Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
argumentum ad populum. Or the head count fallacy. Logical fallacies never win an argument.
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” - T.H. Huxley
Plus, you dont have the data on your side for support. All that needs to be done is post the observations that has deviated heavily from prediction to show how fuckign wrong you are. Then you wheel out the head count fallacy when you lose the data debate. The head count fallacy that never even was. Since 97% of scientists is a lie.
?Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature?: a comment | Watts Up With That?
Upon inspection of their data file, the latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a climate consensus really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that consensus.
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract
Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.
Dumb old man. Watt has no degree in any science, neither does the pretend Lord Monkton. In fact, the House of Lords actually issued a statement that Monkton is a pretender and not a Lord.
All you have are blatant lies repeated over and over again, foolishly believing that they'll become true through repetition.
That idiotic and pure bullshit 97% number was debunked within hours of its release.
In science, we only need a couple qualified dissenters to prevent "consensus". It's not very democratic. But then neither is a membership in one of those huge technical societies..
Not picking on this scholar in particular --- but she qualifies as "a recent skeptic of GW theory"..
Climate Chnage
Climate Feedbacks
"Thermodynamics in the Climate Feedback System," in Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, by J. Curry and P. Webster. [Text] [Figures]
"The Nature, Measuring, and Modeling of Feedbacks," Presented at SEARCH Open Science Meeting, Seattle, 2003. [PDF]
Liu, G., H. Shao, J.A. Coakley, J.A. Curry, et al., 2003: Retrieval of Cloud Droplet Size from Visible and Microwave Radiometric Measurements during INDOEX: Implication to Aerosols1 Indirect Radiative Effect. J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D1): art. no. 4006. [PDF]
Uttal, T., Curry, J.A., and 26 others, 2002: Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 255-275. [PDF]
Curry, J.A., J.L. Schramm, D. Perovich, and J.O. Pinto, 2001: Application of SHEBA/FIRE data to evaluation of sea ice surface albedo parameterizations. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15345-15356. [PDF]
Holland, M.M., J.L. Schramm, and J.A. Curry, 1997: Thermodynamic feedback processes in a single-column sea ice/ocean model. Ann. Glaciol., 25, 327-332.
Arbetter, T., J.A. Curry, M.M. Holland, and J. M. Maslanik, 1997: Response of sea ice models to perturbations in surface heat flux. Ann. Glaciol., 25, 193-197.
Curry, J.A., J. Schramm and E. E. Ebert, 1995: On the sea ice albedo climate feedback mechanism. J. Climate, 8, 240-247. [PDF]
Curry, J.A., J.L. Schramm, MC. Serreze, and E.E. Ebert, 1995: Water vapor feedback over the Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 14,223-14,229. [PDF]
Curry, J.A., 1995: Interactions Among Aerosols, Clouds and Climate of the Arctic Ocean.The Science of the Total Environment, 160/161, 777-791. [PDF]
Curry, J.A. and E.E. Ebert, 1992: Annual cycle of radiative fluxes over the Arctic ocean: Sensitivity to cloud optical properties. J. Climate, 5, 1267-1280. [PDF]
GENERAL INFORMATION
Education
1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography
Professional Experience
2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Awards/Honors
2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor
Professional Activities (last five years)
World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme
Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )
American Meteorological Society
Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)
National Science Foundation
Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)
Department of Energy
Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)
NAS/NRC
Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)
NOAA
Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008
Other
Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH GRANTS
Current Research Grants
Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)
Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)
Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)
UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)
Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)
Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)
TEACHING
Courses Taught
Hurricanes (Georgia Tech, grad/undergrad)
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Georgia Tech, graduate)
Thermodynamics of the Earth System (Georgia Tech, undergraduate)
Preparing Future Faculty (University of Colorado; graduate)
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (University of Colorado; graduate)
Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Colorado; graduate)
Aircraft Probing of the Lower Atmosphere (University of Colorado; graduate)
Future Faculty Training (University of Colorado; graduate)
Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (University of Colorado; undergraduate)
Engineering Senior Design Lab (University of Colorado; undergraduate)
Survey of Meteorology (Purdue University; undergraduate)
Atmospheric Thermodynamics (Purdue University, Penn State University; undergraduate)
Atmospheric Physics (Purdue University, Penn State University; graduate) Cloud and Precipitation Physics (Purdue University; graduate)
Think SHE gives a ratzass about what the Nat Science Fndtn. or Amer. Meteor. Soc press releases say????
