Report by Nat'l Hydrogen Association indicates a future dominated by hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles, solving most of the air issues and making the U.S. energy independent.
Renewable Energy World article provides synopsis, with the full and summary reports available from the following links:
REW Article http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/05/nha-report-says-hydrogen-vehicles-will-drive-change (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/05/nha-report-says-hydrogen-vehicles-will-drive-change)
NHA Link to Reports http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/evolution.asp (http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/evolution.asp)
=================================================
Much of the whoop-tee-do surrounding hydrogen energy has been shunted in recent years by those contending the infrastructure required to provide a hydrogen energy economy would be too expensive to implement.
While this may be true as it relates to providing a similar infrastructure now in place to provide current fuels, hydrogen can be produced both locally and on the fly if appropriately implemented.
IOW, one could literally fill your "gas" tank with water.
But, more to the point, Fuel Cell development has been ongoing for a couple of decades now and it is my belief these have matured to the point of beneficial use. So, why are they not readily available?
I'm just about ready to suggest they are being intentionally withheld from the marketplace. If so, it's not hard to conjur a scenario where big energy interests, combined with political clout, could be preventing their distribution.
Further, the use of Fuel Cells in automobiles represents the most difficult implementation of this technology, but remains at the forefront of energy policy research efforts and funding.
Stationary Fuel Cells could be providing energy solutions for the broadest catagory of energy used in this county, buildings. Buildings (and the processes within) use 80% of all energy consumed in this country.
Many demonstration projects (mostly military at this point) have proven the effectivenss of Fuel Cell power on a localized, stationary basis, yet these products are not being introduced.
The sad thing is all this alt. fuel is not really needed, we have oil and and we have tons of nat. gas, but we can't use our own resources. We have tons of oil. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil... There is nothing wrong with getting other forms of fuel, but for the near future we will always need oil. Meanwhile the democrats shut down all domestic drilling and keep us hooked on OPEC. What ever fuel that will be used in cars in the future won't be cheap. It's funny how "going green" is always so expensive, it should in reality be cheaper.
From what I have heard Alaska will get us by for 12 years. The one major mistake in your thought process is that you believe that for some reason oil that is drilled in the United States is sold to the United States. This is not the case.
Hydrogen is really just a storage medium for energy, it is a potential battery, it is NOT an energy source. It takes more energy to produce or gather hydrogen than a hydrogen generator (be it combustion engine, fuel cell, or otherwise) generates. The energy required to explore for, drill, pump, refine, and transport a gallon of gasoline gives a HUGE net return on energy, hydrogen fails to provide that. Currently, the most common means of producing hydrogen is to use coal fired power for electrolysis.
Hence, it is a battery.
That is not to poo-poo the idea. With solar, tidal, and wind energy the ability to efficiently store energy is in demand. If the wind farms could produce hydrogen from water on Lake Keystone when it isn't being used by the grid, that hydrogen could then be converted back into electricity when peak demand strikes. There would be a net loss of energy, but otherwise the wind energy is not available upon demand (or where demanded).
The same concept could apply to offshore wind farms, hydro electric dams (which can already store some energy by raising water levels), and solar farms. The only restriction is the hydrogen farms would have to be near an expendable source of water (won't work well in west Texas, Colorado, Arizona, etc.). But on a large scale that wouldn't be a real issue as the ocean is readily available with wind, sun, or tides in many locations. An alternative is to construct nuclear facilities near water (always are anyway) to use as the power source to produce the hydrogen.
And another final thought, we could run fewer power plants at the most efficient level of capacity (generally 80%) to produce the hydrogen with excess power. Thus enabling the plant to operate at it's most efficient, use hydrogen reserves for turbines during peak demand, and sell excess hydrogen for use in transport (or whatever). It would be a better utilization of existing power plants while cutting down on the use of oil.
Hope to see continued research into hydrogen, but it is a long term solution. Which doesn't interest many politicians.
