Hydrogen may be accepted by automakers as a prime green energy alternative

[ralfyman]

Because the example in this thread DOESN’T show that. Hydrogen fuel is an ENERGY SINK. That means you get LESS energy from it than what you use to produce it.

Because the world economy is market capitalist, then not only can it NOT operate with energy sinks, it needs the complete OPPOSITE: energy sources that ramp up considerably and with little lag time to provide the equivalent of one more earth to a growing global middle class that will soon be BIGGER than the current one.

To see how significant this issue is, just think of a country like the U.S., which has LESS THAN 5 pct of the world’s population but uses a FIFTH of world oil production, then assume that least HALF of the world’s population want the same thing (and businesses wanting the same because that’s where they get their profits and ROIs). How does this energy sink meet that?

 

[ralfyman]

Indeed, and similar applies worldwide. Here’s a list of ecological footprint per capita for various countries:

List of countries by ecological footprint - Wikipedia

Biocapacity remains fairly constant, with the ability to add resources to meet increasing ecological footprint but at significant costs to ecosystems (e.g., shale). That’s what the world is trying to do now, even with the topic discussed in this thread. That is, insist that people (and more people) can continue using passenger vehicles (which is what automakers need so that they can continue earning) even with energy sinks like hydrogen fuel.

In short, the mainstream (business owners and employees, who are also consumers) imagines that even with a world population of 9-11 billion people, more and more people will continue driving around in more passenger vehicles using hydrogen fuel.

The ecological footprint needed for that will certainly be much higher than what we have today and what biocapacity allows. At some point, many things will give.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . .

Because the example in this thread DOESN’T show that.

Does the example in this thread say we will have to . . follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier?

ralfy . . . .

Hydrogen fuel is an ENERGY SINK. That means you get LESS energy from it than what you use to produce it.

So what?

If the planet is ending (in the sense of beginning of the end) in eleven years, are you factoring in those costs for hydrocarbons?

Your cost-analysis ratios are all based on current commercial production methods.

Don’t you think new ideas will arise to help offset this?

How are you going to get people to follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier?

What if they don’t want to?

Then what?

Force them?

Would you say a war over getting people to follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier would constitute an ENERGY SINK too? Or is it reasonable to just ignore those variables?

What about the Chinese and the Japanese? Have you told them attempting to develop alternative energy mainstays is unreasonable?

Should the Chinese just continue to buld more Mega-coal generated power facilities because right now at least it is cheaper? Should we follow in the footsteps of the Paris Accords and IGNORE those factors while attempting to squeeze more money out of the American taxpayer?

How does this energy sink meet that?

By improving on what we have with regards to efficiency.

And other new ideas regarding clean energy.

Always looking for new avenues to improve (we shouldn’t stop there with efficient hydrogen either).

ralfy on the necessity of hydrocarbon utilization . . .

Because the world economy is market capitalist, then not only can it NOT operate with energy sinks, it needs the complete OPPOSITE

This has the (false) built-in false pre-supposition that this will not change.

If the planet is crippled by all of this so-called golbal-warming, then your admonition is only a partial-truth.

I hear what you are saying ralfy. More CAPS on ENERGY SINK isn’t going to clarify it any more.

All I am saying is, this appears promising.
The Chinese and Japanese governments must think it is worth going deeper into as well.

 

[Cathoholic]

If British Columbia has excess hydroelectric energy to the point that they are selling off the excess for 20 cents on the dollar, what would diverting THAT power into hydrogen compare to the 80% revenue loss there?

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . . .

His presentation was concentrating on the production, distribution,economics, and efficiency of hydrogen production and fuel cell vehicles.

This is essentially, a tautology.

Why?

The presentation . . .

was concentrating on the production, distribution,economics, and efficiency of hydrogen production and fuel cell vehicles.

Cathoholic . . .

But this presentation cannot be used for comparison with hydrocarbon usage.

Why not?

Because there are energy variables that this presentation is ignoring.

(Variables that should not be ignored if you TS [not necessarily the presenter] want to use for comparison with hydrocarbons - which I knew that was where you were going and you DID go a few sentences later in your response with your “conjecture”).

ThinkingSapien’s response?

The presentation was concentrating on the production, distribution,economics, and efficiency of hydrogen production and fuel cell vehicles.

Tautology.

.

TS . . .

