Question about hydrogen cars

Originally posted by Metal Brain
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 do ...[text shortened]... oney. That is why countries go deep in debt, too much trust in government to manage their money.

Hydroelectric is great, but we have already done most of what we can there.

yes, obviously, and that doesn't change the fact that, just like I just said, hydroelectric is absolute proof that renewables CAN be cheaper than fossil fuels. If hydroelectric can be made to become cheaper than fossil fuels, why not ever solar or wind power? And once solar energy is made cheaper, what barrier would there be at putting solar panels on, say, every rooftop of virtually every building so to provide us with most of our energy?

Some day it might and I welcome that

I assume the best expert estimates put that “Some day” roughly in about ~10 years time judging by the fantastic current rate of progress that is faster now than any previous time in history so that “Some day” will be SOON.

They are also being duped into allowing a tax burdened people to be taxed more.

OK, out of these two things, which should we give priority here and explain WHY so; not increasing the current income tax 'burden' (you make it sound like they suffer post traumatic stress from it -perhaps they do! -while the poorest people in the world starve to death and have got far more to complain about ) baring in mind that the money from taxes payed in many if not most cases can come mostly from the richest people in our societies and not the poorest, or helping the future generations of people by doing research and development into renewables that will prevent them keep unsustainable burning fossil fuels until the sea level rises to a point where global warming, directly and indirectly, would either harm or even possibly kill billions of them?

Of course, and perhaps THIS is the most important point I make here, once renewables like solar are researched and developed enough to be made to become cheaper than fossil fuels, there would be no need to tax anyone to fund research into it and, in addition, this will result in a huge booming economy free of any burden on dependency on the now more expensive fossil fuels -well, the tax payers would have nothing to complain about then! They, the tax payers, will economically BENEFIT from this!
So, actually, this is in the interest of the tax payers which ever way you look at it providing you reject ultra-short-termism.

Originally posted by humy

Hydroelectric is great, but we have already done most of what we can there.

yes, obviously, and that doesn't change the fact that, just like I just said, hydroelectric is absolute proof that renewables CAN be cheaper than fossil fuels. If hydroelectric can be made to become cheaper than fossil fuels, why not ever solar or wind power? And ...[text shortened]... terest of the tax payers which ever way you look at it providing you reject ultra-short-termism.

Sure, you can say that hydroelectric supports your statement, but even you know it is not going to accomplish your stated goal so it is largely irrelevant.

Solar has a long way to go. I welcome the advances and hope it does eventually compete with fossil fuels but that will take decades. Probably not in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...

Solar has a long way to go. I welcome the advances and hope it does eventually compete with fossil fuels but that will take decades. Probably not in my lifetime.

And you know this, how exactly?
Have you looked at the recent advances like I have?
Because, if only if you have, you would know just like the experts already know that it will get a lot cheaper within the next ten years and probably cheaper than fossil fuels.
Can you show evidence or any reason to believe that this is false?

I have studied solar power (partly at university ) , have you? if not, then, no offense meant but; how would you know that I am not speaking from good information while you are speaking from ignorance? I mean, what would make you think you know better than both I and the solar experts?

Originally posted by humy
And you know this, how exactly?
Have you looked at the recent advances like I have?
Because, if only if you have, you would know just like the experts already know that it will get a lot cheaper within the next ten years and probably cheaper than fossil fuels.
Can you show evidence or any reason to believe that this is false?

I have studied solar power ...[text shortened]... ignorance? I mean, what would make you think you know better than both I and the solar experts?

Fracking is going to keep prices low. You are just looking at the other side. Fossil fuels will be cheap for a long time.

Originally posted by humy
And you know this, how exactly?
Have you looked at the recent advances like I have?
Because, if only if you have, you would know just like the experts already know that it will get a lot cheaper within the next ten years and probably cheaper than fossil fuels.
Can you show evidence or any reason to believe that this is false?

I have studied solar power ...[text shortened]... ignorance? I mean, what would make you think you know better than both I and the solar experts?