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 05, 2009, 09:59:57 AM
The sad thing is all this alt. fuel is not really needed, we have oil and and we have tons of nat. gas, but we can't use our own resources. We have tons of oil. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil... There is nothing wrong with getting other forms of fuel, but for the near future we will always need oil. Meanwhile the democrats shut down all domestic drilling and keep us hooked on OPEC. What ever fuel that will be used in cars in the future won't be cheap. It's funny how "going green" is always so expensive, it should in reality be cheaper.
"...but for the near future we will always need oil." ???
No one's suggesting oil/nat gas isn't going to be needed for quite a while. Change doesn't happen overnight. Technologies fade out/phase in as the marketplace accepts them. (is this where I mention 8-track tapes or VHS vs Beta?)
What I'm suggesting is the technology is being intentionally withheld, limiting current options.
And, given the choice, use of hydrogen in place of carbon fuels is a no-brainer, particularly when compared with the environment.
As for costs, I agree completely. Green should also be cheaper. However, right now, all things green are at a premium. Some of that is marketplace. Most of it is marketing.
Right now, the available products in the Fuel Cell category include in-box hydrogen converters such that they require connection to standard utility (i.e., natural gas, methane, fuel oil) sources to operate.
These are termed "backup energy" supply for periodic outage control and emergency situations. As such, they sell for enormous cost and are used primarily in remote installations and hospitals.
The technology is there.
As for hydrogen being a 'storage' mechanism, while true, the same can be said of any fuel including oil or natural gas. Intermediates would be a more appropriate term.
The production of hydrogen can be facilitated locally (i.e., 'distributed processing') which makes the need for centralized plants minimal (not unnecessary). It can (is) be produced on-demand rather than stored at all. Though, having a certain amount of storage is desireable for flow interruptions.
It's not hard to imagine each dwelling unit producing their own hydrogen needs, being sustainable and free of public utilities.
Which is the rub.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 05, 2009, 10:09:38 AM
From what I have heard Alaska will get us by for 12 years. The one major mistake in your thought process is that you believe that for some reason oil that is drilled in the United States is sold to the United States. This is not the case.
Where did ya get that info from? The enviromental groups? We have 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in the oil shale rock in Wyoming & Colorado alone. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil, not to mention off shore oil drilling. We have more oil than Saudia Aribia and their oil lasted longer than 12 years. The biggest thing we have is natural gas under the Gulf Of Mexico, we have enough nat. gas to last 600+years. Nat. gas is never much talked about today I wonder why? it burns clean, it's cheap, it's plentyful and we don't need radical changes in our cars the standard engine can burn it. Diesel and 2-cycle engines also should be looked into. Obama closed 640 acres of oil rich drilling land in Utah in his first day in office.
Wrinkle,
You fail to account for the fact that you need MORE energy input than you get out from hydrogen. Coal, oil and gas are enormous SOURCES of energy. We can create oil in a laboratory, but it is not cost effective to do so as it requires more energy to create the product than the product is worth. Which is akin to creating hydrogen.
Oil is, of course, stored energy (coal, gas, take your pick). But we didn't have to input the energy. The energy is free, we just need to take it. We need to input the energy into hydrogen before we can extract it . . . just like a battery.
That is a significant difference.
To go along with the above point: yes, hydrogen can be produced anywhere. The problem there is a lack of efficiency. If you are producing locally (as in per neighborhood, per house, whatever) then you have huge inefficiencies in electrical production, transmission (of the electricity and the pumping of whatever water is utilized), hydrogen production, and of course whatever efficiency loss there is in utilizing that hydrogen. Then you need to add the cost of production equipment in each unit and a method to compress and store the hydrogen in each unit. Hence, a centralized production system similar to power generation - but more location specific, would make much more sense.
Each dwelling unit would need it's own power source and water source to produce it's own hydrogen. The inefficiencies in that system would likely be staggering. If you postulate each dwelling unit creating their own power required to generate hydrogen (we will ignore the water) we introduce more inefficiencies as home power production by itself is not as efficient as central production and transmission. And even it it were efficient, why would be it a better use of that power to create hydrogen as opposed to feeding the grid?
Unless, to digress a bit, we are under a model similar to the one suggested in my initial post. Excess capacity being used to generate hydrogen. Which brings us back to the central production being more efficient.
