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

[ralfyman]

You have to see the connection between a money sink and an energy sink. A money sink is something where you get negative returns on your investment. In this case, if you invest money in hydrogen fuel, then you assume that the amount of energy (which will be paid for using money investment) will be recouped using money earned from energy returned. But if energy produced is less (which is what happens with an energy sink), then you lose money.

Of course, there are ways to avoid losing money, but they boil down to making sure that it’s the other guy who loses.

 

[dvdjs]

You have to see the connection between a money sink and an energy sink

Done. Pleae refer back to the the hydro-energy system that I linked to earlier, All storage/delivery devices are energy sinks but they have value and economic viability.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . .

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

Of course it matters.

If you are not figuring in the costs of the future need for carbon sequestration, pollutant clean-up, and carbon costs due to health complications you are only looking at proximate issues.

You are ignoring total costs, both in energy expenditure, and in financial costs.

And you have not addressed these issues.

ralfy . . .

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.

Cathoholic . . . .

My next point about China, India, Africa, etc. is at least worth considering because an energy sink today, DOES NOT provide evidence that it will REMAIN an energy sink tomorrow. The Chinese and the Japanese obviously think it is woth looking into. Ralfy thinks the OPPOSITE.

ralfy . . . .

Europe is facing population aging because of prosperity.

Really? And here I thought it was because they weren’t having kids. At least enough children to meet replacement levels.

ralfy . . .

Muslims are facing population momentum (. . . because many of them are young) and want to become prosperous as well.

This is a PARTIAL truth. (I actually agree with certain aspects of what you say here. It is what you are implicitly denying, that I take issue with.)

Europeans are old because they are not having children.

But I suppose using your motif ralfy, we can conclude European kids don’t want to become prosperous.

From Deutsche Welle several years ago . . .

27.03.2015

Germany needs more immigrants, study says​

A study has shown that Germany needs more immigrants to compensate for the gap left by retiring baby boomers. Non-EU countries could become an important source of qualified labor as the EU population shrinks… . .

'Germany needs more immigrants' – DW – 03/27/2015

A study has shown that Germany needs more immigrants to compensate for the gap left by retiring baby boomers. Non-EU countries could become an important source of qualified labor as the EU population shrinks.

www.dw.com

NOT Deutsche Welle . . .

A study has shown that Germany does not need more immigrants to compensate for the gap left by retiring baby boomers. There are a lot of immigrants. But that is just because Germans are prosperous.

Muslim countries could become an important source of qualified labor not because the EU population is shrinking, but because they too, want to become prosperous. Despite Germany not needing them, Germany wants other citizens to come there to prosper. But not to fill the labor vacuum.

.

ralfy:

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 . .

So basically you are in an “environmental despair”.
We cannot come up with ideas and ingenuity to deal with these issues.

So by default and after six new Chinese super Mega-Coal plants later (because the Chinese are not doing ONLY hydrogen energy options), the world will just have to come to grips with reality and necessarily live “a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier”?

It sounds like the alarmists only their despair default is “only more Government can save the planet.”

 

[ralfyman]

Of course, not! Otherwise, we wouldn’t even be able to make storage and delivery devices.

 

[ralfyman]

It doesn’t matter because damage to the environment won’t reverse energy return! If you start with 1:100 for oil extraction and processing and it goes down to 1:3 decades later, it will be so not because the environment was damaged but because of gravity and physical limitations. And if you care for the environment, that WON’T bring back the energy return to 1:100, unless you wait for a couple of million years before more fossil fuels are produced naturally.

Your second point makes no sense at all. Where in your research does it show that hydrogen fuel will one day have an energy return greater than one? And to support growing demand in the Third World, an energy return even higher than pre-1970s oil production?

You have shown nothing to prove that. Your argument is based on wishful thinking.

Europe and many other developed countries are having fewer kids because they are choosing to do so. They are choosing to do so because of prosperity: putting not just raising a family but even marriage on hold because of careers, spending more on middle class conveniences, etc. The cost of that prosperity will not be covered by energy sinks like hydrogen fuel. Not even close.

