Hello Gang,
Here is an interesting article entitled "The Hydrogen Hoax" by Robert Zubrin from the current issue of The New Atlantis :The Journal of Technology and Society Published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

Alex Michael Bonnici

> From: Alex Michael Bonnici
> http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

"Unfortunately, it's all pure bunk."

A pity much can be said about this article. Mr Zubrin is once again twisting
facts to fit his own agenda. First generation nuclear plants were designed
to produce not electricity (though that was a fringe benifit) but plutinium
for nuclear bombs, and to fit inside nuclear submarines. Safer, simplier,
cheaper but bulkier pebble-bed reactors were ignored.

"But all the hydrogen on Earth, except that in hydrocarbons, has already
been oxidized, so none of it is available as fuel."

Sadly, since it is such a reactive compound, all the oxygen on the planet
faced a similar fate hundreds of billions of years ago and hence none of us
were ever born. Oh, wait, that didn't happen did it? Photosynthesis solved
that problem. There's a good chance it can do the same for hydrogen, even if
nothing else does.

"the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per kilogram."

Didn't you just say it was $6 per kilo? Petrol is impure. I'm sure H2 cars
can suffer with less than perfection. And Mr Zubrin seems willfully ignorant
of the meaning of the term 'mass production'.

"Because hydrogen is actually made by reforming hydrocarbons"

Hasn't he just told us there are other ways to make it? Oh dearr. The lies
and straw men just keep piling up don't they?

"Fortunately, on this front, there is good news, if only we have the will to
be serious."

Where 'serious' in this case translates to 'do everything Zubrin says and
burn anyone caught considdering an alternatives as a heratic.'

"This could most efficiently be done simply by mandating that all new cars
sold in the United States be flex-fueled."

Add 'plug in hybrid' to that requirement and you have a winner.

"Islamists to spread fanatical ideology, we could give our business to the
world's farmers,"

I take it Mr Zubrin is also willfully ignorant of the slave-trade in africa
(which contrary to US history books, did not end with Mr Lincoln efforts,
noble as they were) and the disagreeable situation in South America with
reguards to corruption and kidnapping. Dumping hundreds of billions of
dollars into either economy is hardly going to magically improve either
situation. Especially if America et all employ a cack-handed policy of
trying to run the governments in question like puppet nations, as it tried
to do in the Middle East.

Interestingly, Mr Zubrin ignores the problems of keeping the supply of US
fuel inside America. Not only is self-reliance a good thing economically and
politically - but the days when American can command the markets are growing
numbered. India, China and even Europe (laugh all you want) will require as
much if not more fuel than the US. America can't depend on always getting
first pick of external food sources, especially if it's going to be churlish
about paying more than a few dollars per gallon.

John

Well, a couple of things from my point of view...

"The New Atlantis" is indeed new, and has featured several Zubrin essays
among the few dozen total they have published. I've read a few of their
issues in full, and was not very impressed with overall editorial
quality. They also hold some odd anti-evolution anti-stem-cell stance on
the part of the publisher, though not particularly relevant to this
topic I think.

But Zubrin's right about the basic point that hydrogen is no solution.
Read the study from the National Academy of Engineering a few years
back, we're nowhere close on the technologies, and there are better
solutions already on the road (like the plug-in hybrids you mention, or
the much-neglected mass transit).

Arthur Smith

ANTIcarrot wrote:

> and the disagreeable situation in South America with
> reguards to corruption and kidnapping.

South America is too big for a single judgement to decide it all.
You shouldn't believe all South America lives the hell of police
ineficiency one sees in Sao Paulo, Rio or Medellin. Or the tragical
and comic situation of civil unrest of Bolivia.

Actually, in several other places of South America crime rates are
lower than in the United States, and people have less guns at home
that in that country as well.

So, please, do not generalize. If you can't say corruption of Tailand
is the same as the one of Japan, why you should believe that living in
Caracas is the same as in Santiago? Or do you believe South America is
a big Colombia and Latin America a big Mexico?

Omar Vega,
Chilean

> From: Omar E. Vega
> Or do you believe South America is
> a big Colombia and Latin America a big Mexico?

Do you believe the Middle East is one big terrorist training ground? Mr
Zubrin seems to think so. Of course none of it's true. Yet.

