Belief In Climate Change Hinges On Worldview

[DJ Droood]

That looks like my Tandy 1000 HX from 1988.

[oaklight]

My take is that a car company does not want the whole motorway to explode anytime a car crashes, so I assume they have found a way of storing hydrogen safely. And unlike cars, my house does not move all that much and is unlikely to get hit, so it should be even easier to store hydrogen safely there. That is what I mean by "technology not yet feasible for daily usage".

The windmills might look nice, in a single environment, but having one on every house is certainly not improving the sight. And then you get the complaints from the neighbours about the sounds they make etc etc. To top that off, the argument of "less peak energy" is not really a good one: Peak energy is usually in the mornings and evenings, less during the day and night. Solar panels are usable during the day, and while they can support energy, they cannot replace power plants. And in the evenings, when the most energy is needed, they are useless. Windmills have the problem that wind is not a plannable option.

So for me, both systems have the basic problem of generating energy when it is not needed, and not being able to store it properly. Hydrolysis would solve that problem nicely, as the electricity used during those times can be converted into hydrogen gas, which is a lot less problematic than large batteries.

I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken. I thought you were proposing generating hydrogen at home, for household use; you hadn't mentioned cars. As for the age of the equipment; I did say it was the ‘80’s; however, the principle is the same. The diagram of the car, while intriguing, doesn't address the particulars of the storage tank, and how they propose to make it safe enough to entrust the lives of my family. I'm not willing to risk their lives on an assumption.

My take is that a car company does not want the whole motorway to explode anytime a car crashes, so I assume they have found a way of storing hydrogen safely. And unlike cars, my house does not move all that much and is unlikely to get hit, so it should be even easier to store hydrogen safely there. That is what I mean by "technology not yet feasible for daily usage".

This brings us back around to my original statement:

I think that you might be waiting for a technology that may never be feasible for the average consumer.

With solar and/or wind, you can generate electricity when you can, sell it to the grid and use the proceeds when you cannot generate.

Beannacht leat!

[oaklight]

I suspect we've come a long way since that machine

This is the new one:

[Merlyn]

yes we have come a long way since then..

http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/show/1 ... Motorcycle

With more and more car developers making hybrid and electric cars, Suzuki is exploring the concept of hybrid motorcycles with their crosscage, a fuel cell powered bike with a unique engine and body design.

Crosscage's air cooled fuel cell designed by British company Intelligent Energy helps slim down this design by eliminating the need for a radiator or coolant system. Located just above the hydrogen fuel tank, the fuel cell is very compact, light, and powerful. It sends power to the motor controller which stores it in the lithium ion battery or sends it to the motor. Through combining oxygen in the air and hydrogen from the fuel tank to create power this motorcycle's exhaust is only water vapor thus helping reduce CO2 emissions and protect the environment. On a single tank of hydrogen the crosscage can travel about 200km and has the power equivalent of 125ccs.

The crosscage from which the motorcycle gets its name is not merely an aesthetic choice but also protects the hydrogen fuel tank which is located directly behind the intersecting point. There is also a sensor at the top of the chassis which constantly checks for hydrogen leaks and shuts off the fuel tank if there are any abnormalities.

[Kernos]

I suspect we've come a long way since that machine

This is the new one:

I suspect we've come a long way since the 'new' one

[Aylyn]

I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken. I thought you were proposing generating hydrogen at home, for household use; you hadn't mentioned cars. As for the age of the equipment; I did say it was the ‘80’s; however, the principle is the same. The diagram of the car, while intriguing, doesn't address the particulars of the storage tank, and how they propose to make it safe enough to entrust the lives of my family. I'm not willing to risk their lives on an assumption

If we can create hydrogen gas on-board a car, it should be even easier to create it at home. As I pointed out, it is much less accident-prone than a car, so if it works on what is essentially a moving bomb, a stationary installation should be easy. Or we could use it the same way we use gas now, being pumped into our homes. And no, the technology is not yet usable on a greater scale, but with the pressure from governments and ecologically aware people, coupled with the fact that manufacturers need to prepare for the time post oil, I am pretty sure it will get developed for general use. I will wait for that...

