So, BMW develops a flex fuel gas/hydrogen powered vehicle and we're supposed to give them tree-hugging props? I don't think so. I give them far more credit for perfecting and selling the diesel engines in their European sedans; cars that are are clean-running, quiet, efficient and powerful. While pistonheads are generally considered selfish bastards whose love of speed, comfort and style is a luxury our country– indeed the entire world– can no longer afford, I say bollocks to that. There is no reason why this country can't develop its own sources of energy– so we can burn it as we will in our choice of automobile. Anyway, that's my warm-up for my September 11th column on America's national energy policy as it relates to your car or cars. If you have any thoughts on the matter, you can help me out by dropping them here. Meanwhile, enjoy the pre-rant precast.
Mike Spinelli: …ok…
Robert Farago: I swear we can do this. Are you ready?
MS: Yep.
MS: OK.
RF: What take is this?
MS: I don’t even remember it. Six I think.
RF: Geez… We’re way ahead there. OK…
RF: Good morning Mr. Spinelli.
MS: Good morning Mr. Farago.
RF: How are you today sir?
MS: Boy, am I excellent how are you?
RF: I’m still well.
MS: That’s fantastic.
RF: How are things at www.jalopnik.com?
MS: They’re great. And how are things at thetruthaboutcars.com?
RF: Wow! Are they hot.
MS: Ah. Fantastic.
RF: All right. Now BMW is making (laughter)… is making… (laughter) … a hydrogen powered car. What can we say about that…
MS: Hydrogen!
RF: …we haven’t said before?
MS: Well, it’s interesting because Autoexpress has the spy shots today of the production version of the 7 Series clean energy hydrogen car. The thing is, it’s not fuel cell.
RF: Oh?
MS: It’s combustion… it’s a hydrogen combustion engine.
RF: A flex fuel?
MS: Flex fuel. Right. Along with… in other words it’ll have two tanks. One with gasoline and one for the hydrogen.
RF: And never shall the two mix.
MS: Hopefully, for, yeah, for those involved it’ll ….. yeah… not as.. yeah.
RF: How, how, just out of curiosity… I mean, I know we really shouldn’t perhaps go down this road, but you know, that’s, that’s what we do.
MS: Yeah.
RF: How bad would hydrogen blow up if, you know, if it did blow up?
MS: Ah…
RF: I mean, I know gasoline is actually more combustible than hydrogen … more explosive.
IMS: It’s interesting. I don’t know exactly the volatility factor … it’s pretty volatile though. I know hydrogen is…
RF: I think those guys over at Top Gear should try and blow one of those suckers up.
MS: Hey, that would be an excellent idea,
RF: Yeah. Just to show that it can be done.
MS: Right, through the mushroom cloud that ends up, uh, over Birmingham or wherever they are.
RF: Yeah. That would be…
MS: They would have to account for that.
RF: Proof positive, though, that maybe it’s not the best idea. Actually I’m sure it’s safe cause you know…
MS: I’m sure…no, it’s safe… it’s safe because they’ve been coming up with these these tanks that make it safe.
RF: Right. OK and I… don’t they run trains into them just to show that they’re safe, or is that nuclear carriers?
MS: Yeah, I don’t know that that is… running rains into stuff…
RF: Anyway….
MS: Sounds fun, but, uh, yeah…
RF: Anyway, so if you think it’s hard to find an E-85 station, you just try and look for a hydrogen station.
MS: Exactly. Well, well… BMW earlier this year said this car is coming out in two years, but of course not to John Q. Public. It’s coming out, uh, fleet sales.
RF: Well, who would want to run a fleet of 7 Series?
MS: Um. I don’t know. I think there must be some…
RF: There’s got to be a bank in Germany
MS: Exactly I mean…
RF: Zey are running zee hydrogen powered car…
MS: Ja, ja.
RF: For all our executives.
MS: For every single one of our executives.
RF: Has hydrogen power. I can’t, I can’t understand this.
MS: What fleet, I mean, I don’t think it’s…
RF: I thought this…
MS: …the Los Angeles cab company, I mean, I don’t… who knows?