I think the required energy input of people into hydrogen is an important distinction between hydrogen as a fuel source and "fossil fuels." The energy input required in addition to water, compression and storage requirements presents additional issues for micro generation of a hydrogen supply. Hence, it seems that the centralized production model I suggested remains the best option.
Quote from: Wrinkle on May 05, 2009, 11:30:39 AM
Right now, the available products in the Fuel Cell category include in-box hydrogen converters such that they require connection to standard utility (i.e., natural gas, methane, fuel oil) sources to operate.
These are termed "backup energy" supply for periodic outage control and emergency situations. As such, they sell for enormous cost and are used primarily in remote installations and hospitals.
The technology is there.
As for hydrogen being a 'storage' mechanism, while true, the same can be said of any fuel including oil or natural gas. Intermediates would be a more appropriate term.
The production of hydrogen can be facilitated locally (i.e., 'distributed processing') which makes the need for centralized plants minimal (not unnecessary). It can (is) be produced on-demand rather than stored at all. Though, having a certain amount of storage is desireable for flow interruptions.
It's not hard to imagine each dwelling unit producing their own hydrogen needs, being sustainable and free of public utilities.
Which is the rub.
They said in the 1950's when Nuclear Power Plants came on line that electric will be so cheap we could use all we want for just pennies. That never came to be. In Europe they use alot more Nuclear Power than we do in the USA. France has tons of Nuclear Power Plants, that would be the best way to go IMO... Enviromental regs bog down the building of the Nuclear power plants and then the costs sore so high that it's not worth going nuke. That nuke cost gets passed along in our electric bills when a new plant is built. That "Cap & Trade" that the democrats want to push will make our electric bills skyrocket by around 70 percent. Obama favors high electric bills because it will force people to use less.
CF, while I do not disagree with you necessarily, the key would be the production of hydrogen and the technique employed. Also, a strategy for storage which compliments the needs, timing and availability. So, your off-time wind turbine use for hydrogen production makes sense in that respect as well. However, any form of electrolysis or heat seperation of hydrogen requires up to four times the energy to produce than it generates. This would be similar in efficiency to a hydro project production of electricity trying to re-pump the fallen water to the top to recycle. It only works if the demand is there, or, stated as useful only if the energy would normally otherwise be discarded, such as lost wind.
Other than electrolysis and furnance separation (which tend to be inefficient compared to other currently used fuels), newer methods of hydrogen generation would provide what I'll just call "natural" hydrogen. One such possibility is via biological plants which vent pure hydrogen (demostrated) and could be grown in your home garden or on your roof, capturing the vented hydrogen and pushing it directly to use in a fuel cell or compressing it into storage or a vehicle. Capacities come largely into play here. If it takes four acres of plants to produce 1 ltr of hydrogen per hour, then it doesn't make sense.
The key would be hydrogen production efficiency. On that, we can say there's not so much focus in research budgets today.
My dad was a Natural Gas Engineer for one of the majors.
I distinctly remember him telling us kids that some day, nuclear energy would make electricity so cheap they couldn't sell it.
At the time, I also recall natural gas being primarily a waste by-product of oil production and regularly burned off on site as such. Many sites still do that today. Most times, not all, it's either an oil well or a gas well, not both.
Some suggest energy independence means not importing foreign oil. To me, it means no utility bill. But, I'll definitely settle for domestic independence. Since ALL oil currently goes directly into a World Market system, there's a lot more to change than just drilling.
BTW, just to stir the thread, there's some credible evidence now that oil itself is a renewable source. The old addage of it coming from the remains of dinasours and old vegetation is pretty much history today.
In fact, Russian energy specialists tend adopt a state policy of oil being renewable.
Even if 'Peak Oil' is not a fraud, there's more than likely many, many years of it available yet. As someone else stated, we have more available in North America than Saudi Arabia, most of which remains untapped. I call it the "Use Their's First" policy.
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 05, 2009, 03:08:24 PM
Where did ya get that info from? The enviromental groups? We have 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in the oil shale rock in Wyoming & Colorado alone.
