The Problem With The Forum's Title---

[Clara Listensprechen]

The problem with this forum's title is that with the current energy crisis and now the new energy bill which encourages new drillig is that the solution to it all is the Science that is NOT In The News. What makes the news is that which companies patent or hold as proprietary intellectual property; what will not make the news is the technologies that, because of having been exploted in yesteryear's era, cannot be patented or proprietarized because it's now Public Domain.

One of the biggest difficulties of developing hydrogen technology is the fact that it's already been invented and dates back as far as the 1800's. Even under current patent/intellectual property laws, no matter how you cut that cake, it's Public Domain.

[DvdGStwrt]

Clara,

That is the second biggest problem with hydrogen tech. The primary problem is that we get hydrogen from natural gas which that process leads to pollution as much (if not more in some instances) than burning petroleum products in an IC (internal combustion) engine.

The reality is that we do not have the facility to crack the water molecule efficiently enough through “clean” sources, like solar power, wind power. Even the process of electrolysis (using electricity) to break apart the water molecule uses a lot of coal, natural gas, oil, and produces pollution.

Though the idea was patented so long ago, the need to find ways to make it practical is still up for patents and designs. For instance hydrogen holding tanks – even the most efficient ones leak due to the size of the hydrogen atom which passes readily through most materials. This leads to explosive possibilities and would require a heavy, very cold tank in cars. Such a tank would be rather easy to break, causing an initial explosion from pressure and a secondary explosion of fire. Efficiency of motor to weight plays a huge roll in auto-design. Today’s cars can have smaller engines, burn less fuel and still get great speeds – but they are now made of aluminum blocks, fiber-glass bodies. Compare to a 1970’s all steel car pound for pound efficiency is lost due to mass weight.

Using Methane (fuel cells) has its draw backs and leads to other polluting issues.

None of the newer innovations are cheap to use nor are they very efficient – yet.

In the age of new super materials and better manufacturing methods, nano-tech and all of those leading edge sciences there still lies hope that in the news a report of an innovation will make hydrogen power practical for all.

[Clara Listensprechen]

Clara,

That is the second biggest problem with hydrogen tech. The primary problem is that we get hydrogen from natural gas which that process leads to pollution as much (if not more in some instances) than burning petroleum products in an IC (internal combustion) engine.

You fail to specify what kind of pollution, and submit that the pollution stuff is yet another canard thrown in just to derail it. I further submit that those who seek to derail hydrogen technology prefer to stick with things that, at best, are equally as bad--but those who seek to maintain the status quo, submit that we should stick to what's worse than hydrogen

The reality is that we do not have the facility to crack the water molecule efficiently enough through “clean” sources, like solar power, wind power.

And thus another false canard is forwarded. Hydrogen doesn't come exclusively from water, AND the water moledule isn't that hard.

Even the process of electrolysis (using electricity) to break apart the water molecule uses a lot of coal, natural gas, oil, and produces pollution.

Wrong again. Electricity is capable of coming from other than fossil fuel sources.

Though the idea was patented so long ago, the need to find ways to make it practical is still up for patents and designs. For instance hydrogen holding tanks – even the most efficient ones leak due to the size of the hydrogen atom which passes readily through most materials.

Very, very very wrong. Hydrogen is easily storable in hydride form. You sound like you work for the petroleum or coal industry, and are showing an example of exactly what's wrong with "Science In The News"--it's mainly pro-corporate propaganda rather than fact.

Using Methane (fuel cells) has its draw backs and leads to other polluting issues.

Then according to you, we should no longer use the natural gas we're already using. Methane is methane is methane whether you drill it from rock or contain it in a fuel cell. You just told us that using natural gas is impractical. All of us who have had natural gas utility accounts for years can clearly see just how wrong you are.

None of the newer innovations are cheap to use nor are they very efficient – yet.

I submit that all of the older innovations are both cheap and efficient. Still. The only problem people of your type has with older technology is that it's Public Domain, not that it's inefficient.

The pollution issue that trumps all other pollution issues is that which is the byproduct of combusting ANY hydrocarbon. Hydrogen is not a hydrocarbon.

[DvdGStwrt]

That's a lot to reply to. Please bear with me for a moment.

