Hydrogen economy looks out of reach

The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged
for decades.

And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.

You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
we know it, actually changed?

We've been "20 years from no more oil" since 1870.

And air and water quality are BETTER today than in the '60s. The only
things in life that have not improved are government-provided services.

John David Galt wrote:

Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
fuels run out before there is a good alternative.


There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


No,
1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and


Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
(for example) would cure that problem too.


We've just had five years where for various reasons we've produced less
food than we've consumed.

The low prices are mostly a commercial and political construct. The
entities that buy these products in bulk don't want to pay the higher
prices.

If we did switch to biofuels, there's no reason to expect that the
farmers will see higher prices paid for their crops.

Another last issue is that the crops best suited for biofuels, require
heavy use of fertilizers. Because Natural Gas in North America is
getting scarcer and may essentially run out at the end of the decade,
fertilizer plants all over the US are shutting down. Saudi Arabia may
become one of the world's primary sources of fertilizer and they
probably won't sell it cheap. The higher costs of fossil fuel
fertilizers used to grow biofuels in the future will likely simply drive
up food and fuel prices.

I think biofuels will be produced but will be sold at such a high price
that only the wealthy will be able to buy any of it.


2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.


It isn't proven that global warming is even happening, and if it is,
human
activities are probably not to blame.
http://www.sepp.org/statment.html

But even if all those scientists are wrong, global warming is trivial to
undo.
http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Save these clues! Collect the whole set!


Yes, but don't go past the year 1992 and don't look anywhere else for clues.

Couldn't you have found an older article? I'm sure there's stuff from
the 1970s, you could've referenced.

Jack Dingler

John David Galt wrote:

The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially
unchanged for decades.


And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.


You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world
as we know it, actually changed?


We've been "20 years from no more oil" since 1870.


That's complete BS John. You just made that up.

And air and water quality are BETTER today than in the '60s. The only
things in life that have not improved are government-provided services.


That depends on where you take the measurements and what you measure.
But you just proved Matthew wrong rather than prove him right. He says
the world doesn't change. You just argued it does.

Jack Dingler

"John David Galt" wrote
1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and

Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
(for example) would cure that problem too.

One of the myriad reasons that farmers are going broke is that
diesel fuel and fertilizer (which is made using oil) prices have gone up.
I've seen claims that a gallon of bio-diesel takes anywhere from about
0.5 gallon to 1.25 gallon of crude oil to produce. Doesn't seem very
cost-effective to me.

Floyd

In article ,
Jack Dingler wrote:
Matthew Russotto wrote:

In article ,
Jack Dingler wrote:


Jym Dyer wrote:



snip
=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.


=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
_Jym_



The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades.



And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.


You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
we know it, actually changed?

Straw men all.

I see it as the frog in the pot syndrome, you slowly turn up the heat
and the frog dies without ever realizing it's being cooked.

At what price for crude would you argue, will kick in alternatives?

Damned if I know.

Or do you think that oil production will keep rising through 2060 with ever
rising costs, while wages remain constant?

That's a possibility too, if alternatives remain more expensive than
that. It's also a possibility that costs will drop.

Aside from Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real
numbers. It's been 30 years; let's see something other than
vague scenarios.
The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially
unchanged for decades.

=v= I've made no such argument. A Google Groups search will
reveal that I've written much about the need to make changes
to transportation infrastructure rather than relying on some
"magic bullet" technology that only seems to ever exist as
an unverifiable prototype or is perpetually "one breakthough
away" from being of practical use.

=v= Don't get me wrong, I'm all into technological innovation.
I just don't think it ought to be used to perpetuate wasteful
and pointless endeavors. A solution to impending oil shortages
should be keeping people in hospitals alive, not helping people
drive their SUVs half a mile to pick up a pack of cigarettes.

=v= New technologies also tend to be expensive, affordable only
to an elite. Fixing the infrastructure, on the other hand, is
action that can be taken right now, and is much less expensive
in the long run.
_Jym_

Matthew Russotto wrote:

In article ,
Jack Dingler wrote:


Matthew Russotto wrote:



In article ,
Jack Dingler wrote:




Jym Dyer wrote:





snip
=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.


=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
_Jym_





The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades.




And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.



You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
we know it, actually changed?



Straw men all.



Your argument is a strawman?

The world has gone through many, many End Of the World as We know It
events. Some where predicted, some weren't. Or are you saying such
things never happened? Would it be safe to say that you are arguing that
the Civil War, WW1, WWII and the Great Depression did nothing to change
the world for Americans? That through those events, nothing changed?

Or are you arguing something else altogether and just being very vague?

Jack Dingler

fbloogyudsr wrote:

"John David Galt" wrote

1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally
replace fossil fuels, and


Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
(for example) would cure that problem too.


One of the myriad reasons that farmers are going broke is that
diesel fuel and fertilizer (which is made using oil) prices have gone up.
I've seen claims that a gallon of bio-diesel takes anywhere from about
0.5 gallon to 1.25 gallon of crude oil to produce. Doesn't seem very
cost-effective to me.

Floyd


You're close. fertilizer is currently made from natural gas. Something
that North America will be running low on in just a few years. There's
no technical reason why it can't be made from oil, it's simply more
efficient (cheaper) to make it from natural gas.

Soon, the US will have to buy all of it's fertilizer from overseas
sources. That will certainly drive up the cost of agriculture and biodiesel.

Jack Dingler

"Mike DeMicco" wrote in message
. 1.4...
I don't believe that because the crop grown to be converted to biofuel has
displaced other plants that were there before that were probably pumping
just as much CO2 from the atmosphere. It's also been proven that plants
can
not keep up with all the CO2 we're pumping out into the atmosphere - hence
the current problem we're having with global warming.

If a plant in burned, it has to get CO2 from some where when the plant grows
back to the same size as the plant it replaces.

That carbon usually has to come from CO2 in the atmosphere. Over time it
has to balance out or the amount of plant mass must decrease.

I don't think biomass will be the source of most of our fuel, but it may be
a part of the solution.

"John David Galt" wrote in message
...
Jack Dingler wrote:
The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
one.

Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also. Hydrogen is a portable fuel
for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
practical portable fuel