Question about hydrogen cars

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Changing to CNG infrastructure would be highly expensive
and time consuming."

And hydrogen would not?

Natural gas is lighter on carbon than the other fossil fuels. It has that benefit. Almost half of electricity produced in the USA is from coal and that is carbon heavy. Hydrogen will be supplied by fossil fuels because that is what is most cost e ...[text shortened]... to be sequestered please make that known so we can all judge for ourselves if that is practical.

Where did I say anything about extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels?

I'm pretty sure I talked about nuclear and solar/renewables.

I also said hydrogen/batteries as power sources for cars... And not just hydrogen.


I also, if you actually read my post, did not claim that hydrogen wouldn't require
infrastructure spending.

The point was that CNG requires lots of infrastructure spending and time to get a fuel
that STILL EMITS CO2.

LESS CO2 is not good enough. We need ZERO CO2 (on net)

Spending lots of time and money building a new infrastructure for a new fuel that we
still have to replace with something afterwards is a pointless wast of time and money.

We should just build the zero carbon economy now.

Rather than the 'slightly less' carbon economy and THEN build the zero carbon economy.


EDIT: If you TAX carbon emitting fuels to cover all the costs of the pollution they emit then
the 'green' fuels which have to bare those costs upfront become cheaper than fossil fuels.

And if you do it as a revenue neutral carbon tax it doesn't hurt the poor or the economy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How is it not practical to just build a bunch of nuclear power plants?

Ask the Japanese. People are scared of nuclear power plants. Even if you feel it is unjustified people will resist. Then there is the matter of storing the nuclear waste.

It is not practical.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Where did I say anything about extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels?

I'm pretty sure I talked about nuclear and solar/renewables.

I also said hydrogen/batteries as power sources for cars... And not just hydrogen.


I also, if you actually read my post, did not claim that hydrogen wouldn't require
infrastructure spending.

The point was that ...[text shortened]... ls.

And if you do it as a revenue neutral carbon tax it doesn't hurt the poor or the economy.

"Where did I say anything about extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels?"

You didn't, I did. Fossil fuels are the cheapest source of hydrogen and that will not change anytime soon. People tend to buy what costs less.

Hydrogen can reduce air pollution in cities like LA but you still will be using fossil fuels and they are called hydrocarbon for a reason, it contains carbon as well as hydrogen. That carbon will go into the atmosphere unless you can sequester it which means you have solved nothing.

Renewables are too expensive. In fact, everything you are proposing is too expensive and impractical.

"LESS CO2 is not good enough. We need ZERO CO2"

Hydrogen will not do that. If you think it will you are not thinking properly.

"And if you do it as a revenue neutral carbon tax it doesn't hurt the poor or the economy."

Bullcrap! You are a fool to believe such nonsense. Give me some of your money if you believe it won't hurt you.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Where did I say anything about extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels?"

You didn't, I did. Fossil fuels are the cheapest source of hydrogen and that will not change anytime soon. People tend to buy what costs less.

Hydrogen can reduce air pollution in cities like LA but you still will be using fossil fuels and they are called hydrocarbon for a rea ...[text shortened]... re a fool to believe such nonsense. Give me some of your money if you believe it won't hurt you.

Do you know what a revenue neutral carbon tax is?

It's where you tax carbon emissions at source and then give the money you raise to the people.
It makes polluting items more expensive, but the poor who use less resources get more from the
tax than their extra costs. Which is balanced out by the rich high carbon users paying more.

This is a genuine thing that has been implemented in a number of locations (including a state in
the US) and it's both popular with the people there and hasn't hurt the local economy.

So it's not bullcrap it's verifiable fact.

As is everything else I said.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Where did I say anything about extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels?"

You didn't, I did. Fossil fuels are the cheapest source of hydrogen and that will not change anytime soon. People tend to buy what costs less.

Hydrogen can reduce air pollution in cities like LA but you still will be using fossil fuels and they are called hydrocarbon for a rea ...[text shortened]... re a fool to believe such nonsense. Give me some of your money if you believe it won't hurt you.

Renewables are too expensive.

That is highly debatable and just depends on context and what you compare it with. In some places in the world, renewables have already been cheaper than fossil fuels -it just depends.
Renewables are coming cheaper all the time (esp solar panels ) and, because this is just a matter of the amount of technological advance which happens by many small and therefore creditable increments that have been happening in quick succession, it has become increasingly obvious it would be just a matter of time (almost certainly within the next 40 years if not one hell of a lot sooner! ) before they will came cheaper than fossil fuels in all contexts and in all countries and literally everywhere in the world.

However, I would agree with you that Hydrogen is definitely NOT the answer (for the reasons I explained in my earlier post in this thread ) and will certainly not help much!
Non-hydrogen biofuels, such as biodiesel, could be part of the answer with other renewables being the rest of the answer.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you know what a revenue neutral carbon tax is?