You fail to specify what kind of pollution, and submit that the pollution stuff is yet another canard thrown in just to derail it. I further submit that those who seek to derail hydrogen technology prefer to stick with things that, at best, are equally as bad--but those who seek to maintain the status quo, submit that we should stick to what's worse than hydrogen .

Carbon (monoxide and dioxide) is one of the pollutants – granted not as much as petrol, but it is still there. Presently our hydrogen extraction methods are geared toward using natural gas. Yes work is being done to find alternative “cheap” (it always comes down to money) methods – however our industry chiefly extracts hydrogen from natural gas presently. It is an expensive proposition to build factories or an industry that extracts hydrogen from other sources. Companies are not willing to take that initial investment because they know that individual consumers are not geared for spending more money at the pump for a fuel which will initially cost much more than cheap gasoline. Natural Gas was picked because of the cost – it is cheaper to extract hydrogen from natural gas than any other source – presently.

Should gasoline double in price, then hydrogen becomes an equal (money wise) to gasoline (that actually varies, some estimates say that gasoline would have to triple in price before hydrogen can compete)

And thus another false canard is forwarded. Hydrogen doesn't come exclusively from water, AND the water moledule isn't that hard.

Correct, hydrogen can come from other sources, and correct again it is not too difficult to break down the bond between hydrogen and oxygen – relatively speaking. Water (which is the most abundant source of hydrogen on earth) would be the most practical source of procuring hydrogen for energy usage. I can (and have) broke down the water molecule with a 12 volt DC battery. However I have yet to break down enough hydrogen to power a car with that battery to keep the battery charged. That would be a perpetual motor, the laws of physics do not allow for that (though many have searched and tried many methods to get around that law)

There is a conservation of energy that must be accounted for; it takes about the same amount of power put into cracking the molecule as what comes out when creating the molecule.

Wrong again. Electricity is capable of coming from other than fossil fuel sources.

Correct, unfortunately most of the energy sources are still using those fossil fuels to generate electricity. Nuclear (Fission) is not a good alternative, people are kind of shy about nuclear power plants after 3 mile island and Chernobyl. Fusion is still a distant dream (though we are making strides at making that a feasible source of energy) Damming rivers is bad for the ecology, the environmentalists complain that dams stop salmon from reaching their breeding grounds, site that micro ecologies are destroyed by the retained flood waters. Solar power (although making huge strides in the PV cell manufacture) is still not practical in large scale use (yet), Wind power has its merry band of complainers who site that wind turbines are ugly and take away fro the natural beauty.

And the initial layout of costs is always there, hounding us at every turn. It appears that there is not many folk who are self sacrificing enough to build and maintain alternative energy sources at a loss to themselves. Greedy bastards.

Right now electricity is generated in unclean ways (chiefly) and switching to cars that burn hydrogen would only move the pollution from off the streets to electric power plants.

Very, very very wrong. Hydrogen is easily storable in hydride form. You sound like you work for the petroleum or coal industry, and are showing an example of exactly what's wrong with "Science In The News"--it's mainly pro-corporate propaganda rather than fact.

Sure it is easy to store in hybrid form. I never said it wasn’t, however efficiency of use of a hybrid form of hydrogen is still a stumbling block – not for individual cars (as example) but for a nation of hydrogen burning cars. The technologies we currently posses are bulky, have their individual draw backs and unfortunately again are more expensive than the usual consumer is willing to pay. Is a matter of practicality, not a matter of possibility.

Miles to the gallon or the range of a single tank of fuel is something that must be considered. Gasoline presently takes up a small (relatively speaking) compartment in a car, gets a large (relatively speaking) range between fill ups. Hydrogen in all of its methods does not equal that range, hybrid hydrogen storage gets even less. This is a stumbling block that must be over come if we expect the consumer to buy hydrogen cars.

If and when a smart guy or gal comes up with a storage method that is nearly as cheap and as “safe” as a gas tank, with at least a similar range between fill-ups then and only then will hybrid storage become feasible – practical. Please note that there is a huge difference between what is possible and what is practical.

