them.

From the July 2007 article in Discover Magazine: And then what five scientists from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say in an August 2007 article in Scientific American entitled The Physical Science behind Climate Change:

I'd really like to read either of your articles - could you correct the link go to the relative info/article please?

There's a search box on Scientific American. They won't give you the article for free, unfortunately.