Question about hydrogen cars

Originally posted by humy

A few more years is about 3.

LOL. You don't seem to understand the fuzzy logic of natural language. I could have meant ANY number by “few”. What is “few” is relative and highly subjective and, amongst other things, dependent on context. A locust swarm consisting of no more than 100 individuals may be considered as being “few”; 100 is some ...[text shortened]... eaper energy is at any sort of at disadvantage. [/quote]
Why? I never claimed/asserted this.

So you think we should fear irrational people because they are hiding everywhere just waiting to ruin the world.

I don't think you really believe that. If you do you are very paranoid, but I think you are holding onto your "green" philosophy despite prevailing logic that fossil fuels going to dominate the energy market for decades even if a carbon tax becomes reality.

The true goal of the carbon tax is not to help renewables, it is to tax fossil fuel use because there is no threat from any renewables. Not even close. You are being delusional (and irrational) for thinking otherwise.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So you think we should fear irrational people because they are hiding everywhere just waiting to ruin the world.

I don't think you really believe that. If you do you are very paranoid, but I think you are holding onto your "green" philosophy despite prevailing logic that fossil fuels going to dominate the energy market for decades even if a carbon tax ...[text shortened]... ny renewables. Not even close. You are being delusional (and irrational) for thinking otherwise.

I don't know where you got that from. I didn't even mention "carbon tax" and I don't have an opinion of it and never expressed an opinion on it so you are making some strange assumptions about what I think about that. Whatever you currently think I think about carbon tax, you are wrong!

As for me being "green", I have always been against both the green party and all the fanatical environmentalists for rejecting GM and nuclear and for being generally anti-industry and even, at times, seemingly anti-science.
I am also not enthusiastic about hydrogen power. This, of course, doesn't mean I cannot have rational concerns of possible threats to the hospitality of our environment to human life.

So you think we should fear irrational people because they are hiding everywhere just waiting to ruin the world.

No, there ARE irrational people, NOT “hiding”, and would delay progress in renewables if we let them get their way.

Originally posted by humy
I don't know where you got that from. I didn't even mention "carbon tax" and I don't have an opinion of it and never expressed an opinion on it so you are making some strange assumptions about what I think about that. Whatever you currently think I think about carbon tax, you are wrong!

As for me being "green", I have always been against both the green part ...[text shortened]... ional people, NOT “hiding”, and would delay progress in renewables if we let them get their way.

"No, there ARE irrational people, NOT “hiding”, and would delay progress in renewables if we let them get their way."

You are irrational. Nobody can delay progress of renewables. What you really mean to say is that reasonable people will not allow irrational people like you to give renewables an artificial advantage by taxing fossil fuels heavily. You just will not admit it so you write nonsense like you are.

I think it is obvious to everyone how dishonest you are. Nobody is delaying progress of renewables and the very assertion that it could happen is idiotic.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"No, there ARE irrational people, NOT “hiding”, and would delay progress in renewables if we let them get their way."

You are irrational. Nobody can delay progress of renewables. What you really mean to say is that reasonable people will not allow irrational people like you to give renewables an artificial advantage by taxing fossil fuels heavily. You ...[text shortened]... obody is delaying progress of renewables and the very assertion that it could happen is idiotic.

Since fossil fuels are more polluting than renewables, it makes sense to me to tax them more heavily.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"No, there ARE irrational people, NOT “hiding”, and would delay progress in renewables if we let them get their way."

You are irrational. Nobody can delay progress of renewables. What you really mean to say is that reasonable people will not allow irrational people like you to give renewables an artificial advantage by taxing fossil fuels heavily. You ...[text shortened]... obody is delaying progress of renewables and the very assertion that it could happen is idiotic.

Nobody can delay progress of renewables

Yes they can! For example, the politicians can deny government funding to renewable energy research or at least make it as small as they can politically get away with.

What you really mean to say is that reasonable people will not allow irrational people like you to give renewables an artificial advantage by taxing fossil fuels heavily.

No! Didn't you read my last post?
Reminder:

“I don't know where you got that from. I didn't even mention "carbon tax" and I don't have an opinion of it and never expressed an opinion on it so you are making some strange assumptions about what I think about that. Whatever you currently think I think about carbon tax, you are wrong! “

How can you interpret the meaning of THAT that I want “ taxing fossil fuels heavily”? Please explain....

Nobody is delaying progress of renewables and the very assertion that it could happen is idiotic.

It is idiotic to deny history? I didn't know that!

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3776760.html

-and by reducing funding for renewables, they will slow down progress in renewables.