Never mind the fact my closest hydrogen station is 1,800 miles away.

The problem with this TS, is you are criticizing something that was never my premise.

I never said we ARE READY to do hydrogen right now.

Why are you equivocating on what I was saying?

 

[tomarin]

Hey, the Japanese have been all-in for nuclear power for a long time; not sure you want to lump them in with the Chinese. (Nuclear is very green.)

 

[Cathoholic]

I’m just going by the article with regards to China and Japan.

 

[dvdjs]

Because the example in this thread DOESN’T show that. Hydrogen fuel is an ENERGY SINK. That means you get LESS energy from it than what you use to produce it.

Because the world economy is market capitalist, then not only can it NOT operate with energy sinks

You seem to be missing the point. It is important that the energy system is not a money sink. Not that is not an energy sink.

 

[ralfyman]

What this thread shows is that hydrogen fuel can work as “a prime green energy alternative.” It won’t because it is an energy sink: the amount of energy it gives back is less than what is invested to make it possible.

What future commercial production methods are you talking about? Are they now in operation or are you simply fantasizing about them?

About your third point, I never argued that we must force people to live with less. Why else do you think I brought up the claim that hydrogen fuel is an energy sink. My point is that because these energy sources involve low returns, then we will eventually be forced to do that.

What improvements on efficiency are you talking about? Go back to the article I shared and please explain what improvements will lead to not only a positive energy return for hydrogen fuel but one that’s at 15 or higher.

Finally, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. More caps on energy sink? That makes no sense at all. Please read this article to familiarize yourself with the idea of energy return:

Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment

A full listing of the sources and references behind the calculations in this EROI infographic

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[ralfyman]

If it’s an energy sink, then it’s also a money sink.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . .

. . . the amount of energy it gives back is less than what is invested to make it possible.

So what? Didn’t you look at my points?

Just because that’s true today doesn’t mean it will be true tomorrow.

Technology improves.

And there are long-term risk-benefits that you are ignoring in your financial paradigm.

What future commercial production methods are you talking about?

I don’t know. If I figure it out, I’ll do some green engineering on the side.

But seriously. Don’t you think the Chinese and the Japanese engineers have thought of that question?

About your third point, I never argued that we must force people to live with less.

What future persuasion methods outside of force are you talking about to get people following a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier?

You being on the internet suggests to me you are not following a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier.

And I don’t blame you for that.

So if not by force, what are you thinking of?

ralfy . . .

Finally, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

Look ralfy. If you want, I’ll concede you are smarter and/or more knowlegable than me. (But maybe not either.)

There you go.

Now that we’ve got that taken care of, why not deal with the points I raised?

 

[dvdjs]

If it’s an energy sink, then it’s also a money sink.

Sorry but the hydroelectric storage system that I linked to shows otherwise. It is clearly an energy sink. But it is not a money sink because it takes advantage of the differential costs of electric power at times of peak and off peak usage.

 

[ralfyman]

An energy sink is a money sink if the energy paid for (which includes the energy needed to manufacture the components needed for the system and construct the infrastructure needed to distribute energy produced) is greater than what is earned from the energy generated from the system and sold throughout the life cycle of the latter.

That’s why in laboratory conditions, solar power has a return of 30. Include the cost of manufacturing, mining, shipping, etc., not only of the panels but of the other components needed for storing and distributing energy generated, and the return goes down to 6. Include the cost of maintenance, replacement, and other real-world issues, and it goes down to less than 3, which is the actual return of solar farms in countries like Spain. Include lack of insolation in places away from the equator, and the return drops further.

Hydroelectric has a return of between 40 and 250:

Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment

A full listing of the sources and references behind the calculations in this EROI infographic

www.scientificamerican.com

But it cannot be ramped up easily, and storing energy generated from it for various purposes causes the return to drop.

In contrast, fossil fuels are highly portable because they have high energy densities. That’s why we’ve been using them to essentially power up industrial civilization throughout six decades. The problem is that their returns are dropping due to peak oil (with world oil production per capita peaking in 1979), which is why we are now resorting to various energy resources. Meanwhile, our energy demands per capita are rising because most people worldwide want middle class conveniences, and the middle class earns from sales to the same.

That’s the main point of this thread: automakers need to keep selling more vehicles (ironically made using fossil fuels!), and believe that hydrogen fuel can replace fossil fuels both for the fuel tank and manufacturing and shipping vehicles. It can’t.

