Global Warmists back off on prediction

[bluesdave]

tw, the price for environmental improvement is not cheap. No one said it is. You are correct, in that in order to reduce pollution, and clean up our environment we have to spend money. Lots, and lots of money. You are also correct about ethanol. I started to say this before, then cancelled it. Ethanol still takes resources in order to refine it, and ship it. People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.

Sometimes, doing something "cleaner" does not mean "cheaper" nor easier - at least in the short term. We have to accept this. We cannot give up. Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same.

To beat that dead horse again, America has a serious innovation problem. Mostly because America still has a bad habit 'business school' attitude that stifles innovation.

Some tributes to those who fear innovation. A paper $1 bills. The penny. A 'buy American' concept. SUVs and V-8 engines. Purpose of a business is profit. Illegal immigration creates violent crime waves and economic downturns. Man to Mars and the ISS. Cost controls on quantum physics research. Intelligent design complete with swearing on a bible to tell the truth and then lying.

The history of America is about innovation. Innovate is what every great American patriot did. Just like in the 1970s, a solution to both environmental and energy problems was the same solution. Solutions today would solve both global warming and energy problems. Money is not even mentioned.

What is fundamental to stifled innovation? Every problem was "created and stifled" or remained unsolved due to 'fear and loathing'. Same people then assume big bucks will create innovation. Because some innovations require more dollars, then more dollars will create more innovation? Of course not. That business school mentality also perverts innovation.

Same mentality also promotes hydrogen as a 'blue steel' solution. Our problems start with too many lawyers, MBAs, and communication majors believing they can create innovation - only because they feel it must be so or because throwing money at it will create a solution. Throwing money like a grenade at a problem does not create innovation. Solutions are not always expensive. But solutions are routinely stifled by too many 'experts' who don't come from where the work gets done. Those same people promote hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution.

Not all environmental improvements are expensive. The SUV is a classic example of something that costs so much more and yet only makes things worse. One need only learn from early 1970s when the Apple Macintosh sat stifled and unsold in a Xerox lab. A solution to worldwide productivity that would remain mostly stifled for another 20 years. Why? Top management had no grasp of what that product really was. Its value did not appear on any spread sheet. Therefore it was not innovative.

More money would not solve that problem either. My post said nothing about more money to solve the problem. Money is rarely the problem. Too often, the naive promote money as a solution.

So what happened to that $100million given to GM in 1994 to build a hybrid? Where is that hybrid?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

...People who push ethanol think that it somehow magically emerges from sugarcane, and can be simply syphoned off into their car. No way.

bluesdave - you can burn pure sugar in your car right now. And to prove it, I just poured a bag in my wife's gas tank.
[What's that? Your car won't start? That's very strange. ]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

... We cannot give up. Don't you care about what future generations will say about us? I know we will not be around to hear the criticism, but I do not want to be tarred with that brush, thank you all the same.

Someday our kids or grandkids will come to us and say, "You knew this was happening? Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?"

And what will we tell them?

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by HLJ

Someday our kids or grandkids will come to us and say, "You knew this was happening? Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?"

And what will we tell them?

I thought that I had already made that same point.

You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I thought that I had already made that same point.

You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.

Unlike an offical document or scientific report, points are fleeting here. That must be why tw repeats himself so much.
You aren't engineers or designers but you understand their speak, as well or better than most.

[bluesdave]

tw, when you mentioned GWB I assumed that you were singing your usual song about misspent government funds. I apologise if I took your comments out of context - although it is interesting that you then sang that song in your next post.

I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine. Some fellow Aussies are involved in this research, and also here. Here is a press release from a few years back that summarises some of their research.

The CSIRO is also involved in hydrogen research.

And then of course there is this link that I posted a few days ago, and you guys chose to dismiss as nonsense.

So guys, you surely can see that there are people out there trying to find some answers, and it seems to me that they are making progress. It is going to take many years of research before we see really solid results.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think it's important to keep in mind there is and never will be a magic bullet. There has to be many parallel solutions, tailored to the local, for energy conservation/production.
Looking for a one cure fits all is the surest way to kill progress because as soon as they find a solution that's economically viable, research money starts to dry up.

[bluesdave]

Thanks Bruce. I could not have put it better myself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine.

Yes, hydrogen may have usefulness as a battery. For example, some use hydrogen stored at low pressure to collect solar energy. Whether efficiencies can be improved upon is unknown. Promising but completely unknown. But hydrogen was obvious never an energy source. Obviously if only because George Jr said otherwise.

Hydrogen even in a car (as a battery) may have potential. Fuel cells were never an energy source. The concept has potential as a battery. But the naive promoted fuel cells as some kind of fuel. Some are experimenting with hydrogen storage materials. However restrictions such as excessively high temperatures and weight have made those technologies currently completely impractical. The point remains - hydrogen never was a viable fuel. However many who heard a president say otherwise in his State of the Union address therefore should have immediately known it must be a lie - and believed that lying president anyway.

Any potential solutions based in hydrogen are at least a decade away. Today we should be implementing what can work - that has potential proven in prototypes. GM - the classic example of failure - could not make a hybrid even when paid to in 1996? Again, directly traceable to the many who still believe in 'magic bullets' rather than identifying or addressing a problem.

The problem is not about 'magic bullets'. The problem is about *efficiency*. Some who promote or deny either global warming or energy problems simply forget where this entire discussion and solution lies: doing more with less. No communication major, lawyer, or business school expert can even guess how that solution might be implemented. Solutions must be defined by those who come from where the work gets done.

