Global Warmists back off on prediction

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by The Eschaton

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

This could be compressed and marketed.

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.

[bluesdave]

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.

[bluesdave]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

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.

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?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

...People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.

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.
[What's that? Your car won't start? That's very strange. ]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

... 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.

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?

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by HLJ

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?

I thought that I had already made that same point.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I thought that I had already made that same point.

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.

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.

[bluesdave]

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

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.

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.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I thought that I had already made that same point.

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.

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.)

[bluesdave]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by HLJ

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?

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

[The Eschaton]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

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.

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.

Nuclear power already produces electricity as a major energy carrier. It is well placed to produce hydrogen if this becomes a major energy carrier also.

The evolution of nuclear energy's role in hydrogen production over perhaps three decades is seen to be:

* electrolysis of water, using off-peak capacity,
* use of nuclear heat to assist steam reforming of natural gas,
* high-temperature electrolysis of steam, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors, then
* high-temperature thermochemical production using nuclear heat.

Efficiency of the whole process (primary heat to hydrogen) then moves from about 25% with today's reactors driving electrolysis (33% for reactor x 75% for cell) to 36% with more efficient reactors doing so, to 45% for high-temperature electrolysis of steam, to about 50% or more with direct thermochemical production.*

* From hydrogen to electric drive is only 30-40% efficient at this stage, giving 15-20% overall primary heat to wheels, compared with 25-30% for PHEV.

Low-temperature electrolysis using nuclear electricity is undertaken on a fairly small scale today, but the cost of hydrogen from it is higher (one source says: $4-6 per kg, compared with $1.00-1.50 from natural gas, but another source says cost will be same as electricity @ 4c/kWh when natural gas is US$ 9.50/GJ - cf $7 in July 2005).

High-temperature electrolysis (at 800°C or more) has been demonstrated, and shows considerable promise. US research is at Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Ceramatec.

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.