Has any group modeled the impact of hydrogen transportation water output on climate models? It would seem to me that if all vehicles used hydrogen power, a tremendous amount of water vapor would be put into the atmosphere above and beyond what would be encountered by native sources. And does not water vapor and its heat holding capacity drive a number of violent climate conditions?

Hydrogen may not be the immediate or even long term answer.  The cost of recovery is expensive as is the vast infrastructure needed to implement.  Energy storage and solar are more appropriate in freeing the populace from the corporate grid. We need an X-prize for energy storage.  Lightweight, high-capacity, rapid recharge, and environmentally friendly, economic to produce - these are important storage criteria.  Another X-prize is needed to optimize solar technology.  Here again, high efficiency output, high dependability and low production cost and compactness of system would be the goals. This would allow homes and vehicles to operate off the grid and be self sufficient from vast energy-inefficient mega fossil fuel users.

Nanobatteries hold the only decent solution for immediate relief from the imminent effects of global warming, and they will be too late if more attention to electric power for vehicles does not make them available soon.  

Luckily, new nanobatteries are being developed which can take a recharge almost immediately for a slow discharge to power a car.  I can see service stations all over for pull-in and recharge, similar to today's stations for pumping gasoline, neighbourhood institutions.  Corn can return to its primary use as food.

Des, I may be a little slow, but where does the energy to recharge come from? I'm a little confused, as I don't really know that much about nanobatteries. Also, would a nanobattery be compact enough for a car?

A reminder that the only current source for the monatomic hydrogen required for these devices is oil or natural gas. "Hydrogen" is a complete red herring in regards to energy conservation, and any responsible writer should point out a hydrogen fuel cell's utter dependence on fossil fuels.

Marshall, here's an article that delves into the subject of nanobatteries:

http://www.accelerating.org/articles/phevfuture.html

From the top down everything looks impossible but from the bottom up (a public initiative) things become a bit more doable. Although I advocate batteries now, I'd think twice before not having some form of backup. One electric car I saw had an ultra small engine incase you were caught far out or if say there has a massive region-wide blackout. In this "backup role" almost any type of fuel could be used if our back up engine was an ultra small gas turbine. I know turbines like on the M-1 tank can burn diesel, gas, alcohol, jet fuel... not sure about hydrogen but probably with some modifications. Society desperately needs to be more robust and insulated from any number of ultra catastrophes: Blackouts, the bird flu, asteroid...

Good to see everyone here is not fooled - Hydrogen economy truly is a hoax.  Politicians talk about it like it's a primary energy source, but it's just an energy storage medium.  An extremely explosive, difficult to store and transport, energy storage medium.  Check out www.tesla.com for an analysis of carbon load for Hydrogen vs. gasoline vs. lithium-ion batteries in cars.

Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels in a process that is about 60% efficient, the transported with 10-25% boiloff, then burned in an internal combustion engine (20% efficient) or a fuel cell (60% efficient).  Ugh.  Its only advantage is the ability to store energy produced at off-peak hours, but that's a dubious advantage for something that boils away in two weeks.

A tradable credit system for carbon is the way to go - in other words, nevermind.

Because of the chance of a catastrophe, our choice of fuel should be one that can be produced locally perhaps even at the home level.  Hydrogen and ethanol are such fuels.  BTW, a long while back a snipped out an article from either pop sci or popular mechanics.  Don’t ask me how its done but the article said:  The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been developing a solar cell-type material that is twice as efficient as electrolysis for hydrogen extraction.  

Also, I think people get only one-dimensional when talking about solar.  Don’t forget that we are also seeing the development of parabolic dish-type solar collectors!  Focusing such high concentrations of sunlight at one focal point can achieve a 90% conversion rate (not just 40% as PV is now at) according to Sandia National Laboratories.  Such high-powered parabolic devices have also become one of the best ways to clean badly polluted water.

Nano-batteries - COOL!

The way I see it, we could easily cut our carbon foot print almost in half, and drastic reduce our dependence on any auto fuels if we asked why there are only two cars that get over 50 mpg. Both these vehicles are from Japan. Wouldn't it make a whole lot of sence to mandate U.S. auto makers to each create two models of cars with 50+ mpg, keep them under $20k, and then give a tax credit of $6k in the year an individual buys one?