 

[dvdjs]

An energy sink is a money sink if the energy paid for (which includes the energy needed to manufacture the components needed for the system and construct the infrastructure needed to distribute energy produced) is greater than what is earned from the energy generated from the system and sold throughout the life cycle of the latter.

True. But that is very different form what he posted earlier. It does not include the hydro storage system and may not include the hydrogen system.

 

[ralfyman]

So, your argument is basically based on the belief that what’s true today doesn’t mean it will be true tomorrow? Didn’t it ever occur to you that the argument works BOTH WAYS?

If you want to engage in a logical discussion on this issue, then you need to at least work on what can be quantified and studied, and not your unqualified opinion of the future.

Here’s what I mean. One study reports that it is actually possible to replace fossil fuels completely, but the transition period takes decades:

It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil, and We've Only Got 10 - Business Insider

On top of that, it will involve total coordination between economies, but how is that possible in a global economy that’s driven by profit and competition?

Let’s see that in relation to hydrogen fuel. It is an energy sink and is obviously not even close to “a prime green energy alternative.” If you are looking for something like that, then probably wave power offers the best option, but the return is high only given an ideal. Once you include the energy cost for mining and manufacturing components, infrastructure for distributing electricity, and all sorts of consumer goods to use that electricity, then the returns drop significantly!

Let’s see that in relation to this topic. So far, we’ve been looking only at hydrogen fuel, and that has an energy sink. What we missed are automakers. How much energy and material resources do we need to manufacture more passenger vehicles on a global scale? The roads that will use them? All of the other goods purchased by consumers together with driving leisurely?

The way I see it, in terms of biocapacity, never mind the energy source needed to power up vehicles. The manufacture of more vehicles alone will put us in the red.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . . .

So, your argument is basically based on the belief that what’s true today doesn’t mean it will be true tomorrow? Didn’t it ever occur to you that the argument works BOTH WAYS?

No ralfy. It never occurred to me.

But since you brought it up, there will be by-products of combustion with hydrocarbons.

Yes the pollution factor can be reduced, but not eliminated.

The other problem with that theory is petroleum products are a finite supply. (For all practical purposes, hydrogen is in “infinite” supply.)

My paradigm goes deeper into the future than the financial return here and now.

The other issue is, if we only have eleven years left, you better be coming up with some pretty seriously QUICK hydrocarbon emmissions tech.

(I don’t believe for a minute the eleven-year shenanigans. It is a spoof to manipulate voters to turn over more power and control to the globalist oligarch wanna-bees. But there ARE some truths to the greenhouse-gas issues too. I have never denied that.)

Also. With continuing dominance of hydrocarbon expenditure, you not only will need to implement pollution-control measures better than what we have now, but you are going to have to talk China and Japan into that too (whereas with my paradigm, they are already working towards hydrogen energy sources). (And don’t forget India, Europe, and Africa.)

And another thing is, you keep ignoring long-term costs associated with hydrocarbon utilization in terms of environment destruction and health issues.
These are not some mere future “projections”. They are occurring right now. So the asthmatic patient in Los Angeles who has to be hospitalized for a week due to their pulmonary disease being out of control (right NOW ralfy. Not merely some nebulous time in the future) there will be even MORE costs and hydrocarbon expenditure, that your paradigm has completely ignored.

And last but not least, you have not answered me about how you plan on persuading foreign countries (much less Americans) to live this mythical following of “a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier”.

You blew-off force. Fine.

But HOW are you going to persuade everyone else to live “a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier”, when you yourself are not even living the nightmare?

.

One study reports that it is actually possible to replace fossil fuels completely, but the transition period takes decades:

It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil, and We've Only Got 10

And I am OK with “decades”. Especially since we don’t have much choice.

What I am not OK with, is altogether jettisoning the goal of clean renewable energy in basically unlimited amounts.

.

On top of that, it will involve total coordination between economies, but how is that possible in a global economy that’s driven by profit and competition?

No it won’t. (Your premise has the built-in presupposition that this cannot be made affordable.)

If in ten or twenty years, say, Japan is “livin the dream”, I promise you, other people will WILLINGLY want that for themselves.

 

[ralfyman]

Now that you know that your argument works both ways, then you should stop using it to defend your views. Instead, look at it from a scientific viewpoint, as raised by Hall and others.