RF: Well, it’s really weird because, you know, all this alternative energy stuff tends to be on the sort of, you know, the economy, clean air, tree hugging, you know, lefty side of the…
MS: Yeah, you had to throw that in didn’t you…
RF: Well, but what I’m saying is, that, you know, the 7 Series is the plutocrat’s express.
MS: It’s, it’s funny… right… exactly… really seems…
RF: Not quite the image for this
MS: It’s a little bit counterintuitive, but, but, then again, you know. Ford has the hydrogen combustion engine in an airport bus. So, I mean, that actually makes a bit more sense from a fleet standpoint.
RF: Yeah, well you just circuit, you’re only what, what two miles away from your gas station?
MS: Yeah, you’re driving around and around in circles. Right, you’re never, right, you’re never, you’re never really more than what, a quarter mile from a gas…uh… hydrogen fuel station?
RF: Yeah.
MS: But, but, you know, don’t forget, California’s working on this, uh, hydrogen highway, right?
RF: Yeah, where they’re going to have hydrogen stations positioned every what, twenty miles?
MS: I’m not sure how many miles…
RF: What’s the range of a hydrogen car?
MS: I’m not sure exactly, I think it’s more like, you know, hundreds of miles, or something, a hundred miles…
RF: Well the other thing we need to point out is that hydrogen, uh, takes energy to… you have to spend energy to create hydrogen.
MS: Yeah, that’s true…
RF: So…
MS: …you got to crack it.
RF: Right. So although the cars are going to have zero emissions at the tailpipe, there’s still going to be carbon, uh, by-product somewhere in the chain.
MS: Well, yeah, unless, you know, a lot of scientists feel that in order for the hydrogen economy to work you need, you need nuclear, you need some nuclear reactors to more, you know, economically… of course, then you end up with the, uh, you know, brown water you gotta deal with
RF: Yeah, exactly…
MS: … uh, not brown water… heavy, heavy water.
RF: Heavy water.
MS: Yeah. Brown water is something…
RF: Totally.
MS: Totally Different.
RF: You get those spent rods as well.
MS: Spent rods uh.. yeah.
RF: Which has nothing to do with the web site I was on 10 minutes ago.
MS: He’ll be here all week.
RF: Ok, but the important point about it is this, that hydrogen is not the solution to our energy needs.
MS: Um.. it’s, it’s interesting, I mean, you know, it’s not THE solution. That’s kind of a, you know, uh, I mean it could be. It’s not like it’s not…
RF: Well the only thing that could make it work is if you had very small micro refineries using all kinds of alternative energy spread throughout the country.
MS: Well, you see now you read, uh… I don’t know… Wired Magazine in, what, 1993, they were talking about doing that. But of course, the, the… it’s a little bit prohibitive, I think, at this point. But, yeah, I mean, in the future…
RF: But then you’re asking the big oil companies to surrender production.
MS: Right.
RF: So…
MS: So that’s another problem.
RF: You know, that’s, that’s… I don’t know… the hydrogen economy I think is a bit of a ruse. I don’t really think it’s gonna be… it’s gonna be something we’re gonna see in our lifetime.
MS: Well… well yeah, I mean it, it’s gonna take a lot of, of changes and, and, uh, you know…
RF: Well, who’s gonna do it? I mean, you know, unless you have a national initiative to, uh, you know, unless we have something called, I dunno… what, an energy policy?
MS: Right.
RF: You know.
MS: Exactly right.
RF: Until they can decide what we should be doing and how we should be doing it, it’s not going to happen.
MS: Yeah, well there’s, you know, there’s too many… too many interests involved at this point so, you know, of course nothing is going to get done, and, uh… well I guess we need a dictator to say, OK this is the energy we’re using
RF: Yeah. Right. That’s what we need. A dictator. Good answer.
MS: Thanks.
RF: Thank you.
MS: But anyway…
RF: The first web site’s that’s going to be shut down by that dictator is yours.
MS: But anywhooo…
RF: Yes, we have the Chrysler.
MS: We have a Chrysler that might… we might see. Uh prob…
RF: 300C.