You just can't grasp the concepts of a) only being able to extract some of our oil reserves and b) the limited flow rate of an oil field, can you?
Additionally, oil shale and tar sands are mostly worthless without a better primary source of energy, as it takes vast amounts of energy to convert to usable oil.
However, I do agree with your point about nuclear energy.
And Wrinkle, even if oil does somehow 'regenerate' or whatever they call it, it's obviously not happening at a rate that meets demand, although I have yet to see any credible evidence of biotic oil.
What really annoys me about our inability to wean ourselves off oil as a fuel is that if we keep doing what we're doing, it won't be around for us to make plastics and other neat things from later. Burning it is an egregious waste of such a useful substance.
Thanks Wrinkle.
I was under the impression that the more efficient ways to produce hydrogen could not, or have not been scaled up to a useful level. Is there ongoing research or recent advancements in this area? I readily admit that I was unaware if it had progressed past the laboratory stage.
Otherwise, I agree. It is the efficient production that is at issue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825195852.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825195852.htm)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/29/MN76411.DTL&type=printable (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/29/MN76411.DTL&type=printable)
Another variation of the lost wind concept using desalinization plants:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/29/MN76411.DTL&type=printable (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/29/MN76411.DTL&type=printable)
And, we cannot forget, hydrogen is a byproduct of pure oxygen production, too.
Here's a bio-reactor for hydrogen production:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production)
nathanm said:
QuoteAnd Wrinkle, even if oil does somehow 'regenerate' or whatever they call it, it's obviously not happening at a rate that meets demand, although I have yet to see any credible evidence of biotic oil.
Not sure what evidence you base your position upon.
If you mean an existing field should never run 'dry', that's not what is being suggested.
I'd point you to this site which discusses the issue fairly well:
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html (http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html)
Quote from: Wrinkle on May 06, 2009, 11:32:21 PM
nathanm said:
Not sure what evidence you base your position upon.
If you mean an existing field should never run 'dry', that's not what is being suggested.
I'd point you to this site which discusses the issue fairly well:
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html (http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html)
That is exactly what Gold's hypothesis requires. In his system, flow rate of existing fields should eventually decline to whatever rate oil is secreted by bacteria or fairies or whatever. At least IIRC.
That article is not very enlightening as to what Gold (or the Russians) believes the origin of oil is exactly, other than "not rotten dinosaurs" and "geologists are wrong about coal." It does absolutely nothing to advance the hypothesis that oil is in fact renewable on a reasonably short time scale. What's more, it fails to grasp that the origins of oil have little to do with the actual work of a petroleum geologist. For that task, one must understand and identify the rock formations in which commonly trap oil and gas, not where the oil and gas may have come from in the distant past.
As I recall, his theory also requires methane to be much more prevalent than it actually is, but it's probably been 8 or 10 years since I've looked into it after I read an article on his theory in
Wired magazine.
We do know fairly certainly that under certain temperature and pressure conditions, organic matter does indeed spontaneously arrange itself into petroleum. Otherwise they wouldn't have been making a few hundred barrels a week of oil from turkey guts up in Carthage.
Quote from: Wrinkle on May 05, 2009, 10:03:35 PM
BTW, just to stir the thread, there's some credible evidence now that oil itself is a renewable source. The old addage of it coming from the remains of dinasours and old vegetation is pretty much history today.
In fact, Russian energy specialists tend adopt a state policy of oil being renewable.
Even if 'Peak Oil' is not a fraud, there's more than likely many, many years of it available yet. As someone else stated, we have more available in North America than Saudi Arabia, most of which remains untapped. I call it the "Use Their's First" policy.
That is correct. There are studies that say oil is made inside the earth by the rubbing of plates together. They have found that once dry oil wells sometimes re-fill up with oil. Let's face it there were no dinasours or veggie by-products 5,000 feet below ground. I think many people like to cover-up and bury this infomation. There are good books on this subject. I believe that oil is made by the earth. Since man first started drilling for oil and using oil we have used up (world wide) about 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil. We have in Colorado & Wyoming 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale rock, that's almost a Trillion barrels right there in our back yard, however, it's all off limits. Then you toss in Alaska, Off Shore Oil, and other domestic oil patchs and we have enough oil to last hundreds of years, then add in 600 years worth of natural gas under the Gulf of Mexico and we don't really need any other form of fuel, but it's always nice to have alternatives, won't hurt to develope everything. BTW, The current oil price is up to $58.00 a barrel and no one can understand why- we have a over supply of oil and refineries are running below capacity, looks like investors want to get back into the oil market.