Do you think any other scientist gives a rats ass about what she has to say if the evidence does not agree with her position?
The policy statements of the USGS, NOAA, and similiar organizations in all the other governments on this planet all state that AGW is a fact. As do the policy statements of all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and and major Universities. Now if Currey has new information that shows these positions to be incorrect, these are the people she has to convince. If she wishes to play politics, using dishonest mouthpeices such as Watts, then she will lose all standing in the scientific community.
Didn't talk past you at all.. You imagining crap??? Every word of my last response was in response to your request to "name one power plant ... or polluter that emits ONLY CO2"
When I did so --- you deflect back without a comment. Should I even ATTEMPT to please you in the future?
There is no earthly reason to not finish the clean-up of power plant emissions that we have already accomplished. Without the propaganda about "carbon" and pollution. Mitigating "pollution" by fingering CO2 is gonna lead down some really silly paths. For instance, agriculture is charged with about 30% of man's CO2 load. And LIVESTOCK is more than 1/2 that (shouldn't be with honest accounting for the wildlife it displaced, but the entire game has no honest auditors). You gonna IGNORE those components just to shutter the fossil fuel generators?
Lemme ask you a question... Have you EVER seen the daily production chart for a well built well sited wind farm? Think you can run an advanced society on an energy source that doesn't produce two days a week and every 5th hour?
You got approximately NOTHING that is a TRUE alternative.. Just a bunch of sketchy supplements. It's ante up time and the bluffing is out of control... WHAT are ya gonna replace it with???
Your hydro answer is true, and also based on deception. Not all hydro is the same. And even the worst case scenario over the life of a hydro plant is much more enviro friendly then any fossil fuel.
That's not entirely true either. THis revelation that Hydro does have a considerable CO2 footprint is relatively new.. And we have yet to completely assess the contributions. You will STILL find myriads of bad quotations saying that "hydro is completely free of GHGases". All that needs to be purged and the science done. What we KNOW is that NEW hydro installations vary from 25% to 600% of the GHGas emissions of fossil plants. And that the CO2 contribution is just the beginning because all that rotting vegetation contributes mostly METHANE (not CO2) and that is many times more potent as a GHGas.
This doesn't even take into account the loss of Carbon sinking because you LEVELED a considerable amount of environment to build your hydro facility..
There is no single clean energy source that will run an advanced society. We need all hands on deck. And a smart grid is essential, so energy can be diverted where needed, shut down where needed. There is also a need for 21st century storage of energy. Parts of Europe are light years ahead of America.
That's the chilling admission that will keep your "plan" marginalized.. We don't want you or Obama or the eco-frauds with their sketchy lists of alternatives and NEGAWATT conservation anywhere NEAR a smart grid if what it represents to you is an authoritarian opportunity to "divert ... and SHUT down where NEEDED".. You want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. I want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL..
I feel no need to rebutt your faulty view that the Europeans are making monumental progress that we ignore. The latest rounds of subsidy cuts, and citizen outrage over the REAL COSTS of their fantastic ventures into "alternatives" is common knowledge. Germany for instance has torn up pristine mountains to place reservoirs and piping for water storage of renewables. A patently BAD ecological and desparate engineering solution to salvage their misplaced investments in wind and solar.
Pollution...there is no silly path away from pollution and there is no propaganda attached to pollution. It is harmful to human, fish and foul. It can ONLY survive by a malfeasance of the free market. There is never anything cheap about it.
The more I hear what you have to say, the more I hear a cynic. No forward vision, no thinking outside the box, no progressive ideas. Just protect polluters at all costs and bury your head in the sand. Ignore real world realities and call them 'conspiracy theories'
A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
I have plenty of "forward, out of the box" thiinking. I'm looking at the big picture engineering of decreasing the use of coal plants and moving transport away from oil..
I have very solid suggestions for BOTH of these. You have jack shit irrational "hope and change".
YOU and yours want to move transport energy to already antiquated and energy limited grid. You push pullling 1W chargers out of my wall so that YOU can charge your plug-in EV in 20minutes using the equivalent grid load of 150 houses....
That's insane public policy.
I --- want to pull the subsidies from the EV/battery crowd and at least share them with the FuelCell EV folks who are now winning the engineering war.. A transport sector built on fuel cells and hydrogen requires NO ADDITIONAL GRID GENERATION and NO GRID UPDATE.