Originally posted by humy

Nobody can delay progress of renewables

Yes they can! For example, the politicians can deny government funding to renewable energy research or at least make it as small as they can politically get away with.

[quote] What you really mean to say is that reasonable people will not allow irrational people like you to give renewables an a ...[text shortened]... 760.html

-and by reducing funding for renewables, they will slow down progress in renewables.

Look at where my country stands.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Look at where my country stands.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

Not much bang for the buck though. We need a TRILLION dollar grant to get things going if we are serious about renewables.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Look at where my country stands.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

The link says:

“...
Global fossil-fuel subsidies do exceed those for renewables in raw dollars—$523 billion to $88 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. But the disparity is reversed when proportion is taken into account. Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit.
...”

In other words, the absolute amount of fossil-fuel subsidies currently greatly exceeds that of renewables but the relative amount, in terms of subsidy per energy unit, of fossil-fuel subsidies is currently much less than that of renewables. That is simply because renewables currently produce a much smaller proportion of the total energy production. This will obviously change when renewables take up a larger proportion of the total energy production which could easily happen in, say, just ~20 years time if we really push for research into developing cheaper renewables but not otherwise.

Originally posted by humy
The link says:

“...
Global fossil-fuel subsidies do exceed those for renewables in raw dollars—$523 billion to $88 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. But the disparity is reversed when proportion is taken into account. Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that re ...[text shortened]... years time if we really push for research into developing cheaper renewables but not otherwise.

I said "my country". The article pointed out the difference globally and here in the USA.

"For example, various green types would point to the fact that globally the subsidies to fossil FOSL -0.81% fuels are far higher than those to renewables. I, desiring to make a rather different case, might point to the fact (yes, both are indeed facts) that renewables in the US receive 25 times the subsidy that fossil fuels do. That both are correct, both are straight facts, depends on the point that the details of what is being measured are different."

Island channel could power about half of Scotland:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-island-channel-power-scotland.html

it also says:

"The UK enjoys potentially some of the best tidal resources worldwide, and if we exploit them wisely they could make an important contribution to our energy supply. These studies should move us closer towards the successful exploitation of the tides."

But it doesn't give a breakdown of costs so I cannot tell how this economically compares with other renewables.

Originally posted by humy

But the reaction of a hydrogen car would seemingly use a chemical reaction to create new H2O and thus increase its presence in the atmosphere.

correct. But there are three points you will need to note here:

1, that water vapour from hydrogen cars would have come from hydrogen that was probably extracted via electrolysis from liquid wa ...[text shortened]... gy while, for all other applications, you certainly don't need such high specific energy.

Nice answer! Thank you. 🙂

Originally posted by humy
Island channel could power about half of Scotland:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-island-channel-power-scotland.html

it also says:

"The UK enjoys potentially some of the best tidal resources worldwide, and if we exploit them wisely they could make an important contribution to our energy supply. These studies should move us closer towards the successful ...[text shortened]... give a breakdown of costs so I cannot tell how this economically compares with other renewables.

My link proves you wrong. Renewables are already getting 25 times the subsidies in the USA and still can't compete with fossil fuels.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

As for subsidies in the world don't ignore this fact in the article:

"But much more important, the critics ignore that these fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest.

These subsidies have nothing to do with cozying up to oil companies or indulging global-warming skeptics. The spending is a way for governments to buy political stability: In Venezuela, gas sells at 5.8 cents a gallon, costing the government $22 billion a year, more than twice what is spent on health care."

There’s another point that should be made here too. Those fossil fuel subsidies described above, they’re not subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My link proves you wrong. Renewables are already getting 25 times the subsidies in the USA and still can't compete with fossil fuels.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

As for subsidies in the world don't ignore this fact in the article:

"But much more important, the c ...[text shortened]... y’re not subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them.

What on earth are you talking about? You have just totally lost me. I had just changed the subject almost completely (to tidal power. I could have started a new thread on this but didn't think it worth while starting a new one ) and said/implied absolutely nothing in that post about the "USA" nor "subsidies" nor how renewables compete with none renewables. Your post is totally irrelevant here to what I just said and not sure how it would relate to let alone contradict any claim I made previous to that post.

I think the scientists behind this link have got more or less the right idea:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-energy-dense-sugar-battery.html

They are developing a battery (actually, a fuel cell to be more precise ) that uses artificial enzymes to extract energy from the oxidation of sugar.
Although the link doesn't suggest or imply this, I see no reason why this couldn't be scaled up to make huge electric generating power stations that are powered from sugar from sources that don't compete with food crops -which is why I thought it appropriate to put this in this thread.

Future solar cells could be made from cheap ultra-transparent paper!

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-future-solar-cells-wood.html