What we need is conservation and people do not want it, not for themselves anyway!

Think about these questions for a moment:

Why drive a Hummer or Sports Utility Vehicle?  Why drive a vehicle that gets less than 30 MPG?  Why get the 42” Flat Panel Television that uses four times more electricity than your old 27” Cathode Television?

So you felt the urge to write a comment about this article, yet you won’t make any changes in your life and are in fact making things worse with the choices that you make!

We need conservation but no one wants it!

I am totally apalled at the way anyone with an axe to grind is touting hydrogen as the cure-all. The problem is confusion between chemical hydrogen as a clean fuel and atomic hydrogen, which could be the real panacea for energy production. As a source of atomic power, hydrogen shows promise of being a plentiful source of fuel (even deuterium, or 'heavy hydrogen) without the current problem of spent fuel waste that has held back nuclear fission in this country. (Other countries are building nuclear powerplants with renewed enthusiasm.) Unfortunately the only effective fusion reaction to date is the hydrogen bomb. If, or hopefully, when we can control a fusion reaction and tap the enormous energy possible from it, then and only then will we have the means to separate hydrogen from water and make use of its environmentally friendly energy in internal combustion engines and fuel cells. If we can find a way to store it in some kind of condensed form. (What will we do with all the oxygen produced as a byproduct of hydrogen extraction from water?) So, all the hydrogen hype is really putting the cart before the horse. The really small amount of 'alternate energy' sources should indeed be tapped as much as possible. But the only real cure for the huge shortage of energy that occurs when the rest of the world begins to use as many kW/hr per person as we do is hydrogen fusion. Who is funding that?

Marshall  --  I trust you have read Alan's referral to John Smart's blog  -- Smart is smart, for sure.  The articles about nanotech which I read are in Science and Life, Wikipedia, All About Batteries, Laval University. It is a complicated subject all right  -  first you have to get rid of the idea that only internal combustion can supply energy 'on demand.'  Batteries always could do that, but only for a short time with maximum power not really sufficient to make tons of metal move fast on the highway.

Rechargeable batteries were invented just a while ago, but recharge was by a slow trickle that took a long time.  Now nanotubes of carbon, thinner than a human hair, can be assembled and electrons formed into 'pipes' lining up on the outside of each nanotube and passing through a porous membrane from positive to negative poles through a generator which supplies the power to make an engine move.  Nanotubes have a tremendous amount of 'surface' area around each tube where electrons gather, using two metal plates instead of chemicals. As a supercondenser then, power can be 'pumped' into the battery faster than a gastank can be filled.  Size is a relative matter when you can get rid of the internal combustion engine and its effluvia, and will quickly be miniaturized when it is developed.

The electric power will be connected to each service station, for individual use as required, and will be supplied to the power grid from all the various sources that can be harnessed cleanly, hydro, wind, wave, solar, nuclear, even cleaned up coal (coke), all to be replaced eventually by geo-thermal plants located under Earth's crust, out of sight.

Sorry, Alan, I can't resist throwing in a relevant thought that came to me just now. Henry Ford did not let the Associated Horse Breeders Of The World, along with the Harness Makers Union, stop him from bringing the Model T Ford Automobile to the working classes everywhere. We mustn't hold on to old-fashioned technology either.

As Dave Murphy points out, hydrogen is a non-starter.  Its source is natural gas or coal and it costs too much to produce and distribute.  As for electrolysis; why use electricity to make hydrogen when the electricity is so much easier to distribute and can be used directly more efficiently?

Ethanol from corn is essentially solar energy; the plants use sunlight to turn CO2 into sugars which are then fermented to ethanol.  The problem with solar is low energy density; it is just spread out too thinly so a very large surface area is required to collect it.  This makes solar cost prohibitive in most locations.

For electricity generation, nuclear fission is the best short term option.  Several new reactor designs by GE and Westinghouse promise lower capital cost and safe operation.  Better batteries can lead to practical electric cars so I agree with Lester Poole that it would be wise to focus research in this area.  In the mean time, conservation is the answer for vehicles.  Rather than the traditional approach of mandating gas mileage, the better approach is to tax the heck out of gas and diesel so people will simply choose more efficient vehicles.  This will also have the effect of raising the baseline for alternatives like synfuels, tarsands, etc. making them economically viable.

