[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('quizz', 'M')onte:

In a perfect world (I mean really perfect world with Biointensive gardening or similar, eductated populations migrating to arable land, nuturing of the land, etc. etc.),what do you think the world's population carrying capacity? I'm thinking twice as many or slighty more (until it's brought back to equilibrium).

[MonteQuest]

And to drive home my point about hydrogen:

The Hydrogen Economy - Energy and Economic Black Hole

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always be an energy sink. Hydrogen’s properties require you to spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get out of it.


When fusion can make cheap hydrogen, reliable long-lasting nanotube fuel cells exist, and light-weight leak-proof carbon-fiber polymer-lined storage tanks / pipelines can be made inexpensively, then let’s consider building the hydrogen economy infrastructure. Until then, it’s vaporware.

[Micki]

Monte,
your Black Hole article focuses on the feasibility of a large scale rollout of hydrogen technology to keep the "growth economy, happy motoring" society at a status quo.

It concludes
1) it is expensive
2) it is extremely inefficient
3) we use mainly fossil fuels in the process
4) there are technical problems. i.e. the example you made with metal becoming brittle etc.

Once again this article does not address the points I have made.
1) Developed technology normally becomes cheaper. There is no reason to conclude that hydrogen technology can't get cheaper in the future just because it is expensive now.

2) Sure it is very inefficient. But in my scenarios we never tried to replace like for like. I agree that I would not tade $10 for $1. A better eample is would you trand $10 for a $1 amount of food. Yes you would if you don't have other alternatives and you are starving.

For example, would you be willing to use energy from your photovoltaics system harnessed for a week, to get a boat motor running for 3 hours if you could use the same energy to run all your home's electrical needs for a week? Perhaps not.
Let's then say to double the size of photovoltaics system so you could run your house + get 3hr boating? If this allows me to fish, which can keep off starvation and allow some trading, then yes. The system would still be inefficient, but worth the trade off.


3) Yes. But on a smaller scale we can use biomass, water and God knows what else.

4) Can technology improve things?
We don't know today what technological development that is possible. Only by trying and having competition between organisaitons will we make some progress.
Maybe hydrogen won't come out a winner. Maybe it can become a valuable solution on a small scale where people do their own electrolysis of water etc using renewable energy.

Investment in this kind of development is of course risky (money wise). But as in other investments, I think that is up to the investor to decide if they believe in it or not.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'O')nce again this article does not address the points I have made.
1) Developed technology normally becomes cheaper. There is no reason to conclude that hydrogen technology can't get cheaper in the future just because it is expensive now.

[MonteQuest]

The November 2006 issue of Popular Mechanics has an article entitled:

The Truth about Hydrogen

Some excerpts:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')m asks the perennial question of every automotive journey:

Are we almost there?

And the inevitable answer from the front seat: No. The promises of a thriving hydrogen economy-one that supports not only cars and trucks, but cellphones, computers, homes and whole neighborhoods- date back long before this presidency, and the road fulfilling them stretches far beyond its horizon.

[Micki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he price of oil and natural gas will go up relentlessly due to geological depletion and political crises in extracting countries. Since the hydrogen infrastructure will be built using the existing oil-based infrastructure (i.e. internal combustion engine vehicles, power plants and factories, plastics, etc), the price of hydrogen will go up as well -- it will never be cheaper than fossil fuels.

[Micki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow do you get millions of Americans to buy hydrogen powered vehicles before there's an infrastructure in place to fuel them? And how do you get energy companies to build that infrastructure before there's a potential customer base?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', ' ')My vision is to have an alternative transportation fuel in place to handle Necessary transportation only.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', '
')AGAIN....totally focusing on large scale hydrogen economy.

The discussion started off;
Can 1 car run with hydrogen fuel cells no not.
Next this lead to the question, can we use private renewable energy to charge up hydrogen fuel cells.

If 1 person can do it, more people can do it. But not necessarily everyone.