It's where you tax carbon emissions at source and then give the money you raise to the people.
It makes polluting items more expensive, but the poor who use less resources get more from the
tax than their extra costs. Which is balanced out by the rich high carbon users paying more.

This is a genu ...[text shortened]... he local economy.

So it's not bullcrap it's verifiable fact.

As is everything else I said.

You keep evading the issue of sequestration of carbon. You are avoiding it for a reason.

"then give the money you raise to the people."

Yeah, that is what all fake socialists say. They said that with the income tax and tax loopholes were built into the system so the super wealthy were exempt. You are a fool for believing change you can believe in again. Not surprisingly your claims lack specificity. All scams do.

Originally posted by humy

Renewables are too expensive.

That is highly debatable and just depends on context and what you compare it with. In some places in the world, renewables have already been cheaper than fossil fuels -it just depends.
Renewables are coming cheaper all the time (esp solar panels ) and, because this is just a matter of the am ...[text shortened]... iodiesel, could be [i]part of the answer with other renewables being the rest of the answer.

Biofuels are too expensive and reduce the supply of food. Other renewables are too expensive. Solar is not the answer everywhere. Here in Michigan it would be a big loser. Maybe in AZ and NM it makes sense but not in most other states.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Biofuels are too expensive and reduce the supply of food. Other renewables are too expensive. Solar is not the answer everywhere. Here in Michigan it would be a big loser. Maybe in AZ and NM it makes sense but not in most other states.

Biofuels are too expensive … Other renewables are too expensive.

Didn't you read any of my post? I just explained that this is not necessarily true now (just depends. For example, hydroelectric is usually cheap enough where and when it is available ) and CERTAINLY will not be true in the near future.
Reminder:

“renewables have already been cheaper than fossil fuels -it just depends.
Renewables are coming cheaper all the time (esp solar panels ) and, because this is just a matter of the amount of technological advance which happens by many small and therefore creditable increments that have been happening in quick succession, it has become increasingly obvious it would be just a matter of time (almost certainly within the next 40 years if not one hell of a lot sooner! ) before they will came cheaper than fossil fuels in all contexts and in all countries and literally everywhere in the world. “

now, do dispute the above and, if so which part and HOW so?
It is no good just asserting they are “too expensive” without a counterargument to my argument above.

and reduce the supply of food.

Not necessarily. It depends on both the type and the source of the biofuel. If it is processed from waste organic matter such as waste food (which it sometimes already is in some places ) then it would not compete with food production. Similarly, if it is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production other than rough grazing with very low productivity (such as on cold tall mountains with thin soil ) , it would have only trivial impact on food production at most.

Even where biofuel crops are grown on land that would otherwise be used for growing food, that still would not necessarily reduce food production because, depending on the scale and circumstances surrounding it, it may be possible to exactly offset that simply by increasing food production elsewhere.

Solar is not the answer everywhere.

WHY not?
It can be a big part of the answer when combined with other measures.

Here in Michigan it would be a big loser

WHY would that be?
Does the sun never shine on Michigan?
There is no point in just making such assertions without some kind of justification for them such as evidence or an actual argument.

Originally posted by humy

Biofuels are too expensive … Other renewables are too expensive.

Didn't you read any of my post? I just explained that this is not necessarily true now (just depends. For example, hydroelectric is usually cheap enough where and when it is available ) and CERTAINLY will not be true in the near future.
Reminder:

“renewables have alread ...[text shortened]... h assertions without some kind of justification for them such as evidence or an actual argument.

“renewables have already been cheaper than fossil fuels -it just depends."

Prove it. What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
“renewables have already been cheaper than fossil fuels -it just depends."

Prove it. What is your source of information?

OK, here are some statistics:

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/ecoal-archive/ecoal-current-issue/costs-of-coal-fired-electricity/

"...According to IEA statistics, coal-based electricity is, on average, 7% cheaper than gas and around 19% cheaper than nuclear...."


http://www.ieahydro.org/What_does_hydropower_cost.html

"...When compared to other means of producing electricity, hydroelectric production costs run about one third those of either fossil-fueled (coal or oil) or nuclear power plants, and is less than one fourth the cost of gas turbine electricity production...."


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/australia-wind-energy-cheaper-than-coal-natural-gas-bnef-says.html
"...
Australian Wind Energy Now Cheaper Than Coal, Gas,
..."

Need I go on? Is that enough proof for you? if not, I can show you more. Now, have you got evidence that renewables have never been cheaper than fossil fuels anywhere at any time and that the above is all false?

also note:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/19/nrdc-clean-energy-affordable-way-power-us/
"....
It’s less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal-fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences...."