Instead --- MY SOLUTION solves the "proper use" of wind and solar by recruiting them to make hydrogen OFF-GRID. So that storage isn't even an issue because it's stored in the fuel itself..
You need to muzzle the brainless morons telling us how to do this crap and lying to folks about what really is pollution and what wonderful "alternatives" they have...
Your hydro answer is true, and also based on deception. Not all hydro is the same. And even the worst case scenario over the life of a hydro plant is much more enviro friendly then any fossil fuel.
That's not entirely true either. THis revelation that Hydro does have a considerable CO2 footprint is relatively new.. And we have yet to completely assess the contributions. You will STILL find myriads of bad quotations saying that "hydro is completely free of GHGases". All that needs to be purged and the science done. What we KNOW is that NEW hydro installations vary from 25% to 600% of the GHGas emissions of fossil plants. And that the CO2 contribution is just the beginning because all that rotting vegetation contributes mostly METHANE (not CO2) and that is many times more potent as a GHGas.
This doesn't even take into account the loss of Carbon sinking because you LEVELED a considerable amount of environment to build your hydro facility..
That's the chilling admission that will keep your "plan" marginalized.. We don't want you or Obama or the eco-frauds with their sketchy lists of alternatives and NEGAWATT conservation anywhere NEAR a smart grid if what it represents to you is an authoritarian opportunity to "divert ... and SHUT down where NEEDED".. You want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. I want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL..
I feel no need to rebutt your faulty view that the Europeans are making monumental progress that we ignore. The latest rounds of subsidy cuts, and citizen outrage over the REAL COSTS of their fantastic ventures into "alternatives" is common knowledge. Germany for instance has torn up pristine mountains to place reservoirs and piping for water storage of renewables. A patently BAD ecological and desparate engineering solution to salvage their misplaced investments in wind and solar.
Pollution...there is no silly path away from pollution and there is no propaganda attached to pollution. It is harmful to human, fish and foul. It can ONLY survive by a malfeasance of the free market. There is never anything cheap about it.
The more I hear what you have to say, the more I hear a cynic. No forward vision, no thinking outside the box, no progressive ideas. Just protect polluters at all costs and bury your head in the sand. Ignore real world realities and call them 'conspiracy theories'
A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
I have plenty of "forward, out of the box" thiinking. I'm looking at the big picture engineering of decreasing the use of coal plants and moving transport away from oil..
I have very solid suggestions for BOTH of these. You have jack shit irrational "hope and change".
YOU and yours want to move transport energy to already antiquated and energy limited grid. You push pullling 1W chargers out of my wall so that YOU can charge your plug-in EV in 20minutes using the equivalent grid load of 150 houses....
That's insane public policy.
I --- want to pull the subsidies from the EV/battery crowd and at least share them with the FuelCell EV folks who are now winning the engineering war.. A transport sector built on fuel cells and hydrogen requires NO ADDITIONAL GRID GENERATION and NO GRID UPDATE.
Instead --- MY SOLUTION solves the "proper use" of wind and solar by recruiting them to make hydrogen OFF-GRID. So that storage isn't even an issue because it's stored in the fuel itself..
You need to muzzle the brainless morons telling us how to do this crap and lying to folks about what really is pollution and what wonderful "alternatives" they have...
Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
More than a century ago William Gladstone identified the reason mankind will always be mired in mediocrity. Conservatives are an anchor on civilization. Their fear is always creating conspiracy theories and boogie men under every rock. Our founding fathers were not fearful men.
A smart grid is not about doling out pain, punishment or creating government control. You are woefully ignorant on how it works and why it is absolutely essential to energy efficiency, energy independence and yes, national SECURITY. Our power grid is so weak, under-built and dumb it is a sitting duck as a simple way to take down the United States by terrorist or foreign enemies.
A small primer on your BIG letter FEAR "so energy can be diverted where needed, shut down where needed"
Smart grids: The energy storage problem : Nature News
But by far the most cost-effective approach to large-scale electric energy storage is to minimize the need for it. That is one of the goals set out earlier this year in the US stimulus bill, which allocated $4.3 billion to research and development in renewable-energy generation, energy efficiency and, most especially, a 'smart grid'. Instead of simply adjusting the supply of electricity in response to the vagaries of unpredictable demand, a smart grid would constantly adjust demand as well. When demand hits a peak, for example, the grid might start cutting power for household refrigerators, office air-conditioning systems and other non-urgent uses just for a moment in each case, and nothing that anyone would notice, but enough to smooth out variations in the overall load.