Then according to you, we should no longer use the natural gas we're already using. Methane is methane is methane whether you drill it from rock or contain it in a fuel cell. You just told us that using natural gas is impractical. All of us who have had natural gas utility accounts for years can clearly see just how wrong you are.

I submit that all of the older innovations are both cheap and efficient. Still. The only problem people of your type has with older technology is that it's Public Domain, not that it's inefficient. /QUOTE]

Correct, we should not be using natural gas, propane, petroleum, coal or any other fuel a long those lines. Unless we put more stringent scrubbers on the smoke stacks and tail pipes and find a use or place to put the carbon and other gasses. Again I stress our present way of manufacturing hydrogen relies on the polluting methods. We would have to retool other industries to make hydrogen practical for all to use. Again it comes down to the dollar and the price the consumer (not the company) is willing to pay.

[QUOTE]The pollution issue that trumps all other pollution issues is that which is the byproduct of combusting ANY hydrocarbon. Hydrogen is not a hydrocarbon.

Correct. “Burning” hydrogen produces water, clean, pure water. It is the cleanest fuel imaginable. Worth every single dollar that it would take to switch over to a hydrogen economy. But right now, in the real world, the way we do all the business that would make hydrogen a fuel source is geared toward oil/petroleum use due to the cheapness of oil (as it is today).

* * * * *
My point is not to shoot down a hydrogen economy – In fact I am all for it and thought that by now we would be well on our way to a hydrogen economy. My point is that our present system for production of hydrogen from any source will not relieve pollution; my point is that we do not have an efficient means to make hydrogen a viable alternative to gasoline. My point is that there is a large horizon of innovation and possibility left open in that direction.

Corporations, big Business is not in business to make a loss. They have to make a product that the consumer (Me, you, the little guy) will be willing to shell out shekels for. I believe that you would be willing to shell out the equivalent of 4-6 dollars a gallon at the Hydrogen pump along with another 10-20 thousand for a hydrogen car (I would if that would be a truck, I need a truck for my line of work) however your average Joe or Jane is not willing – in many cases is not even able to take on that extra cost.

Right now at this point and time in history Gasoline and fossil fuels are the cheapest (read most affordable) method to power cars, trucks, electric plants, factories, blah. Though we have enough evidence to show that they are wrecking the environment, generate lots of smog which wrecks the health of ourselves and our children money, the all mighty dollar still rules the life styles of the individual.

All the methods of making hydrogen a useful source of energy today has their draw backs, has to meet the wallet size of the general population.

There is much room for improvement on the systems offered, there is most undoubtedly a method yet to be discovered.

There is two ways that this will fall.

1. Petroleum will become scarcer, the price of gasoline per gallon will match or outstrip the price of hydrogen thus forcing us to take on a hydrogen economy at today’s prices. Though there is no doubt that once established the price of hydrogen would fall due to demand causing innovations in supply like it did for the oil industry and the production of gasoline over alcohol in the 20th century. Gasoline was favored my Ford and other Auto Makers because it was cheaper and relatively easier than alcohol, those the first cars did run on alcohol it was the money that made up the fuel of choice.

2. Hydrogen manufacture will have a sudden break through which would make it cheaper than oil – And/Or a truly efficient and simple method of storing and using hydrogen is invented. Either and both cases would make hydrogen an economic alternative and more attractive if hydrogen is cheaper than gasoline.

We are heading for a hydrogen economy – either way it falls. Fossil fuels and petroleum are not going to cut it in the next century.

[jayreynolds]

We are heading for a hydrogen economy – either way it falls. Fossil fuels and petroleum are not going to cut it in the next century.

No, Dave told us long ago that the earth is doomed.
Go ahead and have fun while it lasts................... woo-hoo!

[DvdGStwrt]

Jay, check your link I believe it is broken, like... well other things:

Not Found
The requested URL /science/reality2u30/ was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.33 Server at worldzone.net Port 80

[DvdGStwrt]

And Jay is Correct, I said and I restate that here, the earth is doomed.

Our way of life is coming to a close; it is an unsustainable problem which is leading to environmental and ecological issues which will destroy our present civilization which is based on gluttony, oil and relies on a relatively quiet climate that our species has enjoyed for about 4000 years.