[Merlyn]

Well I enjoyed the branch of the discussion my rant was in part responsible for,
Take a shot of whiskey or a zanex Kernos... before you read this
However back the the world view and what is developing now; A few examples

globalwarming.gif (17.76 KiB) Viewed 777 times

History is full of examples where there was a wide consensus among the best minds of the age that turned out to be flat wrong. To politicize science, Crichton warns, is very dangerous. One example is eugenics, a widely accepted racial theory at the turn of the 20th century, which led directly to mass murder in the Third Reich. Humans, I think, are susceptible to myths and fiction because they feel a need for certainty, yet much of reality remains a mystery, and much of science is inconclusive.

In the last two years, a remarkable amount of disturbing news has been published concerning global warming, largely concentrating on melting of polar ice, tropical storms and hurricanes, and mass extinctions. The sheer volume of these stories appears to be moving the American political process toward some type of policy restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.

It is highly improbable, in a statistical sense, that new information added to any existing forecast is almost always “bad” or “good”; rather, each new finding has an equal probability of making a forecast worse or better. Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing, both in the process of science itself and in the reporting of science. This paper examines in detail both recent scientific reports on climate change and the communication of those reports.

Needless to say, the unreported information is usually counter to the bad news. Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate. Similar stories concerning Antarctica neglect the fact that the net temperature trend in recent decades is negative, or that warming the surrounding ocean can serve only to enhance snowfall, resulting in a gain in ice. Global warming affects hurricanes in both positive and negative fashions, and there is no relationship between the severity of storms and ocean-surface temperature, once a commonly exceeded threshold temperature is reached. Reports of massive species extinction also turn out to be impressively flawed.

This constellation of half-truths and misstatements is a predictable consequence of the way that science is now conducted, where issues compete with each other for public support. Unfortunately, this creates a culture of negativity that is reflected in the recent spate of global warming reports.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. His most recent book is Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

I think what we see is fault of political posturing and grant grabbing.
Personally I see this as un avoidable in the process of human exploration and resolve. We will all get past this, as it is a deserved spank for screwing up by people like Al Gore who didn't walk the walk before making grand assumptions and assertions. Real study past what we have now will prove out.
But this phase of the issue is a healthy part in a sense. It is the evolution of the process, putting politics in check and rightly so as they do have hidden agendas and have failed for so long.

These reports may be frustrating, but if you read into them, they are putting blame on the process, and demanding more. In a way this is needed to change world view of emissions, the scope of them, the agendas of industry, politics and individuals.

Take a deep breath, this too shall pass..........

Merlyn

[oaklight]

If we can create hydrogen gas on-board a car, it should be even easier to create it at home. As I pointed out, it is much less accident-prone than a car, so if it works on what is essentially a moving bomb, a stationary installation should be easy. Or we could use it the same way we use gas now, being pumped into our homes. And no, the technology is not yet usable on a greater scale, but with the pressure from governments and ecologically aware people, coupled with the fact that manufacturers need to prepare for the time post oil, I am pretty sure it will get developed for general use. I will wait for that...

From the web site you cited with the car diagram:

FCVs look like conventional vehicles from the outside, but inside they contain technologically advanced components not found on today's vehicles. The most obvious difference is the fuel cell stack that converts hydrogen gas stored onboard with oxygen from the air into electricity to drive the electric motor that propels the vehicle. The major components of a typical FCV are illustrated below.

Nowhere is it mentioned that hydrogen is produced on board the car; storage tanks, however, are.

(SNIP)...If the solar panels could generate electricity to separate O2 and H2 from water, I could come home to a nice full storage tank that can be used in the evening to heat my house, with 0 emission. The technology is not that far yet, unfortunately.

Personally, I would love to be energy independent with this kind of technology, I just don't think it's going to happen.

Beannacht leat!

[Aylyn]

Yeah, since we are in the realm of uninvented technology, anything can happen. Maybe you are right, maybe I am, only the future will tell. Maybe I am too focused on what is possible in technology, after all, I grew up with Star Trek and Science fiction and all the great things they were doing there. Whereas you have first hand experience with the negative side and the problems and are therefore much more sceptic.

OTOH - many of the things we saw in Star Trak in the 60s are now commonplace in our environment, and made it in less than 40 years. Mobile Phones far exceed anything Uhura could ever do with her communications console So I am a true believer. Which brings me back to Kernos point: We see the world as we have learned to see it, and judge it accordingly. That is why all those self-help books usually instruct us to "Think positive", as it will change the way we see and experience things. Climate change is no exception.