Your reference to Germany is a partial truth. Read up on the matter, and you will see that affluent countries have lower birth rates and poorer ones have higher. The reason has to do with affluence, and that affluence has a high cost in terms of energy and material resources. That’s why the ecological footprint per capita of the same affluent countries is much higher than that of poorer ones.

Finally, why do you keeping making this a personal issue, as if my views are based on emotion? Everything I’ve presented to you so far is based on various data sets, and that data, from energy returns given by Hall to ecological footprint calculators, remain regardless of whether or not I despair or are hopeful.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . . .

It doesn’t matter because damage to the environment won’t reverse energy return! If you start with 1:100 for oil extraction and processing and it goes down to 1:3 decades later, it will be so not because the environment was damaged . . .

You are ignoring energy expenditure in environmental clean-up.

As I said. You are also ignoring health-associated needs for energy expenditure that otherwise would not be there. At least in the same magnitude.

.

you will see that affluent countries have lower birth rates and poorer ones have higher.

This is WHY I said I agree with PART of what you said.

Here it is again . . .

ralfy . . .

Muslims are facing population momentum (. . . because many of them are young) and want to become prosperous as well.

Cathoholic . . . .

This is a PARTIAL truth. (I actually agree with certain aspects of what you say here. It is what you are implicitly denying, that I take issue with.)

But it was YOU who was ignoring the ultimate cause of the demographic vacuum.

After I put up the information from Deutsche Welle, you now seem to (thanlfully) be admitting it.

developed countries are having fewer kids because they are choosing to do so.

Once again. “Fewer kids” is the proximate reason Europe is facing “population aging”.

ralfy . . .

Everything I’ve presented to you so far is based on various data sets . . .

Data sets that ignore significant factors. Especially as time goes on. Especially if there is anything we will NEED to do (as a COST - both energy AND financial) to clean up the immediately cheaper hydrocarbon utilization (which CAN, due to greenhouse gas emission, become significantly MORE expensive. Not because it will cost more to get oil out of the ground, but because we will have to EXPEND ENERGY to clean up what we have used today).

And I’m saying your’s is a short-sighted immediate view.

Your variables in your figures are not what I have taken issue with.

It’s the variables that you continue to ignore.

And my last point has been ignored as well.

WHY do you think the Chinese, and the Japanese, and the Israelis, see potential in hydrogen utilization for the future?

Should I just send them this link, and they can now shut down all their hydrogen programs, because ralfy says to?

As far as your emotions, I asked how you are going to get the world to live like Daniel Boone short of force?

And you replied that it was just inevitable physics. (That is just emotion. I think it’s physics along with ideas, that we WON’T need to live like Daniel Boone.)

And I am saying it doesn’t need to be. New ideas will help.

Hydrogen is just one of many ideas.

But to blow it off, doesn’t make sense. At least to me.

 

[ralfyman]

Yes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that hydrogen fuel is an energy sink. That means even in a situation where there’s no ecological damage the energy return for this fuel is still less than one.

About your second point, what you ignored is the cost of obtaining that prosperity: the ecological footprint (i.e., the use of energy and material resources) per capita in richer countries is many times higher than biocapacity and what takes place in poorer ones. That means whatever resource savings take place due to population aging is negated by increased consumption due to the cost of prosperity.

No, it’s the other way round: you ignored the cause of population aging. You stopped at the point where you simply assumed that Europeans choose to have fewer children. The truth is that not just Europeans but the middle class worldwide are facing such, and that’s because of prosperity. What you need to do now is to consider the cost of that prosperity. To find out what they are, read my previous messages.

Fossil fuel use isn’t becoming cheaper but the opposite. And they are becoming more expensive not because of greenhouse emissions but because of diminishing returns. Why do you think we are now resorting to unconventional production (i.e., after conventional production peaked after 2005, and something that the IEA admitted only five years after?), and why the expected price for oil from the giant Manifa field will be at least $150 a barrel?

