You may like the book Smelling Land...you can view it on Google Books.

I've advised others to read it but closed-mindedness is a powerful hurdle to overcome.

↓↑report

It's a form of inertia, NOZ.

↓↑report

I wish I knew what the hell you are talking about....HARLANX6

↓↑report

"Inertia" can refer to a resistance to change, like some people not wanting to give up gas guzzlers, or others getting fixated on the hydrogen hype.

Well, Noz, I did read the part of "smelling land" that was available on Google Books - it was only an excerpt, only a preview the publisher allowed, it is copywrited and not in the public domain. However, that preview was enough to confirm what I had already suspected.

The author is a good wordsmith, but his arguments don't hold up very well. He assumes that the only possible transportation fuel solution is H2, and only mentions anything else to dismiss it. He archly dismisses battery EVs as "too limited", ignoring modern LiIon tecnology, and ignoring the possibility of future improvement in batteries, but at the same time he dismisses any problems with H2 fuels with the assumption that future research will solve all problems. But there are many more problems to be solved with H2 fuels than for batteries, and potential solutions to battery problems have already been demonstrated in the lab - not so for H2.

He has no qualms about nuclear power, seeing it as clean, yet somehow can't imagine using nuclear power onboard ships for direct power. Instead, he'd rather have the nukes make H2 fuel to fuel the ships - but due to efficiency losses, that would require at least 4x more nuclear fuel!

He uses some clever misdirection to dismiss all carbon containing fuels, even carbon neutral biofuels, by pointing out that burning carbon containing fossil fuels can also release sulfur dioxide, and potential carcinogens, ignoring the possibility of making clean burning and sulfur free biofuels.

He pointed out the problem with CFCs damaging the ozone layer, but seems unaware of the potential damage H2 will do to ozone. Indeed, he seems to be oblivious to any potential environmental risk from H2 fuels.

Of course, he also completely ignores issues of efficiency and cost.

↓↑report

CHRISM:

First of all, I have to say one thing regarding your "review:"

I don't believe you read much of it at all. If at all. Why? Because the whole book is there Chris M. I can read it from start to finish on Google Books if I had to. Why you can't is a real mystery. Maybe it's operator error.


YOU SAID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has no qualms about nuclear power, seeing it as clean, yet somehow can't imagine using nuclear power onboard ships for direct power. Instead, he'd rather have the nukes make H2 fuel to fuel the ships - but due to efficiency losses, that would require at least 4x more nuclear fuel!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Chris M...I don't know what to say...I wish you could hear yourself.

You miss the point of hydrogen usage. It's clean. Cleaner than any fuel you can come up with. Using hydrogen on transports that MOVE is much safer than using nukes...and far more practical since we don't have reactors that are smaller that large hangers....want to fit that on a ship? Go for it.

When you can fly a 747 on lithium batteries...get back to us. Maybe one day that will happen. I don't discount it since I'm not as narrow-minded as you are. But not anytime soon. It's an argument you can't answer...yet.

I think you're a good word smith too, and your arguments have been pretty much singular and focused solely on battery and pretty conventional futures....something which will be disastrous for us to continue with. Sanborn assumes correctly in stating that the only possible CLEAN transportation fuel solution is H2...especially for large transports. No other fuel comes close. Period. And that is what he says. No need to twist it into something it's not as usually do.

YOU SAID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He archly dismisses battery EVs as "too limited", ignoring modern LiIon tecnology, and ignoring the possibility of future improvement in batteries, but at the same time he dismisses any problems with H2 fuels with the assumption that future research will solve all problems. But there are many more problems to be solved with H2 fuels than for batteries, and potential solutions to battery problems have already been demonstrated in the lab - not so for H2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much like you dismiss the possibility of future improvement in storage and handling. Right?
The problems to be solved for hydrogen may be more substantial, but the payoff is far more lucrative and important. That is what you cannot understand. Batteries are limited...and they will be for a long long time. Powering cars with them is one thing. Powering large craft is another.

You trivialize the problems of handling, waste, production, etc of batteries. You live in this fairytale land of how everything will be easier, smell cleaner, and be greener because we use LiO batteries all of a sudden. Billions of packs of batteries. Where do they go? Just disappear? Or recycled with no waste? No energy use? No byproducts? What nonsense. Give yourself a dose of reality before you think all problems are solved..with any approach...even hydrogen (God forbid).

YOU SAID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He uses some clever misdirection to dismiss all carbon containing fuels, even carbon neutral biofuels, by pointing out that burning carbon containing fossil fuels can also release sulfur dioxide, and potential carcinogens, ignoring the possibility of making clean burning and sulfur free biofuels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a very tricky use of words and a perfect example of how you manipulate and lie to try and prove your point. I think you're using some clever misdirection to dismiss the effects of carbon containing fuels, even carbon neutral biofuels, by making it sound like they are inert, not polluting, and have no impact on the environment. We are barely beginning to understand the impacts and disasters of ethanol from corn and sugarcane. Let alone these exotic fuels we are proposing in the future. Are you for real? I sometimes wonder. I'm sure you have answers to those.

