the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels"

Let's remember that this debate isn't about me or where I see the future of fuel going. And though, due to innovation, existing infrastructure and the possibility of gradual implementation I believe it will continue to go in the way it has already shown a willingness to go (with plug-in hybrids already on the road and production models hitting the road soon in far greater numbers / get on the waiting lists now... it'll be a while with demand what it is). I was simply pointing out where I see the economy going. We have a massive investment in gasoline and it's going to take years to get away from it. Plug-in hybrids allow for a transition away from gasoline to another readily available infrastructure with energy, the power grid. The higher the price goes the greater the demand. The greater the demand the more people use electricity and buy cars with better mileage and more of a push for electric to be used. The technology used is improving and allows for massive amounts of additional innovation. We're already heading in that direction, and the higher gasoline prices and entrenched oil structure make my points more obvious. People aren't going to replace their cars or shift away from gasoline soon. This is a major reason I think plug-in hybrids are an obvious choice. We need to reduce demand and allow people to shift over to a more electric when the gas prices are high, to allow the gas prices to stabilize. However, this debate isn't about that, this debate is about whether "Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline" or "a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline" -- Do you recall any argument to this effect? He did suggest, "Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term" He did not, however, make an argument at any point as to why hydrogen works. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's produced by breaking water apart or by converting methane (already a fuel / fossil fuel) into hydrogen. That's hardly an amazing feat. Electricity -> Water -> Hydrogen -> Car -> Car moves. vs. Electricity -> Car -> Car moves. -- or Gasoline -> Car -> Car moves. (we aren't going to lose that paradigm soon) How did Solarman respond to these objections? How are the infrastructure problems overcome? -- Build it. Ship it in containers. Use natural gases' infrastructure. Something something... How is the leaky nature of hydrogen overcome? -- "Non-issue." How is the lack of cars overcome? -- YOU NON-SCIENTIFIC LIBERAL WITH YOUR TREE-HUGGING HYSTERIA! Why is hydrogen better than the current approach? Why will hydrogen work? Why is it the only solution? Why? I'd go to the trouble of refuting my opponent's argument, if he had an argument! All the technical problems with hydrogen which has constantly and consistently kept the technology on the backburner and given people pause is somehow ignored and everything else, even proven technology on the roads in ever increasing numbers, is wrong because... why? Other than matter-of-factly declaring things, solarman has done nothing to establish his argument (whatever it may be). He hasn't met his burden of proof or apparently even tried to argue his side. Problems aren't problems for him and solutions aren't solutions. Hydrogen isn't a bad technology, it simply has a lot of hurdles to get over before it become viable solution to our energy problems. The same can be said for a number of the technologies vying to solve this problem. Why is hydrogen different? This is what solarman would needs to have addressed in this argument and he perhaps should have given that a shot rather than being rudely typical. ------------------------------ -- "how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft?" Not every solution fits to every problem, there's plenty of room for trucks and buses and ships to store plenty of batteries. I am not aware of any major projects doing so currently. Though I've heard less about hydrogen on the point. Electric alone works fine depending on the range. Comparing hybrids with plug-in hybrids is a little bit off. Hybrids charge up their batteries in order to run the stop and go traffic of day to day life (which they are highly efficient at) without running a poorly suited electric engine for the task. A plug-in hybrid has more batteries and is better suited to accept electricity as energy rather than a buffer. -- "By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel" ---- "WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period." What an interesting way of violating physics: declaring it so! -- "It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O)" You managed to escape physics there too? Why don't you just burn the hydrogen resulting in water, generating power, then simply make more hydrogen out of water and start the process over again. You'd have a perpetual motion machine! If you're just going to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, go all out! -- "CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) )" 4 H2 = 8 Atomic weight = 8. C = 12.01 O2 = 32 Atomic weight = 44.01. Though, I'm glad to see you're going by the atom. *smirk* So if you put 1 gram of diamonds on a 10 grams of gold ring it's more diamond than gold? "In central station hydrogen production from natural gas reforming, the mass of CO2 emitted is 2.51 times greater than the mass of hydrogen produced." http://www.getenergysmart.org... -- "No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT." You can't get energy from nothing. It's going to take power from the power grid or from a non-renewable source. -- "Batteries can be improved." ---- "What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine." No I gave you a great list of many of the improvements being made in batteries. Anybody with a cellphone can tell you that massive strides have been made over the years and new technology and innovation comes around all the time. We're already going in the right direction. Hydrogen is simply a battery, and isn't a very good one. Battery technology however is making fantastic strides in the right direction. And can continue to be improved ways elements cannot. -- For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power 57 kW @ 5000 rpm. That 5000 RPM is pretty important. Your calculations were still based on misunderstanding the term being discussed and it still works out to a bit over a dollar a gallon (as much as that makes any sense when dealing with electric energy rather than an actual volume of something).