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...