YOU SAID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He pointed out the problem with CFCs damaging the ozone layer, but seems unaware of the potential damage H2 will do to ozone. Indeed, he seems to be oblivious to any potential environmental risk from H2 fuels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes indeed...another twist of words. Potential indeed...and related to hydrogen leakage only...not production, not use. Leakage. You're worried about leakage of hydrogen..but not of fossil fuel exhausts, carbon release of burning fuels, etc....I scratch my head. You don't offer any numbers as to how much stored hydrogen needs to leak into the atmosphere to cause problems....so no practical comparison to all the carcinogens that are now being leaked into our atmosphere today. Nice play of words.

YOU SAID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, he also completely ignores issues of efficiency and cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well...how would know that from an excerpt? He addresses that clearly near the end of the book...which obviously you did not read.

CHRIS M...you sound like the same broken record that we have heard throughout history regarding any emerging technology. We heard it when we went from oil burning to electricity...all the fear mongers refusing to allow AC power to come to fruition. The same fear mongers who thought flying past the speed of sound was a death wish.

The same fools who thought Lithium Ion batteries were dangerous and hazardous...oh the irony there.

I'll tell you what...I don't think you read the book at all. As I said, I know because it's there to read on Google Books...all of it. Perhaps you read a review from another delusional colleague like you from Amazon or something and decided to re-iterate the comments.

One thing I can say for sure is you didn't read the book.

↓↑report

I don't believe you've ever "read the whole thing" on Google books. After all, you've already got a printed copy of "smelling land" so why would you? Only an excerpt is there, though it is a rather lengthy excerpt. The publisher intends to sell the book, not give it away. The only complete books on Google books are public domain books with expired copyrights.

Now for the issues: Granted, H2 is clean, but it isn't the only "clean" transportation fuel available, nor is there any reason to believe that ominous "conventional fuels and batteries will lead to DISASTER" notion you embrace. But in a way, you're right, no other fuel comes close to H2 in being voluminous, hard to store, and prone to leakage.

There are lots of ships using nuclear power. Granted, most are military ships - submarines, aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers - but the NS Savannah, a nuclear powered passenger/cargo ship was in operation from 1962 to 1972, so it is technically feasible to make nuclear powered freighters and cruise ships. Using nuclear power onboard would be at least 4x more efficient than making H2 onshore and pumping it onboard the ship, due to conversion losses. If nuclear power is used to make that H2 fuel,it would require 4x more nuclear fuel to make. Granted, we won't see nukes on private ships, and unlikely to see them on small commercial ships - but small ships could do just fine with sails, skysail kites, batteries, biofuels, even solar panels, but the high cost of H2 storage and extraordinarily high cost of H2 fuel cells rules out use of H2 fuels for ships, except perhaps for a "cost is no objection" ultraluxury cruise liner.

No battery powered 747s, but there are plans to replace lead acid emergency batteries with lighter LiIon batteries. We won't be seeing H2 powered 747s, as the liquid H2 tanks would be the same size as the fuselage. While Boeing is experimenting with H2 fuel cells, they said H2 was too expensive for passenger use. No, the main fuel for passenger jets will likely be petroleum and biofuel based for the forseeable future.

I didn't dismiss the possibilities of improvements for H2 storage and fuel cells, but lets face facts: There are many more problems to solve to make H2 a practical automotive fuel, including high cost of storage, leakage, leak detection, high cost of H2 fuel, short lifespan of fuel cells, and worst of all, the forbiddingly high cost of fuel cells. We have yet to see much progress on any of those problems, let alone a solution. But for batteries, the only remaining problems are improved capacity and reduced costs, and we've already seen several potential solutions demonstrated in the lab, such as the silicon nanowire electrodes developed at Stanford.

You want to over-emphasize the problem of recycling batteries? Should I then point out that H2 fuel cells also fail and fret over what to do with billions of defective fuel cells? Nah, we both know fuel cells will be recycled to recover the tens of thousands of dollars worth of platinum inside. Besides, all the fuel cell cars have batteries inside them, too, so your "H2 future" would have wasted fuel cells AND batteries to deal with!

When I point out that H2 destroys ozone, your response is to misdirect attention onto fossil fuel exhaust and carbon release, and while those are problems, they don't damage the ozone layer. You've created a false dichotomy, assuming only fossil fuels or H2. You keep trying to ignore alternatives like electric power and batteries and zinc-air fuel cells that are more efficient than H2, thus better at reducing usage of fossil fuel exhaust and CO2 release. As I've said before, why waste 3x more of our limited renewably supplied electricity making expensive H2, when we can "drive electric" and displace more fossil fuels?

Which brings us to the final issue of efficiency and cost. Obviously, I didn't read the end of "smelling land", as it wasn't there to read. I notice that you didn't deal with the efficiency and cost issues, either, just accused me of not reading what wasn't there to read! What was available just glided over the issues of efficiency and totally ignored costs. The author of "smelling land" apparently assumes that future research will solve both problems - is that right?