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/10/solar-power-cheaper-than-coal-foreseen-by-german-solar-mogul/
"...
large scale solar power in Germany is already “approaching the costs” of conventional power, at 10 euro cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
..."
(and solar is predicted by experts to become cheaper soon! )

Originally posted by humy
OK, here are some statistics:

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/ecoal-archive/ecoal-current-issue/costs-of-coal-fired-electricity/

"...According to IEA statistics, coal-based electricity is, on average, 7% cheaper than gas and around 19% cheaper than nuclear...."


http://www.ieahydro.org/What_does_hydropower_cost.html

"...When compared to other me ...[text shortened]... nts per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
..."
(and solar is predicted by experts to become cheaper soon! )

Hydroelectric cannot be expanded very much. That isn't the answer and solar is still way too expensive.

The Bloomberg link states this:

"Relying on fossil fuels to produce electricity is getting more expensive because of the government’s price on carbon emissions imposed last year, higher financing costs and rising natural gas prices, BNEF said. The cost of wind generation has fallen by 10 percent since 2011 on lower equipment expenses, while the cost of solar power has dropped by 29 percent."

The article also says this:

"Coal-fired power stations built in the 1970s and 1980s can still produce power at a lower cost than that of wind, the research shows."

The advantage for wind power was artificially imposed. The way they did it was foolish too. They should have done it with subsidies for wind power rather than putting themselves at a trading disadvantage to other countries with cheaper electricity.

I did find the articles interesting, but there is nothing there to prove renewables have any true competitiveness with fossil fuels. It will be a long time before that changes. Fracking is making more fossil fuels recoverable. That will keep the price from rising very much in the short term.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Hydroelectric cannot be expanded very much. That isn't the answer and solar is still way too expensive.

The Bloomberg link states this:

"Relying on fossil fuels to produce electricity is getting more expensive because of the government’s price on carbon emissions imposed last year, higher financing costs and rising natural gas prices, BNEF said. Th ...[text shortened]... more fossil fuels recoverable. That will keep the price from rising very much in the short term.

Hydroelectric cannot be expanded very much. That isn't the answer

What barrier would prevent it being PART of the answer just like it is now?
Hydroelectric is just fine and cost effective where and when it is available and is absolute PROOF that renewables CAN be cheaper than fossil fuels.

and solar is still way too expensive.

Not necessarily -and, it is getting cheaper all the time and, as I have already repeatedly explained to you, it WILL eventually become cheaper than fossil fuels (and probably withing just the next few years )

The rest of your post is irreverent because it doesn't look ahead to when renewables (plus off-the-grid storage ) WILL become cheaper than fossil fuels in every way and that is WITHOUT subsidies. When that day comes, what objection would you have to going totally renewable then?

Originally posted by humy

Hydroelectric cannot be expanded very much. That isn't the answer

What barrier would prevent it being PART of the answer just like it is now?
Hydroelectric is just fine and cost effective where and when it is available and is absolute PROOF that renewables CAN be cheaper than fossil fuels.
[quote] and solar is still way too expensive. ...[text shortened]... T subsidies. When that day comes, what objection would you have to going totally renewable then?

Are you going to create new rivers to dam? Hydroelectric is great, but we have already done most of what we can there.

Solar cannot compete with fossil fuels. Some day it might and I welcome that, but you have to realize that not all regions get enough sunshine to make it worthwhile. Wind is the same way. Some regions get a lot of wind while others don't.

I seriously doubt renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels within 3 years. Without subsidies or the taxation of fossil fuels it will not happen. That is why leftists want a carbon tax. They are also being duped into allowing a tax burdened people to be taxed more. If you ask them if they will lower taxes somewhere else you will hear the crickets chirping. All leftist want to do is spend and you have to raise taxes to do that.

The truth is you are just another tax and spend kind of person. You want to trust the government with the money. That is why countries go deep in debt, too much trust in government to manage their money.

Metal Brain's bizarre political rants aside, what he is saying about hydropower is partially true - in most places where it can be used, it has already been because it is both cheap and clean. Mountainous, sparsely populated places can easily get all their power from hydro, and this is what Norway does (despite being a major oil producer). However, a potential power source that has not really been tapped yet is tidal power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

Tidal power is more expensive and more challenging from an engineering perspective than traditional hydropower, but may prove to be a valuable source in the future. If I'm not mistaken they are building a large facility off the British coast at the moment.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You keep evading the issue of sequestration of carbon. You are avoiding it for a reason.

"then give the money you raise to the people."

Yeah, that is what all fake socialists say. They said that with the income tax and tax loopholes were built into the system so the super wealthy were exempt. You are a fool for believing change you can believe in again. Not surprisingly your claims lack specificity. All scams do.

We are talking about photo-electroysis of water to H2. We don't need to use hydrocarbons to get H2. If the energy comes from renewables there is net zero effect on the atmosphere.

And to your point about leftists raising taxes, if something SERIOUS is not done and done soon about global warming, higher taxes will be the LEAST of our problems.

We are talking about some pain today to help reduce a LOT of pain in 100 years, like billions and I do mean BILLIONS of people starving from ruined croplands.