[Micki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ost to produce hydrogen to replace fossil fuel use in cars by 2040:

Solar photovoltaics =$22 trillion 113 million 40-kilowatt systems
Coal=$500 billion 1000 275 megawatt plants
Biomass=$565 billion 3300 gasificatin plants
Wind=$3 trillion 1 million 2 megawatt turbines
Nuclear=$840 billion 2000 600 megawatt next-generation plants
Natural gas=$1 trillion 777,000 facilties

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', ' ')Furthermore, I don't think you have answered my questions, but accept if you choose not to continue the debate.

[rdberg1957]

It is clear to me that hydrogen is a very expensive diversion (financially, waste of time, diminishing returns). We will be better off if we spend our human energy 1) reducing population; 2) developing sustainable agriculture; 3) developing energy efficient public transportation; 4) producing bicycles both human and electric powered for private transport.

It would be nice if we as a race (human) would power down before catastrophe hits, but I see no signs that a significant portion of the population has a clue of what will hit us in the next 10-20 years. I really want to be wrong. But we don't seem to very good as a species at getting ourselves out of deep trouble.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rdberg1957', 'I')t is clear to me that hydrogen is a very expensive diversion (financially, waste of time, diminishing returns). We will be better off if we spend our human energy 1) reducing population; 2) developing sustainable agriculture; 3) developing energy efficient public transportation; 4) producing bicycles both human and electric powered for private transport.

[The_Toecutter]

This water fuel nonsense is just that.

Energy can change form, but it cannot be created nor destroyed; in all transactions of energy, if energy leaves or enters a system, the potential energy of a state will be less in quantity than the amount of energy present at the initial state.

Remember this.

Some of you know of HHO, also known as Braun's gas. It takes electrolysis to produce, a process which at best is ~75% efficient, but usually around 30% efficient. This gas has its uses, in welding and others; it is not exactly a fraud. But will it save us or is it the significant advancement it's hyped up to be? No.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')) reducing population

[sch_peakoiler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rdberg1957', '
')
1) reducing population;

[The_Toecutter]

I don't know what his plan may entail, but mine would entail trying to dramatically reduce poverty.

Basic sociological axiom: the more impoverished a people, the more they will reproduce.

Why? Children not only have a high mortality rate, but can be an economic asset in a poor nation. Parents wish that at least some of their children will live long enough to care for them in old age, when they can no longer physically do labor. In wealthier countries, children are an economic burden that drain finances for things such as medical care, education, luxuries, and basic sustenance needs like food. Therefore, people in wealthier nations have much less of them. It is not uncommon for first world nations to see native couples having 1.2-1.8 children per couple, below the replacement rate. Would it not be for demographics and immigration, population of many of these countries would be declining and/or have a negative change in the RATE of population growth(mind you, I'm for making all the borders open).


The way first world societies are structured, high standard of living goes hand in hand with high energy consumption and an unsustainable ecological footprint. This need not be. This is where increased energy efficiency along with those renewables that are currently viable come into play. Problem is, doing these things would reverse economic growth and cause contraction; those who are making money off of primarily being owners/producers instead of consumers and those governments who thrive on the revenue generated by such an economic system do not want this. I'd even go so far as to say that they would use force to keep such a system in place until collapse(as we are seeing in Iraq and elsewhere), no matter how many people are killed and no matter how many more are thrust into poverty. Their profit, to them, outweighs everything else.

Conflict of interest, just as it has always been. It doesn't have to be this way, but it probably won't change, either. Work for the world you want to see, and don't forget the vision you have, but at the same time, keep a sense of realism in perspective without letting it discourage you.

[Micki]

MonteQuest
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he importance here is that hydrogen can help mitigate negative impact during a transition period.

[budeone]

I just watched a dvd sent out from Ford and they talked about using hydrogen fuel.

They have a car driving on a course with it all over the doors.

[NeoPeasant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('budeone', 'I') just watched a dvd sent out from Ford and they talked about using hydrogen fuel.

They have a car driving on a course with it all over the doors.