↓↑report

CHRIS M:

You are correct. I didn't read the whole thing on Google Books...but what I did do is go through the entire document from start to finish on Google Books to make sure that when I told you it was available, that indeed it was.

So whenever you want to stop lying and have a proper discussion, let me know and be my guest.

↓↑report

Having been a spectator to this thread, and carefully evaluating the eloquent positions you both are expressing, I have come to the following conclusions. In my humble opinion there will be limited uses for hydrogen fuel cells for the masses, and ever increasing use of EVs being supplied with power by various renewable sources of power. Hydrogen takes a lot of power to produce, and that is self defeating.
If we could overcome the subversive resistance to developing hydrogen fusion as a source of power production, it would be different, but things will have to get a lot worse than they are before the brainwashed masses wake up.
In the end it will not be the market selecting what the future will bring, not our humble debate.

↓↑report

Typo=last sentence "In the end it will be the market selecting what the future will bring, not our humble debate

↓↑report

LOL, Noz, you admit I was correct, then still accuse me of lying? So you finally found out the truth, that "Smelling Land" on Google books is only an excerpt and not the whole book, just as I said, and you were wrong to assume the entire text was available online. I'm not going to accuse you of lying, I'm accusing you of being mistaken - again.

I strive very hard to be accurate and honest, and I resent your fatuous accusations of lying. If you think I am wrong, you are welcome to point out where you think I am mistaken, and if I find I have erred I will admit it. But if you keep making baseless accusations of dishonesty, there is no reason to continue the debate.

harlanx6: It would be great if someone finds a way to make controlled fusion energy practical, but we have yet to see any fusion reactor here exceed breakeven, where it produces more energy than it takes to run. Each step closer to breakeven has meant bigger and more expensive reactors, so breakeven might turn out to be too expensive to be competitive. Lets continue fusion research for the scientific knowlege it will produce, and maybe we'll get lucky with an unexpected breakthrough, but we shouldn't rely on it to solve our energy problems, as it might not work out.

That's not being "subversive", that is using reasonable caution.

↓↑report

I agree with you Chris and I don't think you are subversivly resistant to the development of any new or promising technology. Your analysis always makes sense to me. The subversive resistance I speak of is of those who oppose anything nuclear, particularly for use in the production of power. In spite of their relatively backward system, the French are surviving today because they are willing to use modern nuclear technologies as an interim strategy. Modern nuclear technology is safe and our Navy demonstrates that. It's development in the US would cleary have slowed the bleeding of our wealth to our sworn enemies in the middle east.
It's taken some time to develop, but now the alternate energy sources of wind and solar appear to be gaining competitiveness with nuclear power in cost without any waste problems. I think there are still opportunities for the use of nuclear technology but for the last several decades the subversive elements have driven the cost up to the extent that nothing has been achieved.
I believe the readers of ABG have in common the belief that it is no longer in our best interest to increase atmospheric carbon. The main differences are the extent we continue to use the ICE, and biofuels (which do emit atmospheric carbon). I am not opposed to any of these things as an interim solution, but I prefer the decisions be made on the basis of economic viability, not government intervention. The government has a long track record of screwing up anything they touch, because of the intrinsic corruption of our system, and their inability to foresee the unintended consequences of their actions.

↓↑report

1.2 kilowatts = 1.6 horsepower.

Watch that speed machine go! And that 1.2kW fuel cell stack only costs $6,500 -- a steal, as far as fuel cells go. Tack two more zeros onto the end of that price and you might have enough power to run a car. ;)

↓↑report

Yeah it's funny that isn't it....hec...who knew everyone could afford electricity and lightbulbs when they came out...says the oil lamp crowd.

↓↑report

People who said electric power as Edison envisioned it could never work were absolutely 100% correct: it took Tesla's brilliant ideas to develop the AC power we use today. Without Tesla or someone like him, we would not have electricity in our houses today unless we happened to live within a mile or two of a power station (and even then, if a single light bulb or other gadget malfunctioned and broke the circuit, everyone would lose power).

So if you think today's fuel cells will ever work in transportation applications (with the possible exception of airplanes where extreme light weight matters more than extreme cost), you're as moronic as someone who thought the world would one day be powered by direct current.

↓↑report

It seems like it uses metal hydrides, which allows them to store huge amounts of hydrogen, similar to what was discussed when the whole hype about the water car started:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/15/is-genepax-for-real-a-car-that-runs-on-water-highly-unlikely/

Pretty nice for an engineering project, but the power output is more like a slow speed electric scooter.

↓↑report

Since H2 is a gas, and they didn't mention at what pressure or temperature that volume was measured, we really don't know for sure just how much hydrogen that represents. One gallon of H2 at room temperature and atmospheric pressure is the energy equivalent of just a drop of gasoline.

I suspect both the performance and range is really limited!

↓↑report