Quote from: sauerkraut on May 08, 2009, 10:24:11 AM
That is correct. There are studies that say oil is made inside the earth by the rubbing of plates together. They have found that once dry oil wells sometimes re-fill up with oil. Let's face it there were no dinasours or veggie by-products 5,000 feet below ground. I think many people like to cover-up and bury this infomation. There are good books on this subject. I believe that oil is made by the earth. Since man first started drilling for oil and using oil we have used up (world wide) about 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil. We have in Colorado & Wyoming 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale rock, that's almost a Trillion barrels right there in our back yard, however, it's all off limits. Then you toss in Alaska, Off Shore Oil, and other domestic oil patchs and we have enough oil to last hundreds of years, then add in 600 years worth of natural gas under the Gulf of Mexico and we don't really need any other form of fuel, but it's always nice to have alternatives, won't hurt to develope everything. BTW, The current oil price is up to $58.00 a barrel and no one can understand why- we have a over supply of oil and refineries are running below capacity, looks like investors want to get back into the oil market.
This is all wingnut internet crap devoid of science. It has it's basis in bad Soviet era Russian science and has been long since discredited. It's about as scientific as Intelligent Design.
Since no one seems to be able to figure out why
today's oil price jumped, I'd offer the following.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0734057320090507 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0734057320090507)
SWAKE said:
QuoteThis is all wingnut internet crap devoid of science. It has it's basis in bad Soviet era Russian science and has been long since discredited. It's about as scientific as Intelligent Design.
I'd differ with you on this perspective. Any chance you're in the oil industry?
Simply writing it off as quackery is head-n-hole posture.
Any normal person would at least seek the truth by investigation and evaluate based upon actual findings.
Good catch wrinkled man.
The capacity is 727 million barrels and the current amount in storage is 719 million barrels. Obama wants to top it off with another 8 million barrels.
Oil speculation is the modern day piracy. Oil traders should all be forced to wear eye patches.
Nathanm said:
QuoteThat is exactly what Gold's hypothesis requires.
Haven't read much of Gold's stuff, but if you extracted that from the link, it doesn't say that.
Frankly, I find the inherent pressures and temps of the Earth's interior creating hydrocarbon fuels a much more rational explanation for oil than the "Peak Oil" argument for the sole reason in that it had to be created from something originially. Add these same characteristics on other planets gives credibility.
...it ain't dinasours.
btw, anyone interested in Natural Gas futures might take note:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3AQ5BEEGy8M&refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3AQ5BEEGy8M&refer=home)
IMO, this is the beginning of the artificial upswing in NG prices leading to the year-end (fiscal, June 30, 2009) peak during the time all the winter supply contracts are negotiated.
Thought I'd add that I don't recall NG prices ever being tied to unemployment figures.....even though
Quote"The Energy Department will probably say that gas in storage increased 92 billion cubic feet in the week ended May 1, according to the median of 17 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Estimated gains ranged from a low of 88 billion to a high of 101 billion cubic feet. Supplies in the previous week's report were 23 percent higher than the five-year average."
Back on topic, I find this distressing and confusing:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/national-hydrogen-association-1881/news/article/2009/05/hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-associations-criticize-doe-program-cut;jsessionid=857BEAB8BB8DBBE2C79C3DDE0232790D (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/national-hydrogen-association-1881/news/article/2009/05/hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-associations-criticize-doe-program-cut;jsessionid=857BEAB8BB8DBBE2C79C3DDE0232790D)
Quote from: Wrinkle on May 08, 2009, 01:30:43 PM
Nathanm said:
Haven't read much of Gold's stuff, but if you extracted that from the link, it doesn't say that.
