Replies

"Forget the middleman and go directly to all-electric vehicles as a thought experiment. No longer can you load-balance with, e.g., hydrogen production. The extra generating capacity you would need to supply all of the vehicles in the U.S. is 500,000 megawatts, roughly 500 brand-new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants. With hydrogen, the situation is WORSE, since electrolyzers run at ~70% efficiency (tops) meaning you would need ~714,000 megawatts."

As usual, wrong on all counts. There is NO battery with the necessary amperage storage--which is why all the emphasis on fuel cells. It is theoretically possible to build electrolyzers which are MORE than 100% electrically efficient (i.e. high-temp. ones which are run capturing the waste heat from another power source). Which would you rather pay for---500 new nuclear power plants, or a third world war? I think the new energy infrastructure would be a LOT cheaper, personally.

It is theoretically possible to build electrolyzers which are MORE than 100% electrically efficient (i.e. high-temp. ones which are run capturing the waste heat from another power source).

Huh? Anytime I see folks start to talk about "MORE than 100% (electrically) efficient", I have major heartburn. Ever heard of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics? These are not man's laws, to be sidestepped or ignored with the help of sharp lawyers at $350/hour. No, these are, so far, immutable laws of nature, and if you've truly figured out a way around them, I want a piece of that action.

Also, care to address the energy density issues (see post #38) with compressed hydrogen storage for automotive use? Or are we going to be expect to refuel every 25 miles or so?

"As usual, wrong on all counts. There is NO battery with the necessary amperage storage--which is why all the emphasis on fuel cells. It is theoretically possible to build electrolyzers which are MORE than 100% electrically efficient (i.e. high-temp. ones which are run capturing the waste heat from another power source). Which would you rather pay for---500 new nuclear power plants, or a third world war? I think the new energy infrastructure would be a LOT cheaper, personally."

Aside from your merry dispensation with the laws of thermodynamics, you are so dense that you (as usual) failed to grasp my point. Which is: as a simplifying assumption, assume perfect "batteries". To keep all of our rolling stock rolling, you cannot rely on bottoming. You would have to build 500 plants to supply the capacity. Since electrolyzers are less than 100% efficient, with fuel cells the situation would be worse than my best-case thought experiment.

Personally, I prefer WW III to adopting beliefs that violate well-known laws of physics.

But forget WW III. The U.S. has vast supplies of coal, shale oil, and other hydrocarbons which are currently too expensive to use--or prohibited by idiotic environmental regs. Not to mention the potential of methane clathrates (methane hydrates) which are known to contain more energy then all of the proven oil and gas reserves on the planet. All we need to do is figure out how to get at it...it sits on the sea bed, to depths of many meters.

--Boris