For instance, metal brain, look at this piece about Perovskite solar cells:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-perovskite-solar-cells-cheaper-materials.html#ajTabs

Developments like this are happening almost daily. There will be a convergence of such technologies leading to the 10 cent a watt solar cell and not in the year 2100 either.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Fracking is going to keep prices low. You are just looking at the other side. Fossil fuels will be cheap for a long time.

Fracking is going to keep prices low.

possibly. But that still would not change the fact that solar power will still become cheaper than oil. Oil prices will not have to rise for this to happen, just a drop in the cost of solar cells which is now inevitable.

This is one of the many things that points to what we will have in the future:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-electric-buses-wireless-uk-milton.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
For instance, metal brain, look at this piece about Perovskite solar cells:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-perovskite-solar-cells-cheaper-materials.html#ajTabs

Developments like this are happening almost daily. There will be a convergence of such technologies leading to the 10 cent a watt solar cell and not in the year 2100 either.

Here is the last sentence of the article from the link:

However, commercial solar cells must last 20-30 years with minimal degradation, and whether or not perovskite solar cells are capable of this type of long-term stability is currently an unanswered question."

Solar cells do have their disadvantages. Cloudy days, short daylight hours in the north and the need to clean dust off the cells.

I do believe solar cells will be improved, but I think it will be many years before they can compete with fossil fuels. If you are so confident that they will be cheaper soon there is no need for a carbon tax. I find it interesting that the same people that claim fossil fuels will lose out to solar soon support a carbon tax that will be outdated soon. It makes little sense.

Originally posted by humy
This is one of the many things that points to what we will have in the future:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-electric-buses-wireless-uk-milton.html

Electric powered vehicles? 61% of the world's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels like coal (40😵 and natural gas (21😵.

How is that supposed to reduce global warming?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Here is the last sentence of the article from the link:

However, commercial solar cells must last 20-30 years with minimal degradation, and whether or not perovskite solar cells are capable of this type of long-term stability is currently an unanswered question."

Solar cells do have their disadvantages. Cloudy days, short daylight hours in the nort ...[text shortened]... l lose out to solar soon support a carbon tax that will be outdated soon. It makes little sense.

I don't know of anyone saying solar will soon replace fossil fuels but if it does take 20 years for solar to get really competitive with fossil fuels we have at least that much fossil reserves left. The big question is whether we can ameliorate the effects of climate change in the meantime.

One thing not talked about much dealing with solar is the problem of infrastructure.

The best place, clearly, to put solar in the US is in the deserts of the southwest where there is little rain, lots of sun and so forth.

New batteries are coming online that can help with the night problem of solar but there is a bigger problem than that:

Power lines.

The present power line system skirts the desert, way north and west and east so there is a dearth of heavy duty transmission lines in the desert and if solar is to make terawatts of energy, however and whenever they do, there will have to be literally trillions spent on new infrastructure to get that power from the desert to the big cities. This is not a trivial problem.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't know of anyone saying solar will soon replace fossil fuels but if it does take 20 years for solar to get really competitive with fossil fuels we have at least that much fossil reserves left. The big question is whether we can ameliorate the effects of climate change in the meantime.

One thing not talked about much dealing with solar is the proble ...[text shortened]... frastructure to get that power from the desert to the big cities. This is not a trivial problem.

I started by saying natural gas would make more sense to "ameliorate" global warming (as you put it) than hydrogen powered vehicles. Solar was just a digression from that.

I'm not promoting natural gas. I was just making a point. Hydrogen will come from fossil fuels so it is not as green as some would like to think. Most people don't own cars for over 20 years and Honda makes a CNG powered car now.

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/

There are downsides to a CNG car but most apply to hydrogen as well. If people are very concerned about CO2 causing global warming wouldn't natural gas make more sense than hydrogen?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Electric powered vehicles? 61% of the world's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels like coal (40😵 and natural gas (21😵.

How is that supposed to reduce global warming?

61% of the world's electricity is produced by burning fossil

that may be true now but what barrier is stopping this being false in ten years time?
In addition, even in the mean time, having SOME of the electricity coming from renewables is better than nothing -it is still an improvement and one that generally reduces the net carbon footprint.