Why we need a 21st century smart grid...
We don't have an energy grid in this country that can carry these new currents of energy. Our energy grid is antiquated. It was under-built, it is already overpowered, and it's misaligned. It doesn't reach the big wind centers in the Midwest, the solar centers in the desert southwest, and it's small. It's a dumb grid and it's incapable of doing long whole transmission of energy. Virtually every farmer in the state of North Dakota wants to put wind turbines on their property, and you have huge mountains of private capital. They want to go into North Dakota and build wind farms. And big players like Siemens and Vestas and General Electric and Warren Buffet and T. Boone Pickens all want to go there. There's huge piles of cash surrounding the state of North Dakota, waiting to flow in and build turbines on every property. Every farm in North Dakota wants to build a turbine. Why? Because a North Dakota cornfield is worth $800. If it's got a wind turbine on it, it's worth 3,000. We have the ability now to, with wind, to create prosperity in declining world economies, to create jobs and to enrich farmers and to allow them to hold on to their farms, which is a really critical part of democracy.
The problem is the North Dakota wind farmer cannot get his product to market -- the electrons to market because the electrons will diffuse in our current lines before they cross the North Dakota border. So they can't reach Cincinnati or Cleveland, Columbus, Saint Louis, New Orleans or New York. And we need to build a grid system in our country, a unified national grid that will connect these renewable power generation centers to the markets in our country, the same way that Eisenhower built the national highway systems back in the 50s. We need to do that with the grid and we need to build the smart grid.
We need a national effort in America, like Eisenhower did in the '50's and John F. Kennedy did in the '60's. Something that will unify America, and something that will bring out the best and brightest. We need to cease our endless wars and stop wasting our blood and treasure on death and destruction. We need to invest in life and democracy to create a better life for all Americans.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
President John F. Kennedy - Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort
SURE --- having a switch to every household device for the govt to fuck with isLiberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
That's not entirely true either. THis revelation that Hydro does have a considerable CO2 footprint is relatively new.. And we have yet to completely assess the contributions. You will STILL find myriads of bad quotations saying that "hydro is completely free of GHGases". All that needs to be purged and the science done. What we KNOW is that NEW hydro installations vary from 25% to 600% of the GHGas emissions of fossil plants. And that the CO2 contribution is just the beginning because all that rotting vegetation contributes mostly METHANE (not CO2) and that is many times more potent as a GHGas.
This doesn't even take into account the loss of Carbon sinking because you LEVELED a considerable amount of environment to build your hydro facility..
That's the chilling admission that will keep your "plan" marginalized.. We don't want you or Obama or the eco-frauds with their sketchy lists of alternatives and NEGAWATT conservation anywhere NEAR a smart grid if what it represents to you is an authoritarian opportunity to "divert ... and SHUT down where NEEDED".. You want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. I want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL..
I feel no need to rebutt your faulty view that the Europeans are making monumental progress that we ignore. The latest rounds of subsidy cuts, and citizen outrage over the REAL COSTS of their fantastic ventures into "alternatives" is common knowledge. Germany for instance has torn up pristine mountains to place reservoirs and piping for water storage of renewables. A patently BAD ecological and desparate engineering solution to salvage their misplaced investments in wind and solar.
I have plenty of "forward, out of the box" thiinking. I'm looking at the big picture engineering of decreasing the use of coal plants and moving transport away from oil..
I have very solid suggestions for BOTH of these. You have jack shit irrational "hope and change".
YOU and yours want to move transport energy to already antiquated and energy limited grid. You push pullling 1W chargers out of my wall so that YOU can charge your plug-in EV in 20minutes using the equivalent grid load of 150 houses....
That's insane public policy.
I --- want to pull the subsidies from the EV/battery crowd and at least share them with the FuelCell EV folks who are now winning the engineering war.. A transport sector built on fuel cells and hydrogen requires NO ADDITIONAL GRID GENERATION and NO GRID UPDATE.
Instead --- MY SOLUTION solves the "proper use" of wind and solar by recruiting them to make hydrogen OFF-GRID. So that storage isn't even an issue because it's stored in the fuel itself..
You need to muzzle the brainless morons telling us how to do this crap and lying to folks about what really is pollution and what wonderful "alternatives" they have...
Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
More than a century ago William Gladstone identified the reason mankind will always be mired in mediocrity. Conservatives are an anchor on civilization. Their fear is always creating conspiracy theories and boogie men under every rock. Our founding fathers were not fearful men.
A smart grid is not about doling out pain, punishment or creating government control. You are woefully ignorant on how it works and why it is absolutely essential to energy efficiency, energy independence and yes, national SECURITY. Our power grid is so weak, under-built and dumb it is a sitting duck as a simple way to take down the United States by terrorist or foreign enemies.
A small primer on your BIG letter FEAR "so energy can be diverted where needed, shut down where needed"
Smart grids: The energy storage problem : Nature News
But by far the most cost-effective approach to large-scale electric energy storage is to minimize the need for it. That is one of the goals set out earlier this year in the US stimulus bill, which allocated $4.3 billion to research and development in renewable-energy generation, energy efficiency and, most especially, a 'smart grid'. Instead of simply adjusting the supply of electricity in response to the vagaries of unpredictable demand, a smart grid would constantly adjust demand as well. When demand hits a peak, for example, the grid might start cutting power for household refrigerators, office air-conditioning systems and other non-urgent uses just for a moment in each case, and nothing that anyone would notice, but enough to smooth out variations in the overall load.
Why we need a 21st century smart grid...
We don't have an energy grid in this country that can carry these new currents of energy. Our energy grid is antiquated. It was under-built, it is already overpowered, and it's misaligned. It doesn't reach the big wind centers in the Midwest, the solar centers in the desert southwest, and it's small. It's a dumb grid and it's incapable of doing long whole transmission of energy. Virtually every farmer in the state of North Dakota wants to put wind turbines on their property, and you have huge mountains of private capital. They want to go into North Dakota and build wind farms. And big players like Siemens and Vestas and General Electric and Warren Buffet and T. Boone Pickens all want to go there. There's huge piles of cash surrounding the state of North Dakota, waiting to flow in and build turbines on every property. Every farm in North Dakota wants to build a turbine. Why? Because a North Dakota cornfield is worth $800. If it's got a wind turbine on it, it's worth 3,000. We have the ability now to, with wind, to create prosperity in declining world economies, to create jobs and to enrich farmers and to allow them to hold on to their farms, which is a really critical part of democracy.
The problem is the North Dakota wind farmer cannot get his product to market -- the electrons to market because the electrons will diffuse in our current lines before they cross the North Dakota border. So they can't reach Cincinnati or Cleveland, Columbus, Saint Louis, New Orleans or New York. And we need to build a grid system in our country, a unified national grid that will connect these renewable power generation centers to the markets in our country, the same way that Eisenhower built the national highway systems back in the 50s. We need to do that with the grid and we need to build the smart grid.
We need a national effort in America, like Eisenhower did in the '50's and John F. Kennedy did in the '60's. Something that will unify America, and something that will bring out the best and brightest. We need to cease our endless wars and stop wasting our blood and treasure on death and destruction. We need to invest in life and democracy to create a better life for all Americans.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
President John F. Kennedy - Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort
I'm speechless at the silliness of that "Nature News" article and all the political horseshit therein passing for engineering and science..
Compared to a hydrogen transport sector powered by renewables, you're proposing more buggywhips and wires and regulation.. Every GOD FORSAKEN crevice of the continent would need to be upgraded to transfer to plug-in EVs. A hydrogen transport sector? No such thing...
Controlling my REFRIGERATOR??? Lord knows -- that ain't gonna happen. Or if does, I'll be off grid for the rest of my life. Do you realize how disconnected your views and quotes are?
SURE --- having a switch to every household device for the govt to fuck with isLiberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
"trust of the people". Telling us how to flush a toilet is "prudence". MY GOD -- you folks have no limit to your want to meddle and MICROMANAGE progress.
FEAR? That would be the rejection of nuclear power. The solution to Global Warming (as your side states it). Obviously the FEAR of nuclear exceeds the need to fix the "planet's fever" --- don't it?
I'll continue to expose misrepresentation, hype and fraud in Obama's vision... You can continue to ignore much better societal and engineering solutions to the problems that exist. Just keep parroting what your handlers tell you...
Mann has a degree in tree rings
Phil Jones has a degree in data manipluation
Mann has a degree in tree rings
Phil Jones has a degree in data manipluation
Makes you mad not be in control.. doesn't it? Probably irks you that there ARE better ideas than what your political heroes are pushing. You GET into control by innovating, marketing and creating new products and services.. NOT by govt handouts and political posturing.