MS: Uh. 300C drop top which we may see before we see a 7 Series hydrogen.
RF: I think a lot better. Certainly more desirable.
MS: Ah… yeah.
RF: Well for me.
MS: Well, I… I mean, yeah, but you’re right though, the drop top looks spectacular.
RF: It is an amazing car but you… you tell me that it’s no longer going… the original concept was made by ASC Inc.
MS: Yeah.
RF: And now they’re diverting to Magna-Steyr.
MS: Well, the latest we’ve heard is that,uh,yeah, that…that… that, uh, Chrysler is going to Magna-Steyr a supplier that they use to build Jeeps and other cars, um, in Austria. Of course they’re a Canadian-Austrian firm. Um… and yeah, according to this latest report they’ll have a Karmann-style, you know, like a retractable folding steel roof like Volkswagen has for the Eos you know. I guess GM has with the um G6 now.
RF: Well, listen, they build it for the right price and they’ll sell them all day long.
MS: Ah, of course. I mean, and when was the last time you saw a 4 door, a 4 door convertible? What? I mean on Entourage you see the, uh, Lincoln from what, ‘68 or whatever it was, you know, with that crane shot you pointed out, uh, whenever that was.
RF: That was in take 2.
MS: Well, it was either take two or…
RF: This is take 12.
MS: You also said it l, I think in an earlier podcast.
RF: OK Well, there you go. So yeah, I think it’ll be a huge hit.
MS: In 2010 you can might, you may see that.
RF: Oh Yeah? That’s, that’s pretty close.
MS: Yeah.
RF: And speaking of cars of the future, what about the Infiniti G35, the next one?
MS: Well, yeah, the uh the you know Infiniti senior VP uh Shiro Nakamuro, you know, says that it’s going to look like the, uh, coupe concept we saw in Detroit so there’s something. I wish it…
RF: Well it’s certainly a good looking car and I think Infiniti is set to take off.
MS: Yeah, it’s interesting ‘cause, you know, they, they really want to break into uh, into the European and, um, and even into their own Japanese market. Don’t forget the Japanese have been buying, you know, Mercedes and BMWs as luxury cars for so long that you know their own luxury brands have a lot of work to do, you know, to get in there.
RF: That’s often the case though, that the domestic brand doesn’t have the cache of the import.
MS: Right exactly. They have the same problem that, say, Cadillac has here.
RF: Yeah. Well, ok. But I do think this is a good looking car and somebody has got to knock the 3 Series off its perch.
MS: That’s true and, and this, this could be the car to do it. I mean, we’ll see
RF: They don’t have to but it’s worth trying to.
MS: But it should. I mean the 3 Series coupe at least, now that the 3 Series 5i, you know, it needs some completion. This could be pretty potent competition.
RF: I don’t think BMW executives would agree with you on that.
MS: That they need competition? No, competition is good, I mean, didn’t, well, I mean, they probably don’t agree that they quite need it, but they do need it.
RF: OK. Well then, whether they agree with it or not there it is.
MS: Maybe they do agree with it.
RF: Well the Pontiac Fiero coming back.
MS: Well, that’s interesting. You know, uh, you know, our friends over at the, uh, Left Lane News sort of went trolling around in the, uh, the, uh, Patent, US Patent stuff yesterday and they, yeah, they came up with this.
RF: Do you think they were actually trolling around or do you think someone sent them a heads up?
MS: No, they said they were, he said, I was talking with Nick from over there yesterday, and he said, uh, that it was a boring news day so he was sort of messing around in there. I mean, it could have been a tip, but who knows? But…
RF: Ok. Well, we believe…
MS: But it’s easy enough to look around…
RF: …Nick is as honest as the day is long.
MS: Yeah. But it’s easy enough to look around in the US Patent thing, just to look for key words and stuff, and it’s, you know, but it’s kind of fun.
RF: But the Fiero as you pointed out in your post, uh, was actually just about coming right when they killed it.
MS: Yeah, you know, and, and this is just part of it cause he also found a couple of other things I’ll just mention quickly. Eight speed transmission for GM and, uh, Firebird is also being re-opted as a trademark. But, anyway, but yeah, the Fiero was uh yeah. They were just getting it cause it sucked so badly in the beginning.
