Global Warmists back off on prediction

[bluesdave]

tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme. I have no control over whether the people involved, release figures - I said that I tried to find some information, and could not.

I have said repeatedly that the solution will come out of current and future research. How can anyone produce figures on technology that does not exist yet? I also said that I do not mind if hydrogen does not end up being the solution. If someone finds a better solution, then that is great.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Save your breath Dave, he doesn't want to hear anything but, "Yes, tw", "You're absolutely right, tw", "Whatever you say, tw", preferably with a lot of genuflecting.

He'll seize on a point from TV or magazine, put on the blinders and write 8 paragraphs talking about everything but the point he's found. Then he'll get pissed because you didn't understand what the hell he was babbling about.

If he wasn't warm and fuzzy, we'd have lynched him long ago.

Hey relax, I just saved you 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

[bluesdave]

Hey Bruce, I think I have found a solution to tw's problem. He is always complaining about MBAs, and I just came across this link for the University of Phoenix. He can do his MBA online! Then he won't feel so left out.

BTW, thanks for the CO2. How about we split the carbon credits (and sell them), and deposit the money into our bank accounts?

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme.

But before it was "I hate to rain on your parade, but ... they are working OK". Which is it? A pilot scheme that is vastly inefficient? Or a demonstration of something that is "working OK".

Aliantha offered a BP color glossy propaganda sheet with some numbers - vague numbers. It implies hydrogen costs at $6 per gigajoule. That comes to something like $5500 per megawatt-hour. Current technology electricity sells for about $40 per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market. Suddenly a pilot program that costs 140 times more is an example of greater efficiency? Only when rationalizing SUVs.

A gallon of gas is maybe $82 per megawatt-hour. Hydrogen costs may 70 times more?

BP's color glossy also claims CO2 outputs that apparently ignore CO2 generated to produce that hydrogen.

Numbers still make no sense for hydrogen as a fuel - which should have been obvious the minute George Jr promoted it. At 140 times more money for same energy, this is viable? This is "working OK"? Clearly not. Sydney's pilot program demonstrates that hydrogen is not a solution. Increased efficiency does not exist. Increased efficiency is what all solutions must achieve.

As Bruce notes:

That presentation is clearly not designed to inform, but to sell the concept and pat themselves on the collective back, as one of the good guys.

When extracting numbers, the color glossy's real conclusions are completely opposite of that presentation's 'feel'. If one reads it like an english major, then BP is doing good things. If a reader ignores personal biases (trageted by that presentation) and instead grasps the numbers, then that hydrogen program is a disaster.

Another interesting number - they are only using hydrogen at 4000 psi which keeps costs lower. GM has already stated that 10,000 PSI hydrogen is still insufficient energy for automobiles.

Bluesdave - there is no problem. You posted in error. The error was corrected. That bottom line conclusion is the only point made. So why do you impose you emotions into what was posted? As The Eschaton accurately notes:

Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.

A conclusion in direct contradicton to what George Jr promoted in his State of the Union Address and in direct contradiction to those who believe that lying president. Hydrogen as a fuel - long ago obviously rediculous. Hydrogen is so bad as to even be a poor 'energy storage and transmission' medium.

We will remain a petroleum dependant society for probably as long as all Cellar dwellers live. Time to start burning the stuff using responsiblity - a comment also directed right at those who remain in denial and even promote obsolete technology in SUVs.

[Aliantha]

Here's a good link-for-dummies about the sydney project.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw's call for efficiency rings hollow when you look at the efficiency of posts. Now Aussie busses are Bush's fault.

Did someone say there are no magic bullets? Then why would an experiment to run city busses on hydrogen, thereby reducing greenhouse gasses in the city, have to be justified as sufficiently efficient? There's no reason to believe that down the road it can't be made sufficiently efficient.
It's a pilot project to see what hiccups will develop in a practical application. A PR experiment that will help get people thinking there are alternative solutions, not to convince them hydrogen is the answer for them.

Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car.

"Most every" is actually less than 2/3 have gas service. The ones that do, have this ever scarcer fuel coming in at less than 3 psi. How far do you think your car would go, with the biggest tank you could carry, at 3 psi?