[jayreynolds]

Jay, check your link I believe it is broken.
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/

[Clara Listensprechen]

That's a lot to reply to. Please bear with me for a moment.



Carbon (monoxide and dioxide) is one of the pollutants – granted not as much as petrol, but it is still there. Presently our hydrogen extraction methods are geared toward using natural gas. .


And I've been telling you it doesn't have to be. You're stuck inside a box of your own making. Your box does NOT confine me. As far as the Earth being Doomed, I as a survivor will continue to survive because I'm not confined by corporate boxes. I refuse to be. And if I die, then it's not my worry.

Your box is your problem and not mine. I am currently making my own hydrogen, and it's NOT from mined natural gas. and it's NOT expensive. Stick THAT up yer tailpipe and smoke it.

Like I said, more progress is being made by Science that is NOT in the news.

[Boomer Chick]

And I've been telling you it doesn't have to be. You're stuck inside a box of your own making. Your box does NOT confine me. As far as the Earth being Doomed, I as a survivor will continue to survive because I'm not confined by corporate boxes. I refuse to be. And if I die, then it's not my worry.

Your box is your problem and not mine. I am currently making my own hydrogen, and it's NOT from mined natural gas. and it's NOT expensive. Stick THAT up yer tailpipe and smoke it.

Like I said, more progress is being made by Science that is NOT in the news.

Go Clara !

Here's a link you may want to keep -- both of you!

http://www.renewableeneryaccess.com/rea/home

Truly, it will support your claim, Clara, that the transition to post-oil presently and in the future continues without government support, and it will educate Dave on exactly what is indeed happening in the alternative energy realm. It's real, it's happening, and economically it offers the greatest potential for investment and development as well as the greatest promise for our environmental future and very survival.

Have hope! The Clara's of the world are already in operation!

I'm proud of my state in many of its innovative energy adoptions. Wind farms and biodiesel continue in operation and expansion. Other alternatives continue to progress.

If you give the site your e-mail address they'll send you a nearly daily news report.

We're not doomed .... we just need to stay busy transforming!

[DvdGStwrt]

And I've been telling you it doesn't have to be. You're stuck inside a box of your own making. Your box does NOT confine me. As far as the Earth being Doomed, I as a survivor will continue to survive because I'm not confined by corporate boxes. I refuse to be. And if I die, then it's not my worry.

Your box is your problem and not mine. I am currently making my own hydrogen, and it's NOT from mined natural gas. and it's NOT expensive. Stick THAT up yer tailpipe and smoke it.

Like I said, more progress is being made by Science that is NOT in the news.


I agree fully with you that it does not HAVE to be that way. That is the way it IS right now. Tomorrow it will change. Yes individuals are making a huge difference, however the majority are still stuck in the 20th century and see no clear alternative to the oil economy.

The earth is doomed - the earth as we know it. We have already gone too far:

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/krill.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3645112.stm
http://dogbert.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1321.html
http://www.climatehotmap.org/photos/photoevent68.html

That is a short list. The signs and symptoms of our industry are showing up now, it took a good many years for those to accumulate to the point where they are making a difference in the ecology. Many green house gasses will be in the atmosphere for many years, decades, even over a century. The things we see happening today will continue to happen - leading to and end of the world as we know it.

Even if we were to completely stop producing carbon compounds and other chemicals and green houses gasses there will be a lapse time of nature picking up the excess:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/ozone/ozone.html

Please to note that some of the gasses have a life in the atmosphere for 100+ years. So what we have dumped thus far will remain for sometime still causing the green house effect/climate change. No matter what we do we have passed the point of no return, many species will die off, and our civilization (which relies on a stable climate) will suffer. We are losing temperate farmlands due to weather changes, there are places in the world were the lakes are drying up. These things have started to happen and will continue to take place changing the way life on Earth goes on.

As for hydrogen innovations and switch over not being in the news: http://news.ask.com/news?qsrc=1&o=10234&q=hydrogen%20energy&news=true has a lot of news sources reporting it.