Really didn't hear much of a plan from you.. Other than shutting off folks refrigerators. And attacking polluters by mislabeling carbon dioxide. Whatcha got? What am i saying "we can't do"?
Gave you a perfectly good plan to tell the Arabs to fuck off, get us off oil for the transport sector, manufacture hydrogen with renewables. Is THAT kinda sorta like something WE OUGHT TO DO? Why dontcha call the Prez and ask HIM why we're not doing anything that smart? Also told you how we COULD solve CO2 emission this YEAR (assuming it NEEDS solving).
Or do you want to just amble towards an energy policy that has 10Million folks charging EVs from a undergenerated grid? And a bunch of unreliable windmills and selected solar farms that require 100% backup when they are not generating.. Paying for TWO power plants for every windfarm and solar farm you install.
BTW: Can't you get it thru your head that I'm not a Conservative? Or is that also a fixed feature of BFGrn? I can out-Liberal you on most classic liberal issues..
Not that has any bearing on lumping CO2 with TRUE toxic emissions. THat's just fraud and misrepresentation.. Just like claiming hydro as a "clean" renewal GW friendly "alternative" like the state of Cali does...
The lumping of CO2 with true toxic emissions is especially insideous when you remember the amount of CO2 we release into the air simply by exhaling.
Heaven forbid some environmental nutjob gets into power and concludes that the best way to stop CO2 emissions is mass genocide.
Maybe you could ramp up the hyperbole a little more.
The lumping of CO2 with true toxic emissions is especially insideous when you remember the amount of CO2 we release into the air simply by exhaling.
Heaven forbid some environmental nutjob gets into power and concludes that the best way to stop CO2 emissions is mass genocide.
Maybe you could ramp up the hyperbole a little more.
Your side started this bullshit by dredging up this CO2 bullshit.
Global warming/climate change is just another liberal cause. It's 100% political payback to the enviro-wackos who voted for Obama.
The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?Mann has a degree in tree rings
Phil Jones has a degree in data manipluation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, where he works as a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences. Jones holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.[citation needed] Jones has spent his entire career with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).[1]
His research interests include instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK. He has also published papers on the temperature record of the past 1000 years.
He is notable for maintaining the time series of the instrumental temperature record.[2] This work was featured prominently in both the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, where he was a contributing author to Chapter 12, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, of the Third Assessment Report[3] and a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, of the AR4.[4
Philip Jones - University of East Anglia (UEA)
I am the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. I am principally known for the time series of hemispheric and global surface temperatures, which I update on a monthly basis. I have numerous research papers over the last 25 years. I have been a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1992 and was on the Editorial Committee of the International Journal of Climatology until 1995. I am currently on the editorial board of Climatic Change. I am an elected member of Academia Europaea since 1998.
I was jointly awarded the Hugh Robert Mill Medal in 1995 by the Royal Meteorological Society for work on UK Rainfall Variability, and in 1997 the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by the Environmental Research Laboratories / NOAA for being a coauthor on the paper "A search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere," by Ben Santer et al. in Nature, 382, 39-46 (1996). More recently I was awarded the first Hans Oesschger Medal from the European Geophysical Society (now the European Geosciences Union) in 2002 and the International Journal of Climatology prize of the Royal Meteoological Society for papers published in the last five years, also in 2002. I am recognised as one of the top 0.5% of highly-cited researchers in the Geosciences field by the ISI (the institute in the US that maintains the Web of Science, where publications and citations are monitored. I was made (2006) a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and was a awarded a Reviewer's Award by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) the same year. In 2009 I have also been made a fellow by the AGU.
Makes you mad not be in control.. doesn't it? Probably irks you that there ARE better ideas than what your political heroes are pushing. You GET into control by innovating, marketing and creating new products and services.. NOT by govt handouts and political posturing.
Really didn't hear much of a plan from you.. Other than shutting off folks refrigerators. And attacking polluters by mislabeling carbon dioxide. Whatcha got? What am i saying "we can't do"?
Gave you a perfectly good plan to tell the Arabs to fuck off, get us off oil for the transport sector, manufacture hydrogen with renewables. Is THAT kinda sorta like something WE OUGHT TO DO? Why dontcha call the Prez and ask HIM why we're not doing anything that smart? Also told you how we COULD solve CO2 emission this YEAR (assuming it NEEDS solving).