We can easily meet the president's goal of a 20% reduction of imported oil in 10 years, but it takes radical changes.  Can this country produce a politician with sufficient intelligence and courage to quadruple fuel taxes and clear the way for a massive build-up of nuclear reactors?  I am hopeful, but also doubtful.

Lester Poole, the most abundant Green House gas is water vapor. Releasing extremely high amounts into the atmosphere would cause the same effects as any other green house gas. However when we achieve a viable, commercial fuel cell this problem can be tackled very easily, with out any high tech innovations. Ask any country boy and he could tell you about a condensing coil; it’s used in the moonshine business or the production of a lot of other less useful things. Run the fuel cells exhaust “water vapor” through a coiled piece of pipe similar to the copper line used on a still. At other end out will drip water only, collect it into a jug, then simply dump it out at your local hydrogen fueling station.

this is very interesting. to use hydrogen as an energy source is great. im in the automotive field and i understand that hydrogen is discharged from regular 12 volt batterys in today's vehicles. very dangerous if a spark occurs when a battery discharges. when the battery discharges the Hydrogen into the atmosphere, cant you recycle the hydrogen back into the vehicle for fuel?

Hydrogen is just not feasible at any where near our highest gasoline prices even if, and it is a very big if, the initial cost of a hydrogen vehicle were much lower. Ethanol is too costly and the mileage per gallon is too low. Meanwhile many of us would gladly purchase or lease the electric plug-in at home EV vehicles that Detroit developed and then wouldn't renew leases but chose to destroy the vehicles and not renew leases. Use the right batteries and the limited mileage per charge would not be a problem for many of us.   There are some very attractive features of electric vehicles not the least of which is they need almost no maintenace including oil products the internal combustion vehicles require.

Plain truth is alternative fuels is a red herring and no one has a cost effective alternative fuel option.

hydrogen , electric, solar, wind , all have huge potential to be used in many different capacities. with enough money and research man could make any of these options a viable power source. i believe politicians cant be trusted to fix this problem. there are to many that are in the hands of big oil companies. as long as there are billions to make from oil it will be hard to ever make any drastic changes. the climate is already warming to the point where the ice caps and glaciers are melting. by the time any major change in enviromental friendly technology is implemented in any significant degree it will probably be too late. we must try though!

Time to Master the Carbon Cycle

Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did and that now we are over doing it.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.

It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon.

Energy, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas management
http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/
Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Energy%20Paper%2006_05.htm

On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons.

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons.  Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.

Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel co2 emissions as charcoal.

As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "

Carbon Negative Bio fuels and Fertility Too

This new Terra Preta soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any.  I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.

The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

Nature article: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green:
 http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdf

Terra Preta Discussion , central data base, and Mail list :
 http://info.bioenergylists.org/?q=about

If pre-Columbian Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 20% of the Amazon basin it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.

Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of EROEI for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.

We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.

I feel Terra Preta soil technology is the greatest of Ironies. That is: an invention of pre-Columbian American culture, destroyed by western disease, may well be the savior of industrial western society.

I think that (both) Hydrogen fuel (for standard car engines) and Fuel Cells (for electric cars) can't have soon a large commercial diffusion (especially in the biggest emerging countries) due to unsolved (easy and safe) storage problems (the first) and too high costs (the latter) while "Ethanol & C." fuels don't need too much promotion since they already are a cheap alternative to gasoline and (only) need a larger production. So, if I can "decide" the BEST use for GREAT PART of the energy-innovations' prizes, my choice is: a) a prize to reduce to 1/5th the solar-cells' manufacturing COSTS (and selling PRICE) without increase the size or reduce their current efficiency ...and... b) a prize to increase (up to) FIVE times the rechargeable-batteries' stored energy with 1/3 reduction of their dimensions and weight (at 1/10th the current PRICE, if possible) ...if these prizes will succeed, we will have hundreds millions of cheap cars in our cities within ten years (and a strong reduction of the cities' pollution!) ...however, the problem of the SOURCES of energy still remains unsolved, since (both) "solar cells + electric cars" and "ethanol engines" can't solve more than 20-30% of the energy requirement, while, he oil/methane prices always remain high (mainly due to China and India impressive economic growt and energy needs)

  It seems to me that everyone is missing the point completely! Trying to figure out how to convert ONE nonrenewable power source to another. 

