Global Warmists back off on prediction

[Aliantha]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

[HungLikeJesus]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is no other fuel - even speculated - that can replace petroleum due to fundamental numbers such as energy per kilogram.

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.

[HungLikeJesus]

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."

"Woodall says that the reaction of aluminum with water has the same energy content per unit weight of oil, about 20,000 BTUs or about 6 kWh per pound."

[tw]

Originally Posted by HLJ

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?