Or do you want to just amble towards an energy policy that has 10Million folks charging EVs from a undergenerated grid? And a bunch of unreliable windmills and selected solar farms that require 100% backup when they are not generating.. Paying for TWO power plants for every windfarm and solar farm you install.
BTW: Can't you get it thru your head that I'm not a Conservative? Or is that also a fixed feature of BFGrn? I can out-Liberal you on most classic liberal issues..
Hey EINSTEIN, please explain how your BRILLIANT idea delivers energy?
Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 09/25/2012 0153 PM PDT
Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.
The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.
Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.
A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.
Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.
"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.
He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.
A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.
German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.
"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."
Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.
Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential."
Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.
GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.
In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.
Makes you mad not be in control.. doesn't it? Probably irks you that there ARE better ideas than what your political heroes are pushing. You GET into control by innovating, marketing and creating new products and services.. NOT by govt handouts and political posturing.
Really didn't hear much of a plan from you.. Other than shutting off folks refrigerators. And attacking polluters by mislabeling carbon dioxide. Whatcha got? What am i saying "we can't do"?
Gave you a perfectly good plan to tell the Arabs to fuck off, get us off oil for the transport sector, manufacture hydrogen with renewables. Is THAT kinda sorta like something WE OUGHT TO DO? Why dontcha call the Prez and ask HIM why we're not doing anything that smart? Also told you how we COULD solve CO2 emission this YEAR (assuming it NEEDS solving).
Or do you want to just amble towards an energy policy that has 10Million folks charging EVs from a undergenerated grid? And a bunch of unreliable windmills and selected solar farms that require 100% backup when they are not generating.. Paying for TWO power plants for every windfarm and solar farm you install.
BTW: Can't you get it thru your head that I'm not a Conservative? Or is that also a fixed feature of BFGrn? I can out-Liberal you on most classic liberal issues..
Hey EINSTEIN, please explain how your BRILLIANT idea delivers energy?
Which brilliant idea is that? They are all too numerous to remember..
If you're refering to moving all of our transportation vehicles away from oil and to hydrogen INSTEAD of plugging them into the grid --- should be obvious. The use of renewables to create the hydrogen is clean and doesn't REQUIRE increased grid generation. The fossil energy deferred is ENORMOUS.
It fixes the wrong-headed use of trying to FORCE these intermittent sources (wind and solar) ONTO the grid in the first place because hydrogen can manufactured anywhere with LOCAL isolated power. And the hydrogen fuel is the "storage" medium that everyone is looking for to SMOOTH the random delivery of wind and solar power. The incentive to use these sources is built in because of the recurring cost of fuel to run the hydrogen refineries..
Win Win Win and Win... You'd think Obama would know this stuff eh? You'd think the eco-nauts would rejoice to the heavens... But what we got here instead is brain-dead attempts to bulldoze 1/2 baked policies over market objections and despite quite obviously high hurdles of having to rewire and repower the entire country instead to accomodate EVehicles..
What's left to solve is an easier problem. And that is the maintenance of the existing grid and expansion of traditional use of electricity WITHOUT worrying about DOUBLING the residential usage from folks charging their vehicles.
We could even AUGMENT THE electrical GRID CAPACITY with Fuel Cell Generators on a more local scale. Burning the same hydrogen fuel that we put our transport fleet on. There have been many industry sized fuel cell power plants big enough to host a subdivision of houses already in service. (they are currently fueled with nat gas -- but that would change with a hydrogen infrastructure)..
Battery stored EVs are extinct. They just don't realize that yet. You cannot charge them in minutes like with Hydrogen FCEVs -- and the RANGE already exceeds that of battery cars without adding as much weight.
Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 09/25/2012 01
Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.
The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.
Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.
A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.
Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.
"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.
He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.
A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.
German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.
"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."
Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.
Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential."
Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.
GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.
In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.
Hey EINSTEIN, please explain how your BRILLIANT idea delivers energy?
Which brilliant idea is that? They are all too numerous to remember..
If you're refering to moving all of our transportation vehicles away from oil and to hydrogen INSTEAD of plugging them into the grid --- should be obvious. The use of renewables to create the hydrogen is clean and doesn't REQUIRE increased grid generation. The fossil energy deferred is ENORMOUS.