  Every bit of energy that we can harvest on Earth, either by way of geothermal, solar, wind, wave, biofuel, fossil fuel, etc. is/was delivered to this planet, by way of energy from the primordial origins of the solar system, or from the Sun itself. Since it is not very cost effective or wise to harvest the primordial energy on a massive scale (and thus cool our planet from the inside out), then that leaves only solar as our basic temporary source of energy. (I say temporary because I am hoping that our predecessors will outlive our Sun, colonize the Universe, etc.) 

Over the course of 4 billion years, the Earth has saved precious little of the energy that it has recieved from the Sun, and it has received very little of the Sun's total output over that time. The rest of that energy is being thrown off into interstellar space. 

Yet here we are(an intelligent(?)species) now debating about how to use that energy just a tiny bit more effeciently, instead of finding a way to capture some of the energy that the Sun is giving off to the rest of the universe. The Earth alone can only capture so much energy, given it's size and distance from our Sun. 

I believe that we should not be focused so much on what the Earth has (fossil fuels and geothermal), or what the Earth can get in the short term (wind, wave, biofuel, or ground based solar), but what we can get by space based solar collection systems. I have a few ideas, but all of them need a little H E L P! 

The answers to your inevitable questions are... No, it will not cheap (by our current monetary measures). It will not be easy (by our standards or risk/reward). But to the question of "Is it a necessity?" the answer is YES! The Earth has only so much to give, and the Sun will also only give so much to it. So as an intelligent species, we had better figure out how to take it, while the taking is good!

In my personal opinion, I don't think that the Oort cloud would mind if we take a little now, until someone figures out that humans can tap the universe as a power source instead of just our tiny Sun. 

Until then, I hope that SOMEONE out there realizes that humans will, at some point, be using far more energy than the Sun can possibly give to our planet, or every did, and that Earth based harvesting does have an effect on the environment, no matter what the method is. Space based harvesting of solar energy is the only way that we will be able to become self-sufficient (for the next 10,000 years at least?)

Has anyone looked at Tesla Motors? They have sold 200 total electric cars that go 0 to 60 in 4 sec. and 250 miles on 1 charge. Meanwhile GM shows a concept car which gets 40 miles a charge? This Country needs to make energy part of National Security to get Big Buisness out of the mix.

Lester Poole's concerns about water vapor loading from Hyrdrogen engines is a very small problem. All combustion of hydrocarbon fuels has water vapor as a byproduct (along with COx, NOx and SOx, etc). The energy efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell should be sufficiently greater that the actual H2O output may be less per mile driven.

The shrub's goal is a smokescreen.  Conserve beginning immediately followed by accelerated fleet replacement.  If it doesn't give at least 30 miles per gallon put a 100% per year (at original sale price) on it.

My 1996 Saturn does between 33 and 38 mpg!  Forget hydrogen.  Another smokescreen to obfuscate and delay.  That is all that jerk has ever done.  I really should stop sugar-coating my opinion of that twit.  He is, at least honest.  Once bought, he stays bought!

The chickens are coming home to roost, hear the flapping noise in the distance?

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy."  We must protect it.  "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy."  The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc.  The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products should be reduced or eliminated)

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years.  At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.  (This can be done by amending building code)

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants.  The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.  

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy.  The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.  As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles, sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles.

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth.  (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."

Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA.  91325
Jan. 25, 2007

P.S.  I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.

I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.

The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”)

Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.

Installing renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.

Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.

Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com

One viable hydrogen feedstock that is often overlooked is municipal waste.  Using plasma converter technology from a company like StarTech (which is already operating here in the US), the volume of municipal waste can be drastically reduced, which solves one growing problem we face, while also generating hydrogen as a useful product.  It won't solve all of our transportation woes, but it can be a piece of the solution.  Another fuel source that is often overlooked is algae-based biodiesel, which offers the potential of vastly greater gallons per acre output than corn.  And again, US companies like GreenShift and Algae Biofuels are already developing these technologies.

What about thermal depolymerization? It's up and running in Missouri, turning turkey and hog waste into diesel fuel and powered by a small fraction of the fuel it produces. I understand the process works with about any organic waste--tires, leaves, sewage, etc. See "Discover Magazine's" April 2006 issue.