The general problem is that we have trends, computer models and scientific studies, which can all be interpreted one way or another. Which of those models is the most accurate is still up for debate and will probably only be decided in hindsight. That is one of the reasons why I consider the climate debate a fallacy: It distracts from the real problem, and that is: How much do we humans influence Earth, and what can we do to minimize the impact. Whether or not climate change is man-made, I would like to have a zero emission car. And in my naive mind I would hope that all humans have that attitude, not for the survival of our or any other species, but to provide a clean Earth with loads of green spaces and many species to our children, for their enjoyment.

[Merlyn]

If the solar panels could generate electricity to separate O2 and H2 from water, I could come home to a nice full storage tank that can be used in the evening to heat my house, with 0 emission. The technology is not that far yet, unfortunately.

This is the way to overcome the physics argument of hydrogen. Yes it takes energy to create energy, but OBVIOUSLY if is solar which creates it, then what the heck are we waiting for? This kind of system however puts hydrogen (very explosive gas) in the hands of the public... and perhaps this world is not ready for such a responsibility?

That is one of the reasons why I consider the climate debate a fallacy: It distracts from the real problem,

This speaks to my feelings on the whole subject directly. The resulting arguments do nothing to "clean the air". In essence the premature pulling of the trigger on this has set the whole direction backwards. And I feel it was in some ways deliberate, other ways a coveting, and also a predetermined use of political manipulation leaving the science as the fall guy. We have so much and see so little success. If we can make a cell phone work, with this extensive infrastructure, computer age applications, world wide access and communication..... WHY THE HELL DON'T WE HAVE carbon capture, hydrogen and electric cars, and so on.

It staggers me that we ignore the EMT radiation danger of cell phones, use them and yet fail to stop killing the ocean, etc.

Merlyn

[oaklight]

Yeah, since we are in the realm of uninvented technology, anything can happen. Maybe you are right, maybe I am, only the future will tell. Maybe I am too focused on what is possible in technology, after all, I grew up with Star Trek and Science fiction and all the great things they were doing there. Whereas you have first hand experience with the negative side and the problems and are therefore much more sceptic.

OTOH - many of the things we saw in Star Trak in the 60s are now commonplace in our environment, and made it in less than 40 years. Mobile Phones far exceed anything Uhura could ever do with her communications console So I am a true believer. Which brings me back to Kernos point: We see the world as we have learned to see it, and judge it accordingly. That is why all those self-help books usually instruct us to "Think positive", as it will change the way we see and experience things. Climate change is no exception.

The general problem is that we have trends, computer models and scientific studies, which can all be interpreted one way or another. Which of those models is the most accurate is still up for debate and will probably only be decided in hindsight. That is one of the reasons why I consider the climate debate a fallacy: It distracts from the real problem, and that is: How much do we humans influence Earth, and what can we do to minimize the impact. Whether or not climate change is man-made, I would like to have a zero emission car. And in my naive mind I would hope that all humans have that attitude, not for the survival of our or any other species, but to provide a clean Earth with loads of green spaces and many species to our children, for their enjoyment.

I agree completely, and furthermore, I think that we should concentrate on what we can do, and not on what we cannot do. Progress is almost always made in increments, and happens faster when it's encouraged through rewards, instead of punishing a lack of progress; the carrot works better than the stick. In other words, we shouldn't emphasize the environmental benefits of energy conservation as much as the financial benefits. People will always respond to personal gain. Show someone how to save or make money, and they're all over it like a bad suit. Most regular people are too involved with day to day survival to think about the lofty aspirations of society, but if those aspirations can be translated into real, tangible and immediate benefits for them, they'll jump on the bandwagon like they own it. On the development side of things, off the top of my head; say, set a goal for electrical yield from solar panels, the reward for the company that develops it is, oh say, ten years tax free, then watch how fast it happens. Companies can always respond faster than governments because they are not democracies and their motives are simple and easy to invoke: profit.

[Kernos]

This is the way to overcome the physics argument of hydrogen. Yes it takes energy to create energy, but OBVIOUSLY if is solar which creates it, then what the heck are we waiting for? This kind of system however puts hydrogen (very explosive gas) in the hands of the public... and perhaps this world is not ready for such a responsibility?

