Mham001: Your hatred of GW completly blinds you to the reality that the US is leading the way in many areas.
"Hatred"? Well, yes, I do hate what he and his merry men have done
to your country and to the world. That much is true.
But let´s see about "leadership":
- luring the world into the Iraq invasion: failed
- destroying the UN: failed
- destroying the ICC: failed
- destroying the Kyoto process: failed
- establishing unquestioned dominance of Washington´s interests in the world: failed
- getting the world to respect and admire US leadership: failed
- a large majority worldwide distrusts and even resents the current US policies and government
Well, the track record doesn´t look so hot up to now, I´m afraid.
Most major global cooperations of the past years had to be realized against aggressive resistance
of the US government which is increasingly percieved as a problem
, not a solution
. So much about "leadership".
Mham001: I am well aware that hydrogen is a storage medium.
Doesn´t look like it.
Mham001: What you carefully overlooked is the zero-emission research being done on coal, something we have in abundance. There is no
"zero emission" coal burning. The conversion of carbon-based fuels will always
create CO2 - the only thing you can attempt to do is limiting the even worse
Coal even lacks the hydrogen compounds found in petroleum, so that naturally supplied hydrogen is not available as well (which provides a decent (if still minority) percentage of the energy gain from burning petroleum-based fuels); Practically all the energy you can generate with coal will come from the combination of carbon with oxygen - and the primary end product will be CO2
I´m sorry, but you´re being misled
again: Instead of just telling it like it is, they´re telling you a bunch of half-truths
, hoping that you won´t see through them and you won´t be able to connect the dots yourself.
In fact, "zero emission" merely refers to the reduction of carbonmonoxide
, NOx and sulphur compounds, exactly leaving the greenhouse gas CO2
as (almost) the only
product of the combustion - and even slightly increasing
its output that way.
By the way, we´re already using such power plants in Europe for a number of years by now; But we know about the implications and only use them as an auxiliary
source, not as an illusionary main strategy
Mham001: Your statement that Hydrogen only makes sense with renewable sources is factually incorrect. At this moment, hydrogen is not commercially viable with any production method.
"Commercial viability" is primarily dependent on a) technical yield and overhead and b) political circumstances, especially the presence or absence of direct or indirect subsidies for both the new and the existing technologies. Germany and other countries are pushing the development of renewable energy through support for its application; Others choose to subsidize conventional fuels. It´s all a matter of choices...
Mham001: There you have shown your complete ignorance of the available processes. BMWs theory of using hydrogen in an internal combustion motor may burn it twice, but bear in mind the large power plant will always be more efficient and clean.
If you want to appear competent, you should be able to recognize that even a purely theoretical
coal-burning power plant with 100% efficiency would still
produce huge amounts of CO2 in the process - it´s fundamentally inevitable
! You can´t eliminate the CO2, you can just marginally improve the net amount of energy you´re extracting.
Mham001: Additionally BMW is the only auto manufacturer NOT using elecric propulsion which produces no CO2. You also might want to note that BMW is currently working with a grant from (hold your breath) the United States.
That´s completely beside the point as far as CO2 is concerned; This technology combination can merely slightly modify the amount of toxic byproducts overall (through optimized powerplants) and shift
the generation of CO2 from the car to the powerplant; But the net CO2 balance remains mostly unchanged.
Mham001: Another idea in the works is using methane to create the hydrogen at its point-of-use, also with much less CO2 than the gas engine.
Only if methane is created from renewable sources. If you´re using fossile fuels to create (convert) it, it´s back to square 1 again. And methane is a potent greenhouse gas itself and therefore problematic as well.
Mham001: And given the benefits of nuclear power, certainly worth the effort to find a way with the waste.
Sure. Just magically solve all the problems that have so far stubbornly refused to get resolved and you´re all set.
Klaus: Again: Hydrogen is almost entirely useless against climate change unless you´re transforming energy production!
Mham001: But we are. We must. It can be done in a variety of ways.
Sorry, but you´re being misled if they´re telling you the things you´ve presented above.
Mham001: Thats good for Germany. Conservation is good but there are only so many lightbulbs to convert to flourescent.
Building insulation actually makes a much bigger contribution. And, of course, more efficient transportation. Efficient industrial processes are another big contributor, where the US industry - much too long shielded against the realities by subsidized low-cost energy - has fallen behind in many cases.
Mham001: Every 2-3 years there is some anouncement of a holy grail that is 10 year from production. It never happens.
Real-world solutions are much more complex than a simple catch-all "holy grail". And it´s already visible in Europe how a concerted approach on all fronts can indeed effect large-scale changes.
Mham001: Another issue Europe does not have to deal with is a growing population, nor a growing economy for that matter. While you are shrinking, we are growing. Perhaps if we just planted Europe back to its original forests, out problem would be solved-the natural way.
Dream on! Europe is already much more densely populated, so we´ll simply respond with further accelerated efficiency gains in all areas.
Mham001: What the studies have shown is that the earth has been on a warming trend since the 1800s, before the internal combustion motor was ever invented.
Exactly; Before that, the "industrial revolution" was powered by coal
! And the progressive acceleration of the warming trend is clearly linked to the rapidly increasing CO2 load in the atmosphere. Employing coal
, of all things, for just further expansion of energy consumption, would substantially accelerate
this trend again.
Mham001: I cannot say what affects CO2 has on global warming, but science has indicated it will happen no matter what you tell us we must do.
Sorry, but that ship has sailed. The evidence-backed consensus in the entire
scientific community is overwhelmingly behind the CO2 / warming link. The Bush administration is gathering the shrinking number of dissidents around it, but since they´re short on evidence, they´re clearly on the retreat.
Mham001: Man will have to adapt.
As long as you´re aware that such extreme "adaptations" usually entail the eradication of the vast majority of the respective population
, with only a few survivors
managing the actual "adaptation"...
Mham001: It is unfortunate you allow your hate to blind you to varying views. There is more than one practical approach to problems.
Sure. As long as it works
. What you presented so far is merely the reproduction of a well-known smoke-and-mirrors show which simply doesn´t help
Bush´s "hydrogen revolution" may ultimately in fact help to distribute
energy; Hydrogen is an interesting tool
, but it is apparently used by the Bush administration as a political decoy
in order to not have to admit that they´re on the wrong path regarding their much-hyped Kyoto refusal.
They´ve backed themselves into a corner and they know it; They´re counting on a gullible population which doesn´t pose the hard questions (such as "So where does the carbon from the coal actually go in your fabulous 'zero emission' powerplants!?"
Regarding Iraq the hard questions were not asked; Regarding global warming they still might