Whatever happened to methanol? I remember that being heavily touted some years ago as the next coming alternative fuel. It had the advantage of being easily made from plant waste like cornstalks, so it wouldn't cut into corn being grown for food. There was some technical glitch about it eating seals in automotive engines, but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to find a seal material that methanol wouldn't eat?

Let's face it. The real problem lies with the petroleum industry, which includes automobile manufacturers. We are at their mercy. Look at Ford. They lost over $12,000,000,000 in 06. The large automobile companies keep building vehicles that don't sell well or that they can't make a profit on, then they blame everybody but themselves, and eventually they file bankruptcy and we the taxpayers bail them out. We need to stop bailing them out. If they can't find a way to stay in the black, then we need to let them die at their own hands. If they knew that they would no longer get bailed out, they might actually start looking for new ways to keep America rolling. Until then, we have to put up with whatever pieces of @#$% they produce.

While it might likely be true that for the past millions of years, our planet's temperature has risen and fallen when mankind was not yet present. For the past 650,000 years, we have the highest carbon dioxide levels based on credible past geological records. We are doing right now, one global atmospheric experiment that never before this planet has ever experienced, and everyone could suffer, and all of our best climate models shows that we are going to suffer if we are to continue this present rate of fossil consumption.

Our current rise in carbon dioxide and global temperature rise is the biggest spike to appear on geological time scale and I am afraid that even if we are to correct our mistakes right now, the inertia of the errors of our ways would still be felt in generations to come. Meaning, it would get a lot worse. Let us simply enjoy our life time now and let the future generation care for itself. We will let them inherit the unstoppable exploding bomb, so to speak.

Ice ages come and go every 10 to 15 thousand years, but over the past decades we are on super exponential rise, the kind of spike, which has never been on geological time scale. It used to cycle for eons, but now, in terms of hundred years, and in geological time scale, the current situation is equivalent to a sudden big spike. Heck, earth may wipe out mankind in the process of correcting itself for the new equilibrium. There is a big possibility that we could become a runaway greenhouse planet like Venus where the daytime temperatures are simply hellish and the only thriving lifeform would be microbial. I hope it would not be that extreme, and also hope that with all these global warming, the Antarctic would at least become the paradise it once was, with palm trees and citruses, but I can assure you, there would be no billions of people left.

We have technologies right now that can combat all of our current fossil problems if only we are serious enough to get rid of our oil addiction. But because of greed and our fear of changing the status quo, as a species, we are most probably doomed unless we collectively wake up.

When energy is harnessed from the sun, hydrogen as storage of energy is the answer to most of our energy problems in the future. The sun's energy is the most efficient neutral type and non-polluting way of satisfying our energy needs. Waves, hydro-electric dams, wind, biomass, ethanol, and even the fossil fuels are all solar powered.

Granting that we have perfectly solved the fusion paradox and the radioactive material disposal from fission reactors, and prevented all types of accidents that has plagued our nuclear reactors, there is still a big problem in using nuclear and fussion power. These energy sources are not part of the normal equilibrium and will shift thermal balance towards a hotter atmosphere as there is a net heat accumulation when unnatural sources of energy such as from the splitting or fusing of atoms are being utilized and ultimately most of this unnatural sources contributing to the delicate atmospheric balance end up being dissipated as heat ultimately even if our overall efficiency is 100%. Unless we can pump out the waste heat into deep space, these kinds of energy sources should not be used as the major energy source for the future of mankind. It will always be a net heat gain for our atmosphere now that we have carbon dioxide that traps and retains most of the heat end products generated for any kind of energy usage for our convenience regardless of efficiency.

Fossil fuels, carbonate deposits while solar powered are carbon sinks that the earth's ecosystem have achieved equilibrium with after so many billions years and therefore we should wean ourselves from exploiting these sources. The rate of releasing back carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by using these energy sources is truly disruptive and astoundingly dramatic when we talk about geological time scale. We have record levels of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere and we could not afford to have a disaster in this non-repeatable atmospheric experimentation. We only have one planet to experiment on, and we can't afford a single mistake. We may not be able to cope with what perturberances are there to come as a consequence of this big atmospheric manipulation, the ecosystem will not have enough time to adjust nor equilibriate, which perhaps mankind could be eliminated in the process of runaway greenhouse gas thermal death trap as one of those possibilities.