What variables are you talking about? So far, you shared only wishful thinking, such as assumptions that they will soon make improvements to making hydrogen fuel. Can you at least present sources to show that and expected energy returns? The last request is important.

 

[Cathoholic]

My point . . .

that doesn’t mean that hydrogen fuel WILL ALWAYS BE an energy sink. At least relative to hydrocarbons.

ralfy (changing my premise thus committing the fallacy of equivocation) . . .

that doesn’t negate the fact that hydrogen fuel IS an energy sink.

See the premise switch in the first sentence here.

To readers here. Draw your own conclusions. I have talked about future ideas and technology.

Ralfy keeps changing that to the here and now.

ralfy . . .

Europe is facing population aging because of prosperity.

Cathoholic . .

Really? And here I thought it (the population aging) was because they weren’t having kids. At least enough children to meet replacement levels.

ralfy . . .

No, it’s the other way round: you ignored the cause of population aging. . . . The truth is that not just Europeans but the middle class worldwide are facing such, and that’s because of prosperity.

Bold above and parenthetical addition mine for context.

If “prosperity” were the CAUSE of no kids, millionares could not have big families.

But if (for whatever reasons) millionares can’t or don’t have kids, they won’t have kids. By definition.

“Prosperity” is an association, I agree.
But it is not a “cause”.

.

ralfy . . .

the ecological footprint (i.e., the use of energy and material resources) per capita in richer countries is many times higher than biocapacity and what takes place in poorer ones. That means whatever resource savings take place due to population aging is negated by increased consumption due to the cost of prosperity.

Thanks ralfy for saying this.

This means we need to look toward alternative energy sources. (I am not saying do away with hydrocarbons).

.

ralfy . . . .

Fossil fuel use isn’t becoming cheaper but the opposite. And they are becoming more expensive not because of greenhouse emissions . . .

(bold mine)

I never said fossil fuels ARE more expensive BECAUSE of greenhouse gas emissions NOW.

I said fossil fuels NOW being utilized, WILL exact a cost in the future.

And I stand by that.

And you have yet to address these issues.

If you burn a gallon of gas now, and it takes a half a gallon of gas thirty years from now in carbon sequestration costs, THAT means fossil fuels have a hidden cost. And they DO have a hidden cost.

If an asthmatic gets an asthma attack and you burn another half gallon of gas, to run and sequester oxygen so the guy can breath while he gets better in the hospital, THAT is ANOTHER cost (you have ignored).

And if a guy has to have his catalytic converter changed THAT is another energy COST that you are continuing to ignore. Making catalytic converters at the factory takes ENERGY.

And in an all-hydrocarbon society, it will take hydrocarbon energy. Add another pint of gas (or whatever), that you have ignored. And that is only looking at one aspect of pollution costs.

.

Like I said. You tell the Israelis, the Japanese, and the Chinese that ralfy knows better.

 

[ralfyman]

Do you have any sources showing what the new returns for hydrogen fuel will be, and why? There is one source that refers to developments in the process, but does not identify the new energy return.

Again, as I explained in my earlier point, energy returns do not go up and down given the effect of energy use in an environment. There is absolutely nothing logical about that point. The energy return is determined by the process of making that energy usable. Whether or not that use will harm the environment in no way increases that return.

Do you understand? It is argued that the energy return of hydrogen fuel is 1:.25. If it is, for some weird reason, found to be actually harmful to one or more aspects of ecosystem, that still does not change the return. It’s still 1:.25.

So, stop raising a point that makes no sense.

Your argument about millionaires is completely illogical, as well as the premise that population aging is due to people who don’t have kids. Actually, it’s due to lower birth rates, and that’s due to economic development, better education, and more advanced technology, all part of prosperity. For more details, look up the theory of demographic transition.

If you see another cause for population aging that is better than prosperity, then let me know.