RF: But they did bring it, right, and we’d like to see a small MR-2 style car.
MS: It would be neat, I mean, I don’t, I don’t expect that, that something like that is coming back eminently, but uh, hey you never know.
RF: And we are coming back eminently on Monday.
MS: Yes. We’ll do that.
RF: Thank you for your time
MS: OK
Robert,
You asked for input for energy policy article and here it is:
Ever since mineral oil became the western world’s preferred source of energy, the economies of such countries expanded at a staggering rate. This is mainly because this energy from oil is more or less free – we pump it out of the ground, refine it and its good for domestic heaters, air transport, ships and just about anything we need. But we are foolish to think that this economic growth is caused by our cleverness or productivity as most of it is due to the pre-historic solar energy that we are pumping out of the ground. Our economy was created around the basis of super-cheap energy. That is why if you send a package via FedEx from Tampa to Jacksonville it will go via the Memphis hub, why a flight from Tampa to Mexico city via United Airlines takes you through Chicago, why I can buy Californian strawberries at Publix in Florida despite a massive strawberry growing industry only 20 miles away. It is why you can by any fruit or vegetable in your local supermarket all year round – Asparagus from Brazil anyone? It is why in Florida folks use gas and electricity to heat their pools(!) Anyway you get the idea – our very economy and standard of living is based on the assumption of cheap and plentiful energy.
Migrating a country such the US away from this will not be painless which is why no president in recent memory has attempted it. Why upset big oil and cause hardship when you want a second term? To see how sensitive our economy is energy costs just look back on the past two years and see what massive issue a fairly modest rise has caused.
So everyone is looking for a magic fix – one source of new (preferably free) energy that will replace oil so we can go on living exactly as we have since the post-war boom. That’s why people want to believe that E85 is the answer or that their Prius will save the world. Nobody wants to face the messy facts that energy costs will rise and that we will have to make changes to our lives and industry as part of this process. After all, everybody hates change.
There are those who say that the free market will fix it – and it may but while we are still digging free energy out of the ground it is very hard for alternative energy sources to compete or even attract funds for research. While Exxon is raking in a cool $12bn every quarter, why would you want to buy stock in solar? Or to put in another way – why invest in cows when you’re getting your steaks and milk for free?
The question is: How the end of oil will come? Will is be suddenly and take the US unprepared and into a massive depression or will is come gradually with steadily increasing energy cost that will allow our economy to adjust? Who knows?
One thing is sure, unless you are a president that is facing an energy crisis during your administration, there is every incentive not to do anything. People over estimate the power of the US executive – they are way too busy holding on to power to be able to make unpopular long sighted decisions.
So what do we do? I don’t pretend to have the answer but the closest thing we have to non-oil free energy is nuclear power – that Einsteinian wonder of converting mass into energy. We need to power our energy grids in such a way that we can start substituting this energy for oil. We also need to get a whole lot more clever about how we use energy – Europeans use a fraction of the US per capita energy consumption and still enjoy a very good standard of living. We need to get away from the myth that energy efficiency is some sort of austerity measure or that it will kill industry or that it is un-American. We need to make plans for the future and ensure that industry is aware of these plans so it can make its own plans to adjust and adapt. A gradual transition will lead to less unpleasant bumps in the road for us all and a small amount of vision can save us a whole lot of future grief.
OK, now, what about cars?
Cars are just a small part of an energy policy but I guess since TTAC is all aboutcars I can offer the following for discussion:
1. Offer alternatives to the internal combustion engine. I would guess (I have no hard data for this) that about a quarter of cars (not trucks) in the US are used primarily for commuting or travel within a 100 mile radius of the home. There is no reason why these can not be electric. Electric cars can be just as much fun as gas powered cars and it would increase air quality in urban areas. Even if the electricity comes from coal power stations, it is still more efficient as even the best internal combustion engine produces more heat and noise than motion.
2. More diesel in cars and commercial vehicles. Those 5 states are insane for discriminating against diesels with emission standards that are based entirely on gas engines. For those with heavy vehicles, diesel provides the torque they need with significant less fuel than gas.