If we use plants to harness the sun's energy, at best the efficiency is 5% for accumulating biomass energy. Then we transform that biomass energy into hydrocarbon fuels, a process which is carbon emissions neutral, but the efficency is further reduced by transformation into alcohol or oil or hydrogen, perhaps the best available technologies to date, we would have achieved an overall 2% conversion efficieny from sun's energy via this process. The fossil fuels are even much worse than this.

There are existing technologies today that can harness the sun's rays into direct heating and splitting up of water with an overall efficiency close to 50%. Australia and Canada seemed to be leading in this area with USA quite far behind in terms of applied technology. The end products are either electricity or store energy as hydrogen fuel. With the recent research at University of Berkeley in capturing a wider spectrum of light, it is possible that theoretically we can achieve greater than 70% conversion of solar energy into electricity and practically when it becomes applied technology we can achieve 50% conversion efficiencies in solar cells in the very near future. If we use simple electrolysis to produce hydrogen, the energy efficiency is around 86%, and the overall product would be 43% efficiency from solar energy, and this is more than twenty fold efficient than utilizing biomass either from plants or fossil fuels. Now let us say we use the current technology on solar cells, we have 25% solar efficiency, turn this to hydrogen and we have an overall efficiency of 21.5%, still more than ten fold than what we can get with other natural means. Some concentrators with electrode catalysts are now 36% overall efficient in capturing the sun's power in the form of energy content of hydrogen. We have rooftops, highways, deserts and many unutilized vast lands that we can capture solar energy from to use it directly as electricity or to produce hydrogen fuel. There is even no need to pump and distribute hydrogen as we can produce them on site wherever there's water and electricity. We are distributing electricity right now, and producing electricity on various households would lessen requirements of large capacity wires. If we install solar collectors over all our roadways, that will provide shading and cooling of cars at the same time harvest solar energy. There would be cases which we have to physically transport hydrogen, but on the large, such transport system is not the major drawback. Aside from electricity storage, there is no other non-polluting element that we can store the sun's energy aside from hydrogen.

The major source is solar, whose major product is electricity, and we only produce hydrogen from electricity when there is an electrical discontinuity transport such as hydrogen powered mechanical machines. We only need to work to build the infrastructure and keep the manufacturing of solar energy capturing devices way down. We did it with cars, computers and other machines, surely we can do this with solar device manufacturing problems and their infrastructure.

I would consider geothermal as neutral heat polluter as long as we utilize only the natural existing resources and not dig out to build more. We have likewise equilibrated with it. These can be used to augment our energy uses.

Thus the sun, electricity and hydrogen is the exact answer that we already have in our hands. Non-polluting, heat-neutral, currently implementable, let us just get our acts together. So what more do we ask? Let's go to work.

I really think the argument that "It's going to take a massive amount of money or work to put in an infrastructure" and similar are a serious cop-out.  Are we always to be foreshadowed by our parents and ancestors?  Our interstate road system is less than 75 years old - didn't seem to prevent the growth of automobiles...  Our Rail system is over 150 years old.. same thing.  I believe that if we (americans) were offered a real alternative to petroleum based transportation, it would probably be adopted.  Why must we only stand on the shoulders of our forebears and not contribute our own great works (including ideas).  Think of how much the money being spent daily in Iraq could be getting used to setting up an infrastructure, (can you say the Eishenhower Interstate System? Same scale).  If you read between the lines on a lot of the Hydrogen based initiatives, they're only looking at techniques that will ensure that folks have to stay 'on the grid' and require consumable means of hydrogen delivery - forget trying to make something that would effectively do away with Hydrogen fuel stations, akin to the Toyota home refueling station.

The problem with Hydrogen is "The Hindenburg Syndrome"

There is no need for an H-Prize.  The world market for hydrogen is billions of dollars annually.  That's a huge prize for anyone that makes a quantum improvement in any aspect of producing, storing, transporting or converting hydrogen back to useful work.  I have tried to capture the current state of the technology, remaining issues and an number of better ideas into my book, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy.

http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/

Last year, I proposed an oil-from-algae prize which I've (tentatively) dubbed the "O-Prize":

http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/oprize.html

It leverages the fact that oil from algae is also typically high in omega-3 fatty acids that are increasingly seen as nutritional supplements for childhood neurological development.  This should allow cross-contributions from the Gates Foundation's emphasis on childhood development and education.