Actually, what you look forward to we’ve been using since the 1970s. Even the idea of a hydrogen economy was discussed back in the early 1970s. The problem is that it is an energy sink, and with other sources of energy, won’t be enough to meet growing demands of a capitalist global economy.

Of course, they will exact a cost in the future, but that still doesn’t reverse the energy return for hydrogen fuel, nor show that we can stop using them.

Have not addressed these issues? That’s what I’ve been explaining to you all along!

The hidden cost you gave has NOTHING to do with energy return. If you have hydrogen fuel with a return of 1:.25, that return DOES NOT go up because it doesn’t harm the environment. If you have oil with an energy return of 1:3, that return DOES NOT go down because it does.

Your reference to saving someone using gasoline has NOTHING to do with energy returns! The energy return of that gasoline is based on the energy used to extract oil from the ground, process gasoline through a refinery, and the energy derived from that gasoline. It doesn’t matter if that gasoline was used to save a life, drive around leisurely, or not even used at all. The return is still the same.

You are attempting to add all sorts of other costs, including social and ecological, none of which you have not even been able to quantify. But that’s completely illogical because an EROI is based exactly on energy and not anything else.

If you want to include other costs, then come up with another cost and return comparison, but you shouldn’t call it an energy return! Call it a social cost.

Finally, about your last point, I didn’t argue that various people should do one thing or another. Rather, they will end up doing so because nothing in what you have said counters the point that hydrogen fuel is an energy sink.

 

[Cathoholic]

Do you have any sources showing what the new returns for hydrogen fuel will be, and why?

Go back and read what I said.

I said new ideas will be needed.

I said this looks promising enough that real players are seriously considering this. (China, Israel, and Japan).

Probably much more of a serious player than you (although you may know more than those guys).

Again, as I explained in my earlier point, energy returns do not go up and down given the effect of energy use in an environment.

That’s because you keep ignoring the deferred energy costs in the areas that I explicitly pointed out.

Unless you think those issues are energy neutral. (Hint: They are not “energy neutral”).

ralfy . . .

Your argument about millionaires is completely illogical, as well as the premise that population aging is due to people who don’t have kids. . . .

Let the readers draw their own conclusions.

I saw people have less children, when they have less children.

ralfy insists people have less children when they have
economic development, better education, and more advanced technology, all part of prosperity.

(Hint: ralfy is substituting “associations”
with “cause and effect”.
It is ralfy’s theories that are partially correct,
but have been misapplied.

Here is ralfy again saying the same basic thing as he has in many other posts (tautology).

The problem is that it IS an energy sink . . .

Emphasis mine. (“is” to ralfy is equivalent to “is and always will be”).

I’m not going to address this anymore. I’ve already addressed it several times.

You are attempting to add all sorts of other costs, including social and ecological, none of which you have not even been able to quantify.

To readers here. Don’t believe this.

Go back and see explicitly costs that I explicity DID identfy (admittedly I did not quantify).

The asthmatic who undergoes hospitalization due to a hydrocarbon byproduct induced asthma exacerbation will cost more hydrocarbons. I exemplified only one aspect. The oxygen set up and the hydrocarbon cost for that (there were others I ignored).

You cannot make or deliver oxygen tubing without energy expenditure. In a hydrocarbon-energy society, that by definition translates into hydrocarbons.

The oxygen delivery truck. You know that large blue diesel truck that you see outside of hospitals? It didn’t get there hydrocarbon-free.

There are others too but you get the picture.

Ralfy does not get the picture.

ralfy . . .

Rather, they will end up doing so because nothing in what you have said counters the point that hydrogen fuel is an energy sink.

Someone ought to save the planet a lot of problems and just text the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Isralis, and tell them “ralfy says no!”

That’ll save everyone a lot of issues.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you have any sources showing what the new returns for hydrogen fuel will be, and why?

Go back and read what I said.

I said new ideas will be needed.

I said this looks promising enough that real players are seriously considering this. (China, Israel, and Japan).