3. Subsidize research into alternative fuels as these cannot currently compete with the nearly free stuff we pump out of the ground. However, we will need this technology in the future as some means of transport will never be electric (such as air transport). While I despise government spending, this is exactly how the US got its military supremacy – funding research – and that’s how we’ll get ahead in energy too.
4. Cease the subsidies for oil companies. They don’t need it.
It’s a small step but we have to start somewhere
Robert,
IMHO the great energy “debate” we are having is missing the forest for the trees. All the proposed solutions (hydrogen, ethanol, buthanol, etc.) are not solutions, they are just different energy CARRIERS. Our problem is not energy CARRIERS, it is energy SOURCES.
To put it differently: You can make hydrogen, ethanol, etc. out of oil. Doing so would greatly complicate your everyday motoring experience, while delivering NO environmental (or other) benefit. Consider that the cheapest source of hydrogen today is natural gas. Hardly the greenhouse gas-free solution it is portrayed to be.
More practical than the above, would be to go the other way: Take different energy SOURCES and convert them into the diesel and gasoline we are used to, thereby greatly simplifying everone’s motoring experience. Technologies exist (for example gasification/Fischer-Tropsch) to convert just about any organic matter into diesel or gasoline. In Carthage, MO, is a plant that converts turkey offal into diesel #4. Add some refining and you have diesel #2 (as prefered by cars) and gasoline.
Obvious energy sources would be waste: a USDA/DOE study (temporary unavailable at time of writing) concluded that we can supply a third of our oil needs from waste! Beyond the third, we are going to need an energy crop. Nothing beats algae, which can be grown on sewage (free fertilizer) and deliver clean water as a byproduct. After fuel production, the remaining ash can be used as renewable fertilizer.
Bottom line for car shoppers: Buy as efficient as possible, and disregard all the other hot air!
Farago,
If you haven’t looked into biobutanol, I’d recommend a good look. It’s received next to no media coverage at all, and only a few brief mentions on Capitol Hill, but it’s a good answer to every problem ethanol presents (transport, storage, energy content). There’s a guy going it alone with a new, more efficient process for making the stuff. His website seems a little kooky, but his research seems legit. He has funding, so that says something. Check out http://www.butanol.com/ or Wikipedia’s article for details.
Given that the corn lobby has us all under the impression that it is necessary to grow corn to make biofuels, I would also recommend reading about switchgrass and its potential to make biofuel production intensely more efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
Also, there is another type of nuclear reactor which doesn’t create heavy water waste, no spent rods, and cannot meltdown. We invented it then ignored it, and now the Chinese are basing their future electrical production on it. It’s called the pebble bed reactor. You can read a fascinating article about it here: Pebble bed modular reactor.
I recommend checking out these two because as you say the hydrogen economy does smack of myth. These are two technologies which have the potential to plug into our current way of life, energy distribution systems, and even our economy.
BP and other companies are already investing in the butanol idea to a limited extent. The nuclear power idea is being pursued by MIT, but they’re working with Chinese companies because American companies haven’t shown any interest (yet). There is a tremendous opportunity in the short term here for an upwardly mobile state governor or the CEO of an influential big 2.5 automaker to stand up and announce some kind of subsidy for a butanol crash program.
Hope this helps.
So what. Did you both get baked before this call?
The future energy source of cars is…drum roll…oil.
But not the oil from deep down the erth’s crust, it’s going to be synthetic oil. Even today it is possible to produce perfectly fine gas (no E85) out of any bio waste by essentially reproducing the process that transformed dinosaurs into oil.
This is known as BtL fuel (Biomass to Liquid) and there are already different ways to produce BtL-Fuels, like the one of German Choren Industries, with which biomass can be converted into BtL fuel. In August 2005 Choren and Shell agreed on building the first industrial manufacturing plant, able to produce 15.000 tons of BtL fuel per year. The plant will start production at the end of of 2006 and produce to costs of about 1,0 euro per litre of gas. The next step will take place in 2009 with a plant that’ll produce 200.000 tons BtL fuel per year. It is expected to be able to produce it to 0.60 euro per litre of fuel.