For John of Kalamazoo....  Fusion is finally getting long overdue attention in a monumental international research project called ITER.  Thank the EU and Japan, primarily, for funding that--though the US is back on board (after dropping out for a while--unbelievably!), along with China, India, Russia and South Korea.  The center of the fusion world--and the best hope for fusion-based power gen--will be in Cadarache, France for at least the next generation.  Check out http://www.iter.org/

As long as we burn ANYTHING, whether clean-burning or not, we emit carbon dioxide, the LEADING culprit in global warming.  That's why hydrogen fuel cells are so attractive.  No, generation of hydrogen is not dependent on fossil fuel.  In high school chemistry we split water into hydrogen and oxygen with an electric charge.  Nice and simple.

As for the electricity to split water into H and O2, solar is a really good source.  Then there are wind, falling water, surging water (tides and waves) and so forth.  Of course, if you don't want windmills in your back yard maybe you prefer the ocean in your front yard and most of the major cities of the world submerged.

Hydrogen sounds great on the surface, it truly does. Hey burn it in your car and only water is left over! But the  infrastructure required to produce, transport, store... ugh.

High technology nuclear plants plus battery powered electric cars. It's really that simple (with "simple" being a relative word... leave out the politics of the fossil fuel lobbyists et.al.).

What truly needs to be addressed immediately is a safe means to dispose of nuclear waste from fission plants while advanced research goes into the feasibility of fusion.

I have already analyzed and come up with the answer for creating the hydrogen economy in less than 10 years.

First off the technology to produce hydrogen at the filling station already exists in the form of electrolysis based systems run on electricity. I have not passed a gas station yet that did not have electricity and water which are the only infrastructure components necessary for this to work.  I here paid consultants, PHD's on radio and TV talking about some way to transport hydrogen and all that rot and feel badly for the American public who believe their drivel.  The best way to produce the electricity for this scenario is wind with inherent storage technologies which I have already patented and developed. I also developed low velocity wind technology that the DOE is looking for.  86% of the wind sites surveyed in the U.S. need this low velocity wind technology since there wind speed is to low for the current generation of wind turbines.  My wind turbines put out energy for up to 66 hours after the wind has died off.  A wind farm with my technology could be cascaded to run for a month with no wind if required.  The issue is political not tehnological.  The wind industry needs the same support that is given to coal, oil, nuclear and hydro.  If you actually read the energy policy passed by congress last year and look who is getting the money you will see what I am talking about. The energy policy also is a joke in that our nation and its security are dependant on energy and we need domestic energy to solve the conundrum.  We are spending 200 to 300 billion per year on the war in Iraq which was forced on us do to our need to protect our oil sources.  Our total energy policy amounts to only 18 billion and the majority of the money is going to oil companies for R&D, this being the same oil companies which made untold amounts of money off the U.S. taxpayer last year.  Wake up America.

start with the fact that global warming is a HOAX!! (which eliminates the "problem" from the start).

however, as pointed out earlier, HYDROGEN is also a HOAX; as is ETHANOL; both of which use more energy to produce than they generate (law of thermodynamics).

realize that COAL, which the USA has a 3-400 yr supply can be converted profitably into fuel WHEN OIL IS $30 /bl.

next apply an inflation factor of 12; that is divide everything you buy and own by 12 and you will discover that very few items in our society cost more today than they did 40-50 yrs ago.

SO WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL???

(you can thank the gov'ts of the world for INFLATION - which helps to devalue assets like oil)

NOW understand that the only reason there's any talk about energy useage/alternate fuels is to extract billions/trillons for "RESEARCH" from a gov't that is willing and able to give away that money - which they take from all of us.  these projects are "MAKE WORK" at best!! if there was money to be made in HYDROGEN/ETHANOL then someone would be working on the problem with an eye on making the BIG BUCKS when the problem was solved!!(ECON 101) INSTEAD THEY "NEED" THE GOV'T TO FUND THE PROJECTS....WRONG!! EXXON DOES NOT NEED THE US GOV'T TO DEVELOP HYDROGEN/ETHANOL.......

the clear solution to better sustainable energy into the future is to BUILD more nuclear power plants (EUROPE PRODUCES MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR POWER NEEDS FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WITH CHINA CLOSE BEHIND) and to USE the exsisting oil, coal, and NG.

finally come to realize that the USA will buy oil from all over the world regardless of the price as an extension of our foreign policy.  ask yourself why we have a national oil reserve and why soneone is suggesting that it should be doubled in size, when at best it would last only a month or two...???

if we have to PROTECT OIL (which we don't need)and the WORLD PRICE, then we have a reason to go to those areas and "PROTECT OUR INTERESTS".
nez pas!!