How is that supposed to reduce global warming?

simple; if all the road vehicles are electric, then, as a greater and greater proportion of the electricity is generated from renewables, the energy that powers those vehicles becomes less dirty. Eventually, of course, ALL of the electric vehicle energy will come from renewables.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I started by saying natural gas would make more sense to "ameliorate" global warming (as you put it) than hydrogen powered vehicles. Solar was just a digression from that.

I'm not promoting natural gas. I was just making a point. Hydrogen will come from fossil fuels so it is not as green as some would like to think. Most people don't own cars for over ...[text shortened]... y concerned about CO2 causing global warming wouldn't natural gas make more sense than hydrogen?

Hydrogen will come from fossil fuels

How do you know this will always be true?
What BARRIER would make it impossible for a way to make hydrogen from renewable energy?
In fact, a way to do this has already been found albeit it needs an improvement in energy efficiency; solar panels can generate electricity that is then used for hydrolysis of water to extract hydrogen from it and without burning fossil fuels while extracting the hydrogen.
And better ways are being researched into making hydrogen from renewables and it would be just a matter of time before an efficient way to generate hydrogen is made that doesn't involve the burning of any fossil fuels.

-I am saying this despite NOT being a supporter of hydrogen which I believe to be a deeply flawed strategy in most cases -just not flawed for the reasons you give here.

Originally posted by humy

...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 ...[text shortened]... ng it, it may be possible to exactly offset that simply by increasing food production elsewhere.

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.

Humans are not the only species on the planet that need to eat. Biofuels such as corn (i.e. maize) ethanol are precipitating a wholesale annihilation of ecosystems in North America that experts in the biological sciences largely agree is one of the chief causes of the collapse of monarch butterfly populations in recent years. This is because corn is now being planted in every nook and cranny of arable land in place of native plant species that insects need to survive. The monarch butterfly depends exclusively on milkweed for sustenance.

Monarch butterflies are getting the most notice because they're popular and pretty, but many other insect species are being affected also, including some species of flying insects that we depend on to pollinate food crops. It's nothing short of a disaster, and your proposition to plow under even marginal lands and canvas them with sterile tracts of grass monocultures would magnify the disaster severalfold. Even marginal lands that appear worthless to the untrained eye harbor native plant species that are integral components of the ecological tapestry.

Corn ethanol is a boondoggle that is truly impractical and ecologically unsustainable. It needs to be banished to the dustbin of bad ideas alongside hydrogen dirigibles and leaded gasoline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/setting-the-table-for-a-fluttering-comeback-with-milkweed.html

But the greatest threat to the butterfly, most experts agree, is its dwindling habitat in the Midwest and the Great Plains, the vast expanse over which monarchs fly, breed new generations and die during migrations every spring and autumn. Simply put, they say, the flyway’s milkweed may no longer be abundant enough to support the clouds of monarchs of years past.

Soaring demand for corn, spurred by federal requirements that gasoline be laced with corn-based ethanol, has tripled prices in a decade and encouraged farmers to plant even in places once deemed worthless. Since 2007, farmers nationwide have taken more than 17,500 square miles of land out of federal conservation reserves, an Agriculture Department venture that pays growers modest sums to leave land fallow for wildlife. Iowa has lost a quarter of its reserve land; Kansas, nearly 30 percent; South Dakota, half.

A study published in February in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed land use in five states — Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas and Nebraska — in the broad arc of farmland where corn and soybeans are intensively planted. Over the five years from 2006 to 2011, the study concluded, 5 percent to 30 percent of the grasslands were converted to corn and soybean fields, a rate it said was “comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia.”

At the same time, farmers have switched in droves to new varieties of crops that are genetically engineered to tolerate the most widely used weed killer in the United States. The resulting use of weed killers has wiped out much of the milkweed that once grew between crop rows and on buffer strips separating fields and roads.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

Solar cells do have their disadvantages. ... and the need to clean dust off the cells.

Your argument is becoming flimsy now!!

I guess someone in the future will have to invent a device for getting rid
of dust. Maybe they could give it a snappy name ... like ... a duster!