And that’s just one example.
Big companies like Shell, DCX or VW are putting money into developing these new BtL fuels.
The big advantage of BtL vis a vis E85 is, that you’re not limited to the plant’s oil, but that you can also use any other sort of biomass. Farmers could cultivate whatever they want, and from their waste we’ll produce our gas. Also, as far as I know, BtL also contain more enegry/liter and also burns cleaner.
First, I’d like to address the misperception, as in the general media – press (print), radio, television and some Internet sites – that one can’t be what is here called “a pistonhead” (for years, before this whole “car guy” thing, the term I’d heard was “gearhead,” allowing there for turbine and rotary engines perhaps) and an environmentalist.
Back in 1975, when I went to the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance, one of the judges was noted nature photographer Ansel Adams. I have kept the tiny (about 5 by 7 inches) program from that year, to show those who don’t believe it is possible. I didn’t talk to him – sure wish I had – but believe he was there because he recognized the aesthetic achievements of the cars on display.
As to a national energy policy, at this juncture, I believe President Bush should institute a “war tax” – 50 cents to a dollar – on each gallon of gasoline purchased. It might help on this horrendous debt we have, and it would have the benefit of getting people to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles.
I would not slap that tax – at least right away – on diesel nor commercial drivers – not only Class 8 tractor-trailer drivers, but delivery vans, etc. Commercial drivers in Europe, from what I understand, buy their fuel at facilities the general public can’t use.
In America, we’d have to do that too – or allow them a special discount at the pump – or we would watch our price for food and other commodities get too expensive for the poor, or even the middle class.
Renewable energy sources sound good; but my hunch, having lived through a time when they were touted as The Next Big Thing (1978 through 1981) believe that while they might assist the country, the internal combustion engine is it, for the foreseeable future.
President Bush and his friends at BP are indeed trying to shift the country to a hydrogen economy – good for them. But it likely won’t happen for 15 to 20 years. Maybe if the next president was akin to President Kennedy and issued a challenge, as did he to “go to the moon by the end of this decade.”
The governor of Montana – Brian Scwhietzer (sic) is pushing using coal to make petrol. That is something the current president and the next should explore and encourage, with tax credits for investors.
USA Today – sorry to use that as a source – had a piece, just before the election of 2004 wrapped, saying that energy independence may be something that neither a Democratic or Republican president can ensure.
But as the poet Rober Browning said, “A man’s reach must exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”
And another thing that could totally change todays view on energy: ITER
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor could be our way to cheap energy forever. If this experimental fusion reactor will work out the way scientists say it will, we could have commercial fusion reactors within 50 years. That means that by then we would have so much incredibly cheap, clean and safe energy, that we could use as much as we want on producing hydrogen or whatever else we’d want to burn in our cars.
Here is the link to that USDA/DOE report….
Tx
In Europe they refer to fuel produced from (bio)waste as “second generation biofuels”, as opposed to “first generation biofuels” i.e. fuel produced from food (as is popular in the US, especially for the politically connected ag-lobby). If only people would stop eating, we would be energy independent…
Here is a juicy quote from Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, Chairman of the Board of Management of Volkswagen:
‘The present assessment regarding the sustainability of first and second-generation biofuels is entirely unsatisfactory, both in economic and environmental terms. One biofuel is not the same as another: some first-generation biofuels can best be described as a “wolf in sheep’s clothingâ€. Some of them have a worse CO2 balance than conventional gasoline fuels, but nevertheless still bear the name of “biofuelâ€.
First-generation biofuels receive tax incentives from scarce budget resources and consequently constitute a bad investment. That cannot be considered sustainable in either the ecological or the economic sense of the word.’
Trust the Germans to call a spade a spade.
Robert… I’m a big fan of yours and TTAC’s… but, I must admit, your comments on Hydrogen have annoyed me and caused me to wonder if you bothered to even research the subject. Hydrogen from water is a LIMITLESS fuel. When you burn it, it turns back into water. Kinda nifty.