Who is the enemy of innovators? They are lead by George Jr and his band of anti-Americans. No exaggeration. No song. No political agenda. Just solid science fact. Just blunt and politically incorrect reality. This problem was identified repeatedly with numerous examples in Perverting science for politics.

Why did so many forget what we need - efficiency? Notice who was perverting that reality with his 'message' - also called propaganda, spin, lies, or preachings of Rush Limbaugh. Promoted hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' caused others to ignore the real question: "how do we increase efficiencies?"

There is no way to avoid a major reason why this hydrogen myth was promoted – George Jr. At best, hydrogen may help solve another serious problem - short term energy storage - a battery. There is no viable alternative to petroleum fuels.

[bluesdave]

tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK. I am also not sure of how many there are - I know it is only a small number. At least it is a start. I'm not saying it is the final solution.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK.

You are confusing 'working OK' with 'working efficiently'. How many times did I use that word 'efficient'? Also a question that demands numbers.

Bus can work inefficiently to be working OK? Did you grasp references to 'thermodynamic efficiency' in multiple posts? What is hydrogen's pressure in its tanks? Did you read the part where less than 2 out of 10 units of energy are available for productive work? How many miles on a 'tank' of hydrogen? Even GM's EV-1 electric car worked OK. So what happened? Why was EV-1 a complete disaster if it worked OK?

Why do I post this concept repeatedly - and must now repost it again?

Where are those cleaner cars operating on natural gas? They also worked OK. Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car. What happened to another technology that was working OK? Or was everything OK except the technology?

The Challenger also worked OK everytime previously. Therefore Challenger was safe to launch? Nothing wrong with that reasoning either? We are killing Al Qaeda in "Mission Accomplished". Therefore that war is working OK?

Defined was a larger problem about George Jr supporters who fail to think logically AND who avoid the fundamental problem - 'efficiency'. How many times was the word 'efficiency' referenced?

Do we use ten gallons of gasoline to get less than 2 gallons into a car? And then only 0.3 gallons does productive work? Do you call that increased efficiency? Welcome to your bus example. Did the english major who reported on those buses forget to think like a patriotic American - provide important facts - especially numbers? Why did she forget to provide basic numbers? Maybe she was reporting for Murdoch meaning that shorting of facts to promote an agenda is acceptable? Or maybe we can blame it all on her? But when she does not provide underlying facts and numbers - just like George Jr - then who is to blame for believing her?

Nothing is politically correct anywhere in this post. Instead it is blunt honest. Asked are some damning questions. If those buses are working OK, then where are these numbers? Why are they doing what no one else has been able to accomplish? GM's EV-1 electric car also worked OK. Where is it today? In piles. GM eventually bought them all back. But EV-1 also worked OK.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I thought that I had already made that same point.

You obviously have not read my posts on what my project is doing. We are not finding solutions. We are trying to assist land users in Australia to better handle our changing climate. We are not engineers, nor designers. Never claimed to be.

bluesdave - I was actually reinforcing what you said. I was just trying to express it from a different point of view.

(I don't even plan to have kids, much less grandkids. I think that that is the single most environmentally damaging thing that the average person does or can do.)

[bluesdave]

Eschaton, I provided links to university departments, and well respected academic research institutions, and you supply web sites written by individuals. Now before you go off in a huff, just hear me out. For a start the people who argue against hydrogen cells are basing their arguments on existing production methods of hydrogen. I have said several times in this thread that people are working on extracting the hydrogen from waste recycling plants, ideally using solar cells as the power source. Yes, the initial building of the plants will be expensive, but once they are up and running, they are relatively cheap to operate.

Electric cars are a great innovation, but what people forget is that if you live in a country that relies on coal powered electricity generation, you are not using clean energy to top up the batteries. Also, if your country or state uses hydroelectricity, and you are in a drought, that is also a problem.

I am glad that you said sugar crops, rather than sugarcane, because sugarcane is a lousy method of producing ethanol. It is a lousy method to produce sugar. Sugarcane strips the soil of all nutrients, and requires huge volumes of water, and fertiliser. Because it is typically grown on the coastal strip, the excess fertiliser is washed into rivers, then into the sea. This is causing a tremendous problem here, in our Great Barrier Reef.

If you are prepared to wait 30 years for the perfect electric car to be produced, why are you not prepared to wait that long for hydrogen research?

I agree with both you and tw, that today, using current technology, hydrogen cells are not going to be common place. I am putting my faith in the researchers I have cited, and others, and hope that they will find a solution. You say that you are looking to the future. Well, try it. I don't want to fight with you, because we both have the same goal. To clean up our environment.

As Bruce said, maybe one day a researcher will find something new that will cancel out all of our arguments. I will not be unhappy if this is the case. I want a workable solution. I do not own shares in a hydrogen cell production company. If hydrogen loses out to something much better, that is great. So be it. Let's be friends, and not enemies.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here is the pdf of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
This summary, approved in detail at the 9th Session of Working Group III of the IPCC, Bangkok – Thailand, May 2007, represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning climate change mitigation.

I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.

I don't blame you Bruce. Some of this stuff can be heavy going. The effect on GDP is a problem. This is why so many politicians back away from taking positive action. This is why China and India take their stands. They are just starting to reap the benefits of industrial growth, and do not want to risk damaging economic growth. The Australian Government is the same. At least they have given us some funding for research (they are playing both sides, of course).