It fixes the wrong-headed use of trying to FORCE these intermittent sources (wind and solar) ONTO the grid in the first place because hydrogen can manufactured anywhere with LOCAL isolated power. And the hydrogen fuel is the "storage" medium that everyone is looking for to SMOOTH the random delivery of wind and solar power. The incentive to use these sources is built in because of the recurring cost of fuel to run the hydrogen refineries..
Win Win Win and Win... You'd think Obama would know this stuff eh? You'd think the eco-nauts would rejoice to the heavens... But what we got here instead is brain-dead attempts to bulldoze 1/2 baked policies over market objections and despite quite obviously high hurdles of having to rewire and repower the entire country instead to accomodate EVehicles..
What's left to solve is an easier problem. And that is the maintenance of the existing grid and expansion of traditional use of electricity WITHOUT worrying about DOUBLING the residential usage from folks charging their vehicles.
We could even AUGMENT THE electrical GRID CAPACITY with Fuel Cell Generators on a more local scale. Burning the same hydrogen fuel that we put our transport fleet on. There have been many industry sized fuel cell power plants big enough to host a subdivision of houses already in service. (they are currently fueled with nat gas -- but that would change with a hydrogen infrastructure)..
Battery stored EVs are extinct. They just don't realize that yet. You cannot charge them in minutes like with Hydrogen FCEVs -- and the RANGE already exceeds that of battery cars without adding as much weight.
Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 09/25/2012 01
Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.
The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.
Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.
A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.
Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.
"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.
He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.
A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.
German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.
"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."
Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.
Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential."
Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.
GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.
In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.
You make wild claims, beat your chest every five minutes, and you continue to IGNORE what I have said. I said it will take an 'all hands on deck' approach. Hydrogen? Great! It will serve as one part of the solution. But it seems you want to force ONE solution. WHY? Because you are afraid of the big bad grid.
Iceland is one of the few countries that have filling stations dispensing hydrogen fuel for cars powered by fuel cells. It is also one of a few countries currently capable of producing hydrogen in adequate quantities at a reasonable cost, because of Iceland's plentiful renewable sources of energy.
THE FUTURE OF THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY: BRIGHT OR BLEAK?
In the past, many have considered the production and use of hydrogen, assuming that it is just another gaseous fuel and can be handled much like natural gas in todays energy economy. With this study we present an analysis of the energy required to operate an elemental hydrogen economy, with particular reference to road transport. High-grade electricity from renewable or nuclear sources is needed not only to generate hydrogen, but also for all the other essential stages. However, because of the molecular structure of hydrogen, the infrastructure is much more energy-intensive than in an oil and natural gas economy.
In a Hydrogen Economy the hydrogen, like any other commercial product, is subject to several stages between production and use. Hydrogen has to be packaged by compression or liquefaction, transported by surface vehicles or pipelines, stored, and transferred to the end user. Whether generated by electrolysis or by chemistry, and even if produced locally at filling stations, the gaseous or liquid hydrogen has to undergo these market processes before it can be used by the customer. Hydrogen can also be derived chemically at relatively low cost from natural gas or other hydrocarbons. However, as there are no energetic or environmental advantages, we do not consider this option.
In this study, the energy consumed by each stage is related to the true energy content the higher heating value (HHV) of the delivered hydrogen. The analysis reveals that much more energy is needed to operate a hydrogen economy than is required for fossil energy supply and distribution today. In fact, the input of electrical energy to make, package, transport, store and transfer hydrogen may easily exceed the hydrogen energy delivered to the end user implying an well-to-tank efficiency of less than 50 per cent. However, precious energy can be saved by packaging hydrogen chemically in a synthetic liquid hydrocarbon like methanol or ethanol. To de-couple energy use from global warming, the use of geocarbons from fossil sources should be avoided. However, carbon atoms from biomass, organic waste materials or recycled carbon dioxide could become the carriers for hydrogen atoms. Furthermore, energy intensive electrolysis may be partially replaced by the less energy intensive chemical transformation of water and carbon to natural and synthetic hydrocarbons, including bio-methanol and bio-ethanol. Hence, the closed natural hydrogen (water) cycle and the closed natural carbon (CO2) cycle may be used to produce synthetic hydrocarbons for a post-fossil fuel energy economy. As long as the carbon comes from the biosphere (bio-carbon), the synthetic hydrocarbon economy would be far better than the elemental hydrogen economy both energetically and environmentally.