It would have to be compressed... high pressure and low temperature, by the same people that start fires just filling their cars with gasoline. No, best leave that to a filling station attendant that's been trained and tested handling high pressure connections.
Even so, the gas won't last forever so we have to keep plugging at different solutions, use gas for stationary uses, industrial and residential.

Gasoline is wonderful stuff, beyond compare...so far.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey, guess what... I know how to eliminate 6 Billion tons of CO2 being added to the air, every year. That's 6,000,000,000 tons... every year.

Over 20 years ago, Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. Everyone had a good laugh and life went on.

When Michel Barsoum, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, heard Davidovits claim he laughed too. But when he was told nobody ever checked it out, he decided to disprove it with a few hours of electron microscopy.

Egyptian born Barsoum's daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s, so he's no amateur.

"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.

At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."

"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."

Wow, if we could eliminate Portland cement for everything not poured underwater, what a tremendous energy savings and CO2 reduction.

[The Eschaton]

bruce, i think you have something there....

As to the bus program, i read the slide show from the link, there was not much information there. Basically they said they would see how it works. I support the development of the technology to make cities cleaner but it does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

Current hydrogen and most foreseeable hydrogen production is from natural gas, so of course fossil fuel companies are big on hydrogen.

At the end of the slide they had the cost analysis:

Hydrogen Costs - Today
Ex Refinery: $6/GJ
Delivered (truck): >$20/GJ
Gasoline: $6/GJ)
On-Site Electrolysis: $60/GJ ($0.07/kWhr electricity)

[xoxoxoBruce]

On-Site Electrolysis: $60/GJ

What's that? Making it at the point of sale with power off the grid? And what the hell is GJ?

Clicking on the bus link, I was a little taken back by that slick dog&pony show that BP had made. I was expecting something more along the lines of a typical government/municipal web site. That presentation is clearly not designed to inform, but to sell the concept and pat themselves on the collective back, as one of the good guys.

Well, whatever technology wins, BP will have a jump on the infrastructure.

[Aliantha]

tw...this hydrogen thing they're testing here is simply a test. The link I shared with you is not a scientific document. It's a document for dummies. It's not really meant to prove or disprove anything. We can all see that. It was just something to give people a little bit of an idea what the go is.

Every new technology is expensive until it become mainstream. Think about cars. Think about computers. Think about planes. Think about telephones.

Now think about how much simpler they make our lives and why mass production brought the cost of these technologies down.

That's the point tw. First you have to find out if a technology works. Then you have to work out a way to mass market it so that everyone can afford it, not the other way around.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

tw...this hydrogen thing they're testing here is simply a test. The link I shared with you is not a scientific document. It's a document for dummies. It's not really meant to prove or disprove anything. We can all see that. It was just something to give people a little bit of an idea what the go is.

The presentation is intended to deceive - classic propaganda with no numbers. It provides near zero useful information - unless we go vindictively after its numbers. Anything that does not provide numerous numbers is typically promoting junk science reasoning - propaganda - fiction that only an english major could love.

The only way it can 'give people ... what the go is' is by providing basic numbers. it even ignores the massive carbon footprint to make hydrogen.

bluesdave represented the test as "working OK". No, it was not. The test demonstrated how bad hydrogen is as a fuel - confirming what underlying theories also suggest.

Moving on to the part you have not grasped. It was not just that telephone, transistors, etc would get cheaper with innovation (notice I said 'innovation' and not 'mass production'). Innovation could make mass production cheaper only because both the theory and experimental evidence suggested it could happen. Those technologies did not automatically get cheaper only due to 'economies of scale' - mass production. Innovation must be possible so that scale can create economies.

The problem with hydrogen as a fuel: even the theoretical numbers says those costs will not sufficiently decrease. Again, we cannot violate fundamental rules of thermodynamics that also involve conservation of energy.

The test was not "working OK". Test even violates a necessary condition - doing more with less. Hydrogen obviously is not a viable fuel. If you think otherwise, then what is the fundamental science theory that suggests otherwise? Where can innovation create such massive breathroughs. If you cannot say, then why do you assume 'economies of scale' will exist?