Next, I never argued that petroleum products are infinite. But the claim that hydrogen fuel can replace it because hydrogen is “infinite” is absurd because it’s an energy sink. Here’s what I mean:

Consider the fact that we actually have hundreds of years’ worth of fossil fuels underground, which means petroleum products are “infinite,” too. The catch is that we need increasing amounts of energy to get them, to the point that it will cost us the equivalent of one barrel of oil to get one barrel of oil out of the ground, for zero gain. And we need a return of 15 and greater to maintain the middle class lifestyle of only around a quarter of the world’s population. For the rest, we will need much more oil than what we have.

About having eleven years left, I don’t think hydrogen fuels will help even if we have more than century left because it’s an energy sink, with the estimate given in the article presented earlier as 1:0.25. That won’t even be enough to manufacture passenger vehicles that will use such fuel!

What you need to do is to consider combinations of energy sources, and preferably those that have the highest returns. That definitely writes off hydrogen fuel and even biofuels, which has a return that’s barely above 1 plus might make use of food crops. Maybe combinations of solar, wind, hydroelectric, wave power, backed up by nuclear and whatever fossil fuels are available. Whatever happens, the coordination needed for such will be incredible.

Also, it’s not just hydrocarbons used for gas tanks that affect the environment but even the hydrocarbons used to MAKE gas tanks. I short, even the passenger vehicles manufactured by automakers that are supposed to use hydrogen fuel require fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and even shipping. The same goes for our food supplies via mechanized agriculture.

Finally, the problem isn’t affordability, as we’ve demonstrated that if there’s anything we can create easily, it’s credit. It’s whether or not we can reverse diminishing returns in terms of energy and material resources availability. And there is nothing in your posts that demonstrate that.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . .

About having eleven years left, I don’t think hydrogen fuels will help even if we have more than century left because it’s an energy sink

ralfy. You assume that because hydrogen IS an energy sink, that hydrogen always WILL BE an energy sink.

And you may be right.

But there are serious players here who think you are wrong.

You’ve completely ignored the distal costs of hydrocarbon utilization (health, environment, and even the possibility of some truth to the global warming aspects – which admittedly may be beneficial).

Remember. In the next 50 years or so, there will be a LOT of energy needs/desires from China, India, Africa, etc.

Europe is committing a slow suicide but maybe the Muslims they are importing (which have more children than the Europeans) will significantly demand more energy for Europe too.

You have acknowledged that getting hydrocarbons may be more spendy in the future, but then go on about your scenarios like they were not.

You have not yet said anything about how you plan to get the world to except this “lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier” without FORCE.

And I am interested in how you think that salesmanship without force is going to be peddled to the people.

 

[ralfyman]

Not hydrogen but hydrogen fuel. And it doesn’t matter if it’s lessens damage to the environment because it’s still an energy sink.

Your next point about China, India, Africa, etc. doesn’t help at all because an energy sink DOES NOT provide lots of energy but the OPPOSITE.

What you want is something that lessens damage to the environment and provides a high return. Lots of energy? A very high return. And that’s definitely not hydrogen fuel.

Your next point about Europe is off-topic, but since you raised it, then I might as well add mine. Europe is facing population aging because of prosperity. Muslims are facing population momentum (i.e., even with lower birth rates, they are experiencing increasing population because many of them are young) and want to become prosperous as well.

Given that, you are wasting time promoting hydrogen fuel.

Also, I see your next point as illogical, i.e., I should support hydrogen fuel because of peak oil. That makes no sense at all because regardless of whether or not I support it, it’s still an energy sink.

As for your last point, where did you get the idea that I was referring to a plan or something that is going to be peddled to the people? It’s physics that will do that, unless you can show me a source of energy that has a return equivalent to pre-1970s oil (at least 1:100), easily accessible, has an energy density that is as good as or better than gasoline and diesel, and can provide petrochemicals. Why? Because ironically that’s what automakers will need to not only manufacture cars that will run on energy sinks like hydrogen fuel but also produce the latter.

 

[dvdjs]

Not hydrogen but hydrogen fuel. And it doesn’t matter if it’s lessens damage to the environment because it’s still an energy sink.

It does matter that it lessens damage to the environment. And its ]viability depends on whether or not it s a money sink, not an energy sink.