Probably much more of a serious player than you (although you may know more than those guys).

Well, that’s not a “yes.”

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . .

Well, that’s not a “yes.”

It’s not supposed to be a “yes”.

It is supposed to be there is promise, the rewards are high in terms of the environment, it means there are people probably more qualified than us, that think this is worth pursuing.

 

[ralfyman]

Claiming that new ideas are needed is obvious. What I’m asking you to share is the study that shows that an energy return of 1:.25 is wrong. You were questioning that earlier, remember?

The “deferred energy costs” you give DO NOT increase or decrease energy returns. If, for example, hydrogen fuel has an energy return of 1:.25, and it doesn’t pollute the environment as much as diesel such that you don’t have to expend more energy to clean up, then you may have more hydrogen fuel to use but the return is still 1:.25. Get it? Energy return refers to the production process to make fuel available and not the use.

If you want to bring in use and issues such as ecological damage, then you are referring to a social cost. That is not part of EROI.

Association? It’s demographic transition:

Demographic transition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

About your point that something “can be,” did it ever occur to you that your argument works both ways? That means the energy return of hydrogen fuel can go up, or go down even more?

Given that, why do you keep wasting your time with such an illogical point? Why not fulfill my request and show what the correct energy return is?

Asthma? Oxygen delivery trucks? How does that give us the correct energy return for hydrogen fuel?

Finally, your last point makes no sense at all. I’m not stopping anyone from developing hydrogen fuel. I’m just saying that according to Nelder the energy return for that is 1:.25, which makes it an energy sink.

Now, barring multi-colored trucks, asthma, and whatever points you want to raise that have nothing to do with I said, can you or can you not give the correct energy return for hydrogen fuel? If you can’t, then stop wasting my time.

 

[Cathoholic]

@ralfy

What I’m asking you to share is the study that shows that a net energy return of of hydrocarbons is accurate.

Especially when it doesn’t figure in the cost both in dollars and energy expenditures of having to expend MORE hydrocarbons to clean up the after-effects of prior hydrocarbons.

A net effect.

Get it?

Your posted demographic “theory” does nothing for your position of prosperity being a CAUSE of less children.

It is an “ASSOCIATION” ralfy. That’s all.

I agree with that asscociation. But it is NOT a cause and effect. It just isn’t.
No matter how many times you keep repeating the same arguments different ways.
It is just an association.

ralfy . . .

Asthma? Oxygen delivery trucks? How does that give us the correct energy return for hydrogen fuel?

The question should be . . . .

Asthma? Oxygen delivery trucks? How does that give us AN IMPROVED NET energy return for hydrogen fuel?

Because if the kid’s asthma attack was associated with hydrocarbon-associated air pollution as many are, and the hydrocarbon-associated air pollution factor is partially negated, at least SOME of these people will NOT HAVE hydrocarbon-associated air pollution induced asthma attacks because there is no or at least less hydrocarbons to trigger that in the first place.

And no, to all the costs that go into that.

And that is only one example.

If you want to pretend there are no NET hydrocarbon expenditures here fine. Think that.

.

You go right ahead and think that prosperity is the CAUSE of less children too . . .

(ralfy-world . . . Population cause-effect theories:

Pro-life husband to pro-life wife: “Honey! I got that huge contract today. You know what that means. We are now wealthy!”

Pro-life wife to pro-life husband: "Oh that’s great dear but . . . .

Pro-life husband to pro-life wife: Honey? What’s the matter?

Pro-life wife to pro-life husband: You know that big family we’ve always talked about and we are on our way to, with our already-two children?

Pro-life husband to pro-life wife: Yeah. Yeah. Keep going?

Pro-life wife to pro-life husband: Well with this prosperity ralfy says it CAUSES less children!

Pro-life husband to pro-life wife: (Snapping his fingers) That’s right! We won’t be able to have those kids now that we will be wealthy! Good point Honey!
I’ll call my attorney, and go in there tomorrow and tell them to give the contract to someone else.
We can live in poverty!
THEN we can have our ten kids!!