You're right. The link is worthless fluff. Like the periodic scoops on the latest classified military hardware in Popular Science.
Quote
Frankly, I find the inherent pressures and temps of the Earth's interior creating hydrocarbon fuels a much more rational explanation for oil than the "Peak Oil" argument for the sole reason in that it had to be created from something originially. Add these same characteristics on other planets gives credibility.
...it ain't dinasours.
The biotic origin of oil is pretty well proven. That some oil and slightly more methane is spontaneously generated in the mantle does not discredit the theory that most of our oil has its origins in biomatter that was once at the surface or under shallow seas.
nathanm said:
QuoteThe biotic origin of oil is pretty well proven.
Haven't seen any similar support. Sure, the process can be demonstrated. But, if true, then none of it were here in the billions of years prior to biomatter being available.
OTH, that's the basic debate, I suppose.
It certainly seems easier to accept the process is a part of the overall environment associated with the planets' creation, rather than a by-product of secondary evolution.
You wingnutters can wreck any thread with pseudo-science and conspiracy. Page 1 looked awfully okay...even intriguing. Then this. Are you elementary school drop outs? Did your parents forbid you from watching Nova when you were growing up? What is it in your psyche that allows you to so easily believe in magical, underground, rock-rubbing oil? We've got overwhelming scientific evidence that tells us that fossil fuels are created from just that...fossils.
Fossil fuels are finite, and burning them is bad for the environment. And so, it's not so much that energy from hydrogen is too expensive (or being withheld), it's that energy from fossil fuels are irrationally cheap. In the long run, this strategy is a loser; when that day comes, and it may be sooner than you think, the earth will be too hot to ride a bike on.
A carbon tax could account for the harmful indirect costs of burning fossil fuels. It could also allow real renewables to catch up, go from lab to market, and ultimately compete head to head with fossil fuels. But no, that's just evil Dem-e-crats, socialamizing Amerca. Whatever.
Quote from: Chicken Little on May 10, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
You wingnutters can wreck any thread with pseudo-science and conspiracy. Page 1 looked awfully okay...even intriguing. Then this. Are you elementary school drop outs? Did your parents forbid you from watching Nova when you were growing up? What is it in your psyche that allows you to so easily believe in magical, underground, rock-rubbing oil? We've got overwhelming scientific evidence that tells us that fossil fuels are created from just that...fossils.
Fossil fuels are finite, and burning them is bad for the environment. And so, it's not so much that energy from hydrogen is too expensive (or being withheld), it's that energy from fossil fuels are irrationally cheap. In the long run, this strategy is a loser; when that day comes, and it may be sooner than you think, the earth will be too hot to ride a bike on.
A carbon tax could account for the harmful indirect costs of burning fossil fuels. It could also allow real renewables to catch up, go from lab to market, and ultimately compete head to head with fossil fuels. But no, that's just evil Dem-e-crats, socialamizing Amerca. Whatever.
Saw an interesting piece on Sunday Morning about the Porter Garden telescope and some discussion of Galileo. As we recall, his helioconcentric views got him in real trouble with the establishment.
Some re-evaluation is not only needed, it's demanded by more recent findings. So, if you wish to become critical in this way, you may wish to re-evaluate just who it is which strains this thread.
I doubt there's a soul alive today who doesn't think we should diminish the use of hydrocarbon fuels for simple burning as much as possible. Being a realist also makes me accept that these fuels will be with us for much longer than I can foresee. Besides, they'll always be perfect for use in interesting things (as someone else stated) like plastics. So, it won't be going away, at least for what I presume will be centuries.
We should be unrelenting in deployment of alternate energy sources. However, a Carbon Tax is hardly the way to do it. The carbon tax is an invention of politicians and industry to create a market where none currently exists. It's not a market for new energy, it's a penalty on the use of existing energy. But, most of all, it's designed to produce additional revenue, much on the backs of those least able to afford it. I'd suggest it unnecessary and unneeded. Did I say unwanted?
The Peak Oil debate is real. Political and Industry proponents tell us it's real, though others have suggested it a fraud. That's the debate, not whether a new, burdensome tax is needed.