(Pleas note: Words in all CAPS are used for emphasis… not yelling)
Your statement that “There is no reason why this country can’t develop its own sources of energy– so we can burn it as we will in our choice of automobile” is dead on. But then you go on to denigrate the very fuel that would let us “burn it at will”. Your assumption that producing H2 requires the creation of “pollution” is quite wrong. A hydrogen economy is intimately tied to solar power, which, for all practical purposes, is limitless.
A few facts for you to consider…
The amount of energy hitting the earth every second is equal to 351,900 Terawatts (TW) of electricity. Here are a few facts to help put that in perspective.
35.19 TW = 1100th of 1 percent of the solar power hitting the earth EVERY SECOND.
The average electrical power consumption of the world in 2001 was 1.7 TW
The average TOTAL (gas, electricity, etc) power consumption of the U.S. in 2001 was 3.327 TW.
The average TOTAL power consumption of the WORLD in 2001 was 13.5 TW
In other words, the TOTAL power consumption of the WORLD in 2001 was a little more than ONE THIRD of 1/100th of 1 PERCENT of the amount of power hitting the earth EVERY SECOND.
Here is a website link to a company that has the technology (and $700 million worth of contracts with the state of CA and PG&E of CA) to utilize that solar power. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp
Using their technology, a 100 mile by 100 mile square of the Mojave desert could provide enough power to completely replace ALL FORMS OF ENERGY currently being used by the U.S. And that INCLUDES ALLl transportation.
The point is, we CAN produce all of the H2 we need, pollution free. I’m not an enviromentalist, but hey, if I can run my 500 HP BIG OLE’ FUEL GUZZLIN SUV and my 750 HP utterly impractical super car on a limitless fuel that doesn’t stink, and doesn’t poison the air and water, I’m good with that.
I’d good naturedly suggest you do a little more personal research before you go off on your rant about H2 powered vehicles… I’d really hate to see you lower my high opinion of you.
Wolven,
There is no need to change your high opinion of RF. You just need a reality check on hydrogen. Read this. In short, hydrogen would be the perfect fuel if we had it. We don’t. We have to make it. All the benefits of using hydrogen (and then some) is lost during the making of hydrogen.
The facts you have listed above prove that it should be possible to get a renewable fuel going that can supply all our energy needs. But none of those facts do anything to suggest that that fuel should be hydrogen. In fact, there is a perfect process for collecting solar energy, and it is self replicating: photosynthesis.
I have noticed before that hydrogen proponents (and I am not saying you are the same, Wolven) tend to pretend that hydrogen is the only renewable fuel out there. To be critical of hydrogen is to be an agent of the oil companies (and their dark political forces).
The truth is that there are many better renewable fuels than hydrogen, chief of which would be renewable “synthetic” diesel and gasoline – fuels that can be used in all existing vehicles (sorry GM, no need for flex-fuel). As an added benefit, these fuels can be introduced at any point in the fuel network, mixed at any ratio with existing supplies and ensure a seamless conversion to renewable fuel. None of which can be done by hydrogen.
It is a very good thing to debate different sources of energy, because petroleum won’t stay cheap much longer. The outcome of this debate is critical for our future.
On the other hand, all of the comments above miss one big point. No matter what the source of energy (even solar), there are losses and heat released into the environment. Energy is never totally free. We should not forget that energy policy should address both energy use and energy production.
I am not one who wants to let the government tell us “no 500 HP engines” or “all cars must get 40 MPG”. On the other hand, there are many voluntary sources of automotive energy savings if we can just find ways to encourage them. Shortening commutes is one example. A driver going 2 miles to work in a Ferrari uses a lot less gas than one going 50 miles in a Prius.
Increasing fuel costs will drive us voluntarily toward choosing more efficient vehicles. Really need an 8-passenger vehicle that can tow a boat up a mountain? It could still benefit from being built lighter and more aerodynamically so you don’t burn so much gas just getting around. All of this works whether you keep the same big old engine or go with something more efficient.
Even (shudder) public transit should be remembered where it makes sense. Many projects have turned out to be more expensive than they are worth, but some really help. When I go into a congested big city with bad traffic and worse parking, I’d rather be on a train. Just make sure the train has stations near the highway and a decent schedule, and I’m out of my car for the day.