Pro-life wife to pro-life husband: Ohhh THANK YOU Dear! You rescued our family!

Look. If you want to think that kind of paradigm, you go right ahead and think that.

For everybody else. The prosperity aspect association with the demographic winter that the people all over are experiencing is just that. An association.

I agree with PART of what ralfy is saying on that.

But for ralfy to dispute what I am saying is just . . . Well. . . Draw your own conclusions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is supposed to be there is promise, the rewards are high in terms of the environment, it means there are people probably more qualified than us, that think this is worth pursuing.

It is understood to be aspirational. But aspirations tend to fall in the subjunctive tone of voice. They are descriptive of how one imagines things to be. It isn’t descriptive of how they are and current constraints.

One day we might have cars that run on nuclear power cells and can last a lifetime with no refueling. But in the absence of any viable implementation that can be distributed safely future planning gets constrained by current restrictions.

The aspirational power productions and source end up in the same category as string theory and cold fusion. Perhaps one day it will be useful. But right now it is speculation.

That said, I still see value in hydrogen production using power that would go to waste otherwise such as directing surplus solar power to its production.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . .

But aspirations tend to fall in the subjunctive tone of voice. They are descriptive of how one imagines things to be.

I’m dissappointed TS that you would have that attitude.

Strikes me as more energy despair.

Ideas thought up are how ideas become accomplished.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m dissappointed TS that you would have that attitude.

Strikes me as more energy despair.

Realism tends to lead one to expectations that are not in agreement with optimism.

Ideas thought up are how ideas become accomplished.

I agree. But I also think most ideas fail.

Put another way if I had to bet my life or well being on the success or developing a new energy source I think I would have a batter chance at a long life betting on failure.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . .

Realism tends to lead one to expectations that are not in agreement with optimism.

I’ll text message that to the Chinese, Japanese, and Israelis.

ThinkingSapien says pursuing hydrogen as an energy source is not grounded in realism. So give it up guys. Just give up.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien says pursuing hydrogen as an energy source is not grounded in realism. So give it up guys. Just give up.

Peruse to one’s content. But be aware that as a part of life we see more more failures than success in chasing something not yet figured out.

If only success were more frequent than failures where would we be?

I’m personally am interested in adding solar cells to my house. If I had a use I wouldn’t mind adding hydrogen production to that. But only in co junction with solar power and a vehicle to use it. Take away the solar power or the hydrogen vehicle and hydrogen conditionally has no practical use for me.

 

[ralfyman]

If any, that’s exactly what one study pointed out: electricity from solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy will be used for the process of producing hydrogen fuel, to be used for cars. It doesn’t increase energy return at all, and if hydrogen fuel is an energy sink, decrease whatever energy returns are seen from the three other sources.

One can argue that it is pointless to do so, as one can use vehicles with electric motors. My guess is that hydrogen fuel will have to be used for situations where there are rough roads, inclines exceeding 15 degrees, and heavy cargo to be used. In a situation where resources are tight, those vehicles will likely be used for carrying critical medical supplies immediately or injured or sick people. Otherwise, one is better of with electric rail supplemented by diesel engines for cargo and others.

The hard part is an insistence on increased personal consumption as part of middle class conveniences. Consider passenger vehicles, for example, which is likely the main market of automakers referred to in the thread. Right now, there are more than a billion passenger vehicles (sedans and light trucks) worldwide, and a quarter of them are found in the U.S., which has a population that makes up only around 5 pct of that of the world. Imagine similar for all sorts of goods, form electronic gadgets to appliances to construction materials for houses. Then imagine the road networks, rail, container ships, mining equipment, factories, and machinery for mechanized agriculture needed to support those consumer markets. Then imagine doing that for the rest of the world (which is what businesses want to do, right? increase sales each time while competing with each other), and a doubling in energy demand will obviously be an underestimate.

(to be continued)