Our power plants generate more power than consumers consume and the excess can't be stored and goes to waste. Almost all are water cooled so they have an ample supply of water.Why not use the excess electricity from our existing power plants to generate hydrogen? Each power plant would also be a hydrogen gererating plant. They are scattered all over the country to distribution wouldn't be a problem.

The real key to the security of our country and ultimate survival of our planet relies on the 3 possibilities: increasing the efficiency of solar cells, increasing the use of geothermal power, or finally making nuclear fusion viable. Hydrogen produced from fossil fuels is like trying to help your finances by opening up another credit card account. Solar cell technology just made an enourmous leap, but it is going to need lots more government funding to become successful. Geothermal is very practical, yet needs more investment in the drilling and piping. Nuclear fusion (the process which makes the sun "shine") has not been showing signs of obtaining without a negative output of energy. The sun will shine for the next 5 billion years and we need to find way to harness the tremendous amount of energy it is providing for us. Then we can use this energy to split water and store the hydrogen.

everyone talks about corn as THE biofuel source. Sawgrass has like 4x the capacity but because it is a weed and doesn't earn subsidies nobody talks about it

Oil or alcohol made from organic waste releases only carbon that was already in the environment last week in the form of plants, rubber, plastic, paper, etc. It does not require digging or pumping carbon that has been out of the loop for millions of years.

Converting waste from garbage, manure, tires, etc. makes use of materials we already have to pay to get rid of. Maybe New York doesn't produce enough sludge to fuel all its cars and trains, I don't know; but converting the stuff into fuel beats dumping it in the ocean.

Our power plants generate more power than consumers consume and the excess can't be stored and goes to waste. Almost all are water cooled so they have an ample supply of water.Why not use the excess electricity from our existing power plants to generate hydrogen? Each power plant would also be a hydrogen gererating plant. They are scattered all over the country to distribution wouldn't be a problem.

Hydrogen could be 'net-metered' back into natural gas lines. An industry could be formed to keep the ratio safe by removing excess H2 and storing it. Any clean electric source could be used but what to do with the oxygen?

I saw a program on History last night "Modern Marvels" and for outside-the-box-thinking whomever thought of doing away with wheels and building superconducting maglev highways with George Jestson cars speeding over the grass covered stips wins the prize.

The energy is conducted by the buried highways so all the problems of building a car with an engine, powertrain, and fuel system go away.  

Great! There are several U>S> companies working on Hydrogen as fuel source. One of them has placed conversion units for 18 wheelers in India just last year. HYPF is testing new convertors -water to Hydrogen fuel -and is set to reveal it's technology next month (Patent has cleared) on the WWW.

Hydrogen is the way to go. There is virtually a limitless supply here on earth. Electrolysis of water is the key. Simply splitting water into its component parts will generate two gases that are highly flammable and combustible. What if the gases could be generated on the car(like an electrolysis unit in place of a gas tank)?  The "tank" could shuttle the two gases into the appropriate compressors(one for oxygen and one for hydrogen). What would be cool is to use these gases in a regular internal combustion engine(with little modification). Instead of an aerosolized gasoline mixture injected into the cylinders....use a specified ratio of hydrogen and oxygen from the aforementioned compressors.

To Brent Morgan...yes, Tesla's car is great....if you have $100k to spend on a 2-seater.  

This is the fundamental problem here.  The technology exists, at least in its infancy, but it's not yet practical or affordable for normal everyday applications.  Kind of like a room-sized supercomputer from decades ago that is about as poweful as a hand-held calculator today.  Or a briefcase-sized cellular telephone from 20 years ago.

I'd love to have one of those Teslas or better yet the 4-door sedan they're developing.  A little solar power to charge it, or maybe get the most out of my morning work out and connect a generator to that spinning exercise bike wheel.  Lots of ways to get the power you need to run an electric car.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):