Obviously, you proclaim to believe in Peak Oil. I'm not so sure, even leaning the other way and your arguments center on my stupidity even though you haven't a clue as to who I am or what my mental capacity may be.
Which of us does that make unreasonable?
Quote from: Wrinkle on May 10, 2009, 11:22:07 AM
Saw an interesting piece on Sunday Morning about the Porter Garden telescope and some discussion of Galileo. As we recall, his helioconcentric views got him in real trouble with the establishment.
Some re-evaluation is not only needed, it's demanded by more recent findings. So, if you wish to become critical in this way, you may wish to re-evaluate just who it is which strains this thread.
I doubt there's a soul alive today who doesn't think we should diminish the use of hydrocarbon fuels for simple burning as much as possible. Being a realist also makes me accept that these fuels will be with us for much longer than I can foresee. Besides, they'll always be perfect for use in interesting things (as someone else stated) like plastics. So, it won't be going away, at least for what I presume will be centuries.
We should be unrelenting in deployment of alternate energy sources. However, a Carbon Tax is hardly the way to do it. The carbon tax is an invention of politicians and industry to create a market where none currently exists. It's not a market for new energy, it's a penalty on the use of existing energy. But, most of all, it's designed to produce additional revenue, much on the backs of those least able to afford it. I'd suggest it unnecessary and unneeded. Did I say unwanted?
The Peak Oil debate is real. Political and Industry proponents tell us it's real, though others have suggested it a fraud. That's the debate, not whether a new, burdensome tax is needed.
Obviously, you proclaim to believe in Peak Oil. I'm not so sure, even leaning the other way and your arguments center on my stupidity even though you haven't a clue as to who I am or what my mental capacity may be.
Which of us does that make unreasonable?
The difference is that Galileo was a scientist and you are just a dude with an inconvenient political agenda. One which, apparently, allows you to latch onto a bit of wingnut propaganda and, without embarrassment, claim that the subject needs further study. No, it doesn't.
I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were wingnutty. You started this thread with a notion that there was some kind of conspiracy against hydrogen. It's no conspiracy, it's the Bush/Cheney policies on oil and the environment. They set back the pursuit of renewables by at least a decade. These crappy policies are what truly need "additional study". But your idealogy won't let you entertain some pretty straightforward notions, i.e., policy should make it EASY to get the outcomes you want and HARD to get the outcomes you don't want.
I cannot even begin to decifer the wingnut pretzel logic that delivers goofy factoids like oil is renewable, hydrogen is suppressed by conspirators, and taxation of carbon "isn't necessary" when coal currently produces btu's at 1/3 the cost of solar and and other renewables. The fact that the dirty aspects of this form of energy production are not accounted for in the math is a reult of previous policy decisions and can be corrected by new policy decisions. Sorry you don't like government, but the idea of accounting for the real costs of fossil fuels is not a bad one "just 'cause"...
Quote from: Chicken Little on May 10, 2009, 02:09:01 PM
But your idealogy won't let you entertain some pretty straightforward notions, i.e., policy should make it EASY to get the outcomes you want and HARD to get the outcomes you don't want.
Except for the most broadly defined goals, not everyone will ever agree on a desired outcome. Those who do agree will most likely disagree on how to get there. That makes it difficult to make policy, assuming that policy should define the path at all. Policy on technical matters based on popular consensus rather than actual science can delay meeting the goal. Both sides of an argument can present experts to prove their side is the one and only true answer.
Makes life interesting.
One good thing has come from these abiotic oil people. We've found that the mantle does indeed produce useful amounts of hydrogen, which then migrates upward through the rock. Sounds like a much better way of using hydrogen than wasting energy creating it ourselves.
Quote from: Wrinkle on May 10, 2009, 11:22:07 AM
I'm not so sure, even leaning the other way and your arguments center on my stupidity even though you haven't a clue as to who I am or what my mental capacity may be.
Which of us does that make unreasonable?
Considering that you have on this board espoused some pretty far out there conspiracy theories without a shred of solid evidence, you do have a bit of a credibility problem and therefore might understandably be considered unreasonable.