I GOT SOME LAST NIGHT!!

[nursers]

Petrol here is $1.00 Aus per litre, which translates roughly to $2+ US a gallon.

[jeffbayson]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]Hydrogen cells could be useful in some circumstances, but they will not do what the hype says they will do. They're just being used as a shell game to hide the true source of the energy that is stored in them.[/b][/quote]Well, consider me humbly edumacated. I guess I should do more research before I go on an advocating spree. Here's a link to an extensive article about the [url=http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=easterbrook022403]problems with hydrogen cell technology.[/url] Interesting stuff. If you're interested in this issue, I highly recommend reading the entire article. [quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] [quote] Sure, you need energy to produce hydrogen, but who says you need OIL energy? [/b][/quote]You don't, but what would you prefer? Nuclear energy? Then why don't we just switch to that and be done with it? Think there's enough hydro power in the world to meet the demands of the entire world's supply of hydrogen cells? NOT. What is going to power those hydrogen cell factories? The MOST efficient source of hydrogen we have now is natural gas. That's where most of the hydrogen cells made today get their hydrogen. But any time you convert one form of energy to another, you lose a lot of the energy. So why not just burn the natural gas (as some vehicles already do)? Or the nukes? Or the oil? Hydrogen cells could be useful in some circumstances, but they will not do what the hype says they will do. They're just being used as a shell game to hide the true source of the energy that is stored in them.[/quote]The benefit of hydrogen cell technology over all other options is this: since you generate hydrogen at a central processing plant, you leave room for future improvements in power generation at the central processing plant. Sure, you might start generating hydrogen with natural gas, but later you could switch to - say - more efficient nuclear energy, or solar power (less realistic, I know), or whatever else comes along, and not have to change the entire existing infrastructure for delivering hydrogen to vehicles (as of yet unbuilt, of course). You say, "So why not just burn the natural gas (as some vehicles already do)? Or the nukes? Or the oil?" Nuclear cars: well, the problem there is pretty obvious. Oil-powered cars: that's the status quo, which everybody seems to agree is not a viable long-term solution. Natural gas-powered cars: well, that's the most viable alternative I can see. I would fully support a nationwide movement to natural gas-powered vehicles. Again, the benefit of the hydrogen cell, though, is that it leaves the future open for more efficient power supplies later on (although, you have the growing pains, which are in no way insubstantial). I don't believe the hydrogen cell is a shell game played by the oil industry, because it could very easily put them out of business, and they know it. If anything, it's a shell game by George W (as suggested in the linked article) to deflect attention from his horrendous environmental policies. If people say, "What are you doing to improve automotive environmental standards," he can point to his hydrogen cell advocation, while he does nothing to fix the current situation during his term in office. I still love ya, Lee. :)

[Lee Flier]

eljefe, thanks for finding that article, it does a pretty good job of summing up the problems involved with switching to hydrogen. [quote]Originally posted by eljefe: [b]The benefit of hydrogen cell technology over all other options is this: since you generate hydrogen at a central processing plant, you leave room for future improvements in power generation at the central processing plant. Sure, you might start generating hydrogen with natural gas, but later you could switch to - say - more efficient nuclear energy, or solar power (less realistic, I know), or whatever else comes along, and not have to change the entire existing infrastructure for delivering hydrogen to vehicles (as of yet unbuilt, of course).[/b][/quote]Right. This seems like a good idea in theory, but the reality is that infrastructure is a long way off, and frankly I would rather see the status quo (with a few modifications) continue until we do have a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) in the short term we would create a [i]huge[/i] demand for fossil fuel energy, and 2) I believe (like the authors of the article you posted) that the real payoff for the long AND short term future, no matter what form of energy ends up "solving" the global energy problem, lies in finding ways to reduce energy consumption. Building a hydrogen infrastructure for automobilies now will only give people the illusion that our auto-centric society can continue indefinitely. Chances are pretty high that it can't, and that this will be obvious by the time the hydrogen infrastructure would be built anyway. [quote][b] I would fully support a nationwide movement to natural gas-powered vehicles.[/b][/quote]Well, again, that sounds good in theory, but it would only serve to put off the inevitable. [quote][b] I don't believe the hydrogen cell is a shell game played by the oil industry, because it could very easily put them out of business, and they know it.[/b][/quote]Nahh... I've been hearing this kind of hype since long before Bush became President. The thing is, if we were to switch to hydrogen cars in the relatively near future, it would actually be a huge windfall for the oil companies because we would quite likely be generating electricity to manufacture hydrogen using oil burning power plants. Or nuke plants, which many of the oil companies have been invested in for some time already. So the short term effect would be to create a fourfold demand for fossil fuels. And we all know that politicians and oil company CEO's are only thinking of the short term. :rolleyes: Realistically, by the time anyone has to really deal with this problem the current administration and the current oil company execs will be long since retired with a fat pension, or dead. [quote][b] If anything, it's a shell game by George W (as suggested in the linked article) to deflect attention from his horrendous environmental policies. If people say, "What are you doing to improve automotive environmental standards," he can point to his hydrogen cell advocation, while he does nothing to fix the current situation during his term in office. [/b][/quote]Well, that's true as well. :) The problem is that nobody in America has the balls to truly advocate energy independence in a realistic way, least of all an oil connected dude like GWB. It should be noted though, that the energy companies contribute heavily to both Democratic and Republican campaign funds, so they've pretty much bought off anybody who gets elected. My point was that BOTH the oil companies and GWB have a vested interest in promoting hydrogen and it's all just a political game at this point. Any implication that hydrogen will make us energy independent so that we don't have to deal with the Middle East, is a crock of shiite! (ooh bad pun!) But I still love you too eljefe. :)

[jeffbayson]

Aw, Lee... :cry: ...but will you say the same thing when you're sober tomorrow? ;) I find it hard to disagree with you. You well, well-reasoned woman. I will say this: when our nation starts taking clear steps to lessen its dependence on motor vehicles, I'll probably be in a Virtual Retirement Home on the island of California, being served capsule-dinners by an electronic dog chauffeur. Oh well. It's threads like this that make me want to sell my Hummer.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by eljefe: [b]Oh well. It's threads like this that make me want to sell my Hummer.[/b][/quote]Screw it. I'm getting a gas-powered console. The generator makes a little ambient noise, but adds to the live feel of my tracks. ;) - Jeff