It is why we teach everyone science in school. So that you might understand what is necessary for achievement. Instead you are only promoting what junk science MBAs, lawyers and communication majors do. Somehow this magic idea called 'economies of scale' (also called mass production) will automatically reduce costs? Why does cost reduction not happen with drug prices? With age, a drug's price should decrease. Why do drug prices only increase even when production increases? Because 'economies of scale' is junk science reasoning by those who could not bother to first learn science details.

Do you really believe these myths about 'economies of scale'? If such existed, then GM automobiles would be the least expensive to build. GM cars are the most expensive cars - cost even more than a comparative Mercedes products. Your assumptions about 'economies of scale' are also why American steel manufacturers have costs sometimes double those of foreign manufacturers. Making a blast furnace bigger lowered costs? Guess what? No. Why are American steel manufacturers so inefficient? They also used your 'economies of scale' rationalization in places such as Sparrow Point, Fairless Hills, and Bethlehem. Now they run to government for protection.

The science does not work. That color glossy presentation is to intentionally deceive the naive. It was written so that people who judge by 'feel' will see a hydrogen future. Take the few numbers from that 'feel good' presentation. Then 'hydrogen as a fuel' experiment only confirms what the theory also says. It's just not viable.

Let's see. Suppose we make hydrogen from a petroleum based energy source at $80 per MW-Hr. By the time those 10 units of energy to make, package, and transport that energy to a car, then only 2 units remain. So now the hydrogen is $400 per MW-Hr. And these numbers assume 100% perfect 'economies of scale'. What were those costs for Sydney? About $5500 per MW-Hr. OK. With economies of scale, then the price might decrease 10 times. Even with a price reduction of ten times due to mythical 'economies of scale', prices still remain multiple times higher.

Notice the difference. I was not enthralled by a mythical 'economies of scale'. I used fundamental science concepts to optimize prices - and it still cost too much - does not increase efficiencies - does not 'do more from less'.

What have I demonstrated here? That assumptions of ‘economies of scale’ rather than learning the underlying science only results in junk science conclusions. You have zero reason to believe hydrogen as a fuel is viable. And yet you justified it by doing what junk science did to create the GM automobile. Due to ‘economies of scale’ reasoning, GM products are now the most expensive to build. ‘Economies of scale’ will not change the science of hydrogen.

[Aliantha]

Here's some more info and education programs operating in Australia.

And here's more

And a little bit more

[Aliantha]

The only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics tw.

That's about all I have to say on this one.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Suppose we make hydrogen from a petroleum based energy source at $80 per MW-Hr. By the time those 10 units of energy to make, package, and transport that energy to a car, then only 2 units remain. So now the hydrogen is $400 per MW-Hr. And these numbers assume 100% perfect 'economies of scale'. What were those costs for Sydney? About $5500 per MW-Hr. OK. With economies of scale, then the price might decrease 10 times. Even with a price reduction of ten times due to mythical 'economies of scale', prices still remain multiple times higher.

The point is "petroleum based" is not going to be an option in the future. The future is going to be expensive, very expensive. What we feel are logical solutions from past experience, may not be in the future.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

The only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics tw.

That's about all I have to say on this one.

To simplify it - 'economies of scale' only exist where innovation is possible. It is a symptom and not a solution. That is why GM threw money at problems like a grenade - and only made problems worst. They did not innovate. There solution was 'economies of scale' which only resulted in their higher costs.

Mass production does not automatically reduce costs. But then the numbers were even provided. Even with cost reductions, hydrogen is still massively more expensive. Aliantha has only done what I see often. As soon as I put forth numbers, then eyes glaze over. One common expression during that glazing is: "only thing you've demonstrated is your ability to argue semantics".

Hydrogen is not a fuel. And yet hydrogen is being promoted by some here as if it were a fuel. Hydrogen in those Sydney buses is only working - not working OK - as prices demonstrate.

Semantics? We will remain a petroleum based economy in everyone’s lifetime. Some technologies will supplement petroleum. But there is no way around petroleum due to its high energy per pound numbers and other fundamentally simple and irreversible facts. Time to grasp that reality and deal with it. Both global warming and energy problems require solutions that do more with less. There is no 'magic bullet'. There is no 'blue-steel'. "Mass production" (economies of scale)does not automatically make the impossible possible. But there are solutions.