Yes it would be nice if it was front page news or one the most popular news outlets (CNN, FOX, blah)

Even should America switch over to a hydrogen economy (the most likely first due to our love of high tech crap) there are a lot of emerging nations (so called 3rd world nations) which are just getting their feet when it comes to technology - these are relying upon the oil and fossil fuels. The problem is one of economics.

Yes you personally may be able to produce hydrogen for your own use; our economy is geared at service/produce and consumerism. You personally may survive any and all upheavals as they take place.

Its like the acceptance of Rehab centers – everybody is for more rehab centers, hand them a petition to have one in their neighborhood they will scream “Not in My Back Yard”.

There are still not enough people who care enough to push these things through and make them a reality.

Today if you are enviromentally concerned you are shoved into a group of extremists who have a bad rep. Many people are leary about environmental concerns because they do not want to be tagged as such. This has slowed down the process of switching from an economy based on Man's dominance over Nature to one of co-habitation in the natural world.

I'm not ragging you or fighting you on this, I am looking at the realities of the situation and seeing the enormity of the problem as a society as a whole being slow (too slow perhaps) to act and react to a fast changing world.

I agree with you (Again) that the way things are is not the way they have to be. It is the way they are for now.

* * * * *

BommerChick: I fear that your link is not working.

[Boomer Chick]

Typo!

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

Dave,

We're not doomed........ sorry to break it to you. I've read two books on the subject but what I see with my eyes and what I know about human nature breaks the bonds of the most confidant of futurists.

Clara and I share the same philosophy of the ability for humans to adapt, to use their technicological creativity and skills, and to realize an economic opportunity with a twofold agenda --- 1) peace through lessening the need for unrenewable resources and 2) the simultaneous cleaning of the atmosphere.

The transitions are alread underway.

Dave, I use my own brain, not someone else's. I see what's happening around me, what's happening corporately, small business wise, and world wide.

Of course oil isn't sustainable, but what is are the forces of our planet and they shall be realized.

Beyond that, of course, lifestyles will change, the idea of banking will change, cooperation in the world will flow and education, rather than war, will be our primary task for world population survivability.

Those with no faith, no work ethic to drive toward the needed goals will actually prove as a dragging mechanism. And so it has always been. We've transitioned into other ages before and we can transition again.

The planet will not fry to a crisp although we may have heated it up a bit, and still the jury's out on exactly what's causing the warming.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

Try it this time! And keep up with the news, notice the jobs and new businesses cropping up and the world scene regarding the new enegies.

Dave, I've read on this subject (online) for over 3 years, now, and have two books and we're not doomed.

You don't even need faith, you need knowledge of what's actually happening! I've posted some of this on the Peak Oil thread.

Peace,
BC

[Clara Listensprechen]

I wold seem that Dave's "reality" is only what's in the news--dismissed the progress I myself have made, tho NOT in the news, as if I was chopped liver. I don't know whether to call him Marvin or try to argue with him some more to see the light.

Naaaah.

[DvdGStwrt]

I wold seem that Dave's "reality" is only what's in the news--dismissed the progress I myself have made, tho NOT in the news, as if I was chopped liver. I don't know whether to call him Marvin or try to argue with him some more to see the light.

Naaaah.

No my dear, you misunderstand what I am saying.

[halva]

Of course she does.

And she is also probably wrong in thinking that she has enlisted BC into her misunderstanding.

[Clara Listensprechen]

No my dear, you misunderstand what I am saying.
You're defeinding science in the news then declaring it's all hopeless; I'm saying there's a lot of progress that isn't, including MINE. My work hasn't ever been in the news. Your world can fall apart tomorrow, but I for one will keep on chugging cuz I already have a solution.

Keep pullin' your hair in despair like that and you're lible to snatch yerself bald.

[DvdGStwrt]

You're defeinding science in the news then declaring it's all hopeless; I'm saying there's a lot of progress that isn't, including MINE. My work hasn't ever been in the news. Your world can fall apart tomorrow, but I for one will keep on chugging cuz I already have a solution.

Keep pullin' your hair in despair like that and you're lible to snatch yerself bald.

(sigh) I wil never go bald, white of hair yes, bald - only if I take chemo or radiation therapy ;)

What is that solution, please tell us here and now. If it is good, even half good, we will see to it that it gets into the Media system.

Seriously.