Actually hydrogen is not that explosive. I keep 300 galleons of gasoline and 500 gal. of LP-gas under pressure at home. These are at least as dangerous as hydrogen. None will spontaneously ignite. But hydrogen is the lightest and dissipates very rapidly, so that with a leak explosive concentrations are more difficult than to reach with gasoline or LP gas. Gasoline evaporates slowly and the vapors stay near the ground at explosive concentrations.

Electrolysis of water is very simple. I suspect most of us have done it as a kid with a battery, glass of water a couple of wires and test tubes to collect the gases. It was fun to play with. I tried it with bleach one day and everyone had to leave the house for awhile. But concentrating it and maintaining a system would be difficult as oaklight mentions. And, things like pumps, generators, batteries and electrode maintenance would all have to be included in the energy balance. It is probably better to generate electricity directly from solar.

[quote=oaklight]Nowhere is it mentioned that hydrogen is produced on board the car; storage tanks, however, are.

Hydrogen fueled cars are rather simple and could be used if there were a hydrogen distribution system. Instead of filling up on gas one would go to the filling station and fill up on hydrogen. How much carbon would it cost to create a national hydrogen distribution system? It wont happen soon in the US.

Actually my dream is a food processor sized Mr. Fusion a la Back to the Future. But fusion is seeming to be centuries away, if possible, certainly with todays science and technology.

[oaklight]

Hydrogen fueled cars are rather simple and could be used if there were a hydrogen distribution system. Instead of filling up on gas one would go to the filling station and fill up on hydrogen. How much carbon would it cost to create a national hydrogen distribution system? It wont happen soon in the US.

Actually my dream is a food processor sized Mr. Fusion a la Back to the Future. But fusion is seeming to be centuries away, if possible, certainly with todays science and technology.

If it could be done safely, why wouldn't each distribution point generate its own hydrogen? It's not like there are only a few global sources of it. That way, we could avoid the problems with over the road transportation of large quantities of it.

I've been thinking...If I were to design a storage tank, how would I do it? Well, it would have to be thickly double walled, made of a corrosion resistant metal like titanium, carbon fiber or both. I would fill the void space between the two walls with nitrogen or an inert gas, additionally; the volume of the void space would have to be, I think, greater than the storage capacity of the tank itself, so that a rupture or leak might be buffered by a sufficient quantity of whatever safety gas is used.

Finally, I was waiting for someone to mention Mr. Fusion.

[Aylyn]

Lots of people have given hydrogen storage a thought, here is what they have come up so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

So there is research out there thinkg about how to make it safe for the general public. Which givews me the hope that it might be usable....

[Merlyn]

http://www.uigi.com/hydrogen.html

Some industrial processes with relatively small hydrogen requirements may choose to produce some or all of their needs using compact generators. In the past, ammonia dissociation was a common technology choice. More recently, improvements in small packaged electrolytic and hydrocarbon reforming systems have made these routes to small volume hydrogen production increasingly attractive. In some cases these systems may be the sole source of hydrogen, while in others they may be used to supplement and/or back-up other supply sources. Electrolytic production techniques can produce high purity hydrogen at elevated pressure, eliminating the need for supplemental compression. They can also produce high purity oxygen (at one-half the hydrogen production rate). The latest generation of highly packaged hydrocarbon reforming units, in particular those which employ an autothermal generation process, which operates at relatively low-temperature and pressure, have made on-site hydrocarbon reforming a viable route to hydrogen production at much lower production rates than were considered commercially feasible just a few years ago.

Hydrogen makes a very good burn, able to weld and such.
It however turns to water once burned, not being suitable for some such applications.
The hydrogen on it's own isn't too volatile, unless mixed with O2

I can agree that on-site production, would be optimum.

Merlyn

[Aitrus]

All this talk of going to alternate sources of energy is enlightening. If things like this were commercially available, reliable and affordable then I wouldn't have a problem making the switch.

One thing to keep in mind is that now matter how energy independent we become, we will always have a need for oil. This is in the form of lubricants to keep metal parts moving, and plastics (because plant fibers aren't strong enough for all applications). True, we will be using less, but the need will never go away.

[Merlyn]

The trick is to market well enough to make alternatives affordable and more attractive.
In our bike shop we use AMSOIL, a synthetic lubricant by far better than any oil product. This lubricant far exceeds any other, lasting twice as long.
And of course motorcycles make 50 miles per gallon very attractive also.

My study now is in the market for electric and hybrid motorcycles and to be a dealer of them.
As Drui we can focus on career change.

Merlyn