I love these podcasts with Mr. Spinelli.
Regarding I am not one who wants to let the government tell us “no 500 HP engines†or “all cars must get 40 MPGâ€.
Exactly! Although I am pro-environment, I am totally against the “all cars must get X MPG” thing. We all know that the EPA rating is just a rough model, it’s not the ultimate truth. And why penalize the X+1 MPG car?
Just let the gas price settle things. As a matter of fact, I would say increase tax on gas, so that a percentage of that revenue can be dedicated to alternative transportaion (i.e. trains, cycling paths) and research funding.
Thanks for the full text of the cast. You saved much time for me.
You’re welcome. It only took three hours of my time to produce it.
We are all living under one gigantic nuclear reactor, on a red-hot glowing globe. And what is our biggest problem? Energy.
More on the hydrogen ‘illusion’…
Engineer…. You’re Mr. Bossel makes a large number of (wrong) assumptions common among critics of H2. His entire “cost and efficiency” model is based on a centralized production (just like our current gasoline method) and shipping of a “packaged” (liquified or compressed) H2. As he correctly points out, we already have electricity (and water) everywhere, so WHY would you use a CENTRALIZED production model??? Maybe, because it fits your agenda? Any honest “analyst” would very quickly recognize there is absolutely NO reason, (and many good reasons NOT to), use a centralized productiondistribution system with H2.
There are several CLEAN methods of producing H2 besides electrolysis. Of course Mr. Bossel doesn’t mention ANY of them. A number of Isreali firms have some very interesting methods that allow the production of H2 “on demand” that would be built right into the vehicles. You would just fill your tank with water.
Furthermore, Mr. Bossel gives NO numbers or analysis of HOW he intends to store and then utilize the “electrons” that he thinks is a better fuel for our vehicles. What do the batteries cost? What sort of range do they have? How long does it take to charge them? How often must they be replaced?
Mr. Bossel doesn’t say much about where the electricity is going to come from to fuel your electric car. He makes general statements about “renewable” energy but seems to prefer biomass as a “source”. Sounds like a consultant that the E85 and farmer coalition would like.
H2 powered cars would free people from the governmentoil company consortium that is currently raping the world, because anyone with sunlight and water could make their own fuel.
Here’s an article specifically addressing the eroneous errors Mr. Bossel bases his conclusions on: http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Trans/T04-06_APSH2Report.pdf
Wolven,
I am afraid I’m still not buying. Bossel works for Fuel Cell developers. If anyone stands to benefit form hyping hydrogen, he would be the guy. That he is putting the brakes on hydrogen says a lot.
Amory Lovins is a tree-hugger. Probably a well educated, well intentioned and honest tree-hugger. But he is not standing on the garage floor, facing the practical realities.
Another dead give-away, of his five references Lovins refers to himself… five times!
More to the point: if you don’t have CENTRALIZED hydrogen production, why have ANY hydrogen production? I just don’t see ANY benefit for using hydrogen at ANY part of the the system.
On the one hand, you have electricity that is easier (and more efficient) to transport and store than hydrogen. Sure, battery science is a work in progress, but it is lightyears ahead of hydrogen storage.
On the other hand, you have renewable liquid fuel. Again, easier to produce, transport and store than hydrogen. So what would be the point of using hydrogen?
H2 powered cars would free people from the governmentoil company consortium that is currently raping the world…
And you wonder why this isn’t being pushed?
Er, rather, the H2 powered cars with onboard H2 production…that’s what I meant. Obviously “H2 Power” is indeed being pushed.
So how’s that column on America’s national energy policy coming?
H2 powered cars would free people from the governmentoil company consortium that is currently raping the world…
And you wonder why this isn’t being pushed?
And where is all the free hydrogen going to come from? The hot air that the topic generates in Washington, D.C? As the previous Energy Secretary said, talking about the hydrogen economy: “Imagine a world…” Like he was a third grader writing an essay on my view of the future. Surely a man as powerful and influential as the nation’s Energy Secratary could do better than: “Imagine a world…”