The problem is where do the money will end up, and where will it go on the
way through. In the middle east, and in europe, rapid increases in wealth
made the corrupt rich richer - but only in europe did it also make the poor
richer quickly, and only there was it invested wisely to create new ways of
making money Which one will South America take after?

Going by trends it may well be the former. Like Africa before it, the Middle
East is shooting itself in the foot and selling off its nattural resources
without putting any real thought into what it will do once the market for
it's sole exporrt dries up. Many south American nations are doing the same
by selling off their national resources without thinking about what will
happen affterwards. Except instead of selling black people, or black gold,
they're selling off darkest rain forest.

The same rich corrupt ignorant people currently in charge of screwing the
continant over to make themselves richer will be in charge of regulating
alcohol production. Unless change happens first. That may happen, but it is
less than certain. In the past America caused a lot of problems when it
interfered to 'stem the spread of comunism'. Do you really think they'll act
differently when it comes to securing a national energy supply?

John.

That may be true right now, but it doesn't mean we should cut off
funding for the research.. We know that "theoretically" it's
possible.. We just have to overcome the "practicality" of it.. Maybe
some of the promises in the technology have taken the attention away
from the immediate solutions to our energy problems, but that gets
into politics... The policy makers have to do a much better job of
understanding the long term energy needs of a nation and balancing
that with the environmental and economical impact to it's people..
Free markets are great for a lot of things, but they will always lean
towards profit over impact..

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Arthur Smith wrote:
>
> Well, a couple of things from my point of view...
>
> "The New Atlantis" is indeed new, and has featured several Zubrin
essays
> among the few dozen total they have published. I've read a few of their
> issues in full, and was not very impressed with overall editorial
> quality. They also hold some odd anti-evolution anti-stem-cell
stance on
> the part of the publisher, though not particularly relevant to this
> topic I think.
>
> But Zubrin's right about the basic point that hydrogen is no solution.
> Read the study from the National Academy of Engineering a few years
> back, we're nowhere close on the technologies, and there are better
> solutions already on the road (like the plug-in hybrids you mention, or
> the much-neglected mass transit).
>
> Arthur Smith
>
> ANTIcarrot wrote:
> >
> > > From: Alex Michael Bonnici
> > > http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm
> >
> > "Unfortunately, it's all pure bunk."
> >
> > A pity much can be said about this article. Mr Zubrin is once again
> > twisting
> > facts to fit his own agenda. First generation nuclear plants were
designed
> > to produce not electricity (though that was a fringe benifit) but
> > plutinium
> > for nuclear bombs, and to fit inside nuclear submarines. Safer,
simplier,
> > cheaper but bulkier pebble-bed reactors were ignored.
> >
> > "But all the hydrogen on Earth, except that in hydrocarbons, has
already
> > been oxidized, so none of it is available as fuel."
> >
> > Sadly, since it is such a reactive compound, all the oxygen on the
planet
> > faced a similar fate hundreds of billions of years ago and hence none
> > of us
> > were ever born. Oh, wait, that didn't happen did it?
Photosynthesis solved
> > that problem. There's a good chance it can do the same for hydrogen,
> > even if
> > nothing else does.
> >
> > "the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per
> > kilogram."
> >
> > Didn't you just say it was $6 per kilo? Petrol is impure. I'm sure
H2 cars
> > can suffer with less than perfection. And Mr Zubrin seems willfully
> > ignorant
> > of the meaning of the term 'mass production'.
> >
> > "Because hydrogen is actually made by reforming hydrocarbons"
> >
> > Hasn't he just told us there are other ways to make it? Oh dearr.
The lies
> > and straw men just keep piling up don't they?
> >
> > "Fortunately, on this front, there is good news, if only we have the
> > will to
> > be serious."
> >
> > Where 'serious' in this case translates to 'do everything Zubrin
says and
> > burn anyone caught considdering an alternatives as a heratic.'
> >
> > "This could most efficiently be done simply by mandating that all
new cars
> > sold in the United States be flex-fueled."
> >
> > Add 'plug in hybrid' to that requirement and you have a winner.
> >
> > "Islamists to spread fanatical ideology, we could give our
business to the
> > world's farmers,"
> >
> > I take it Mr Zubrin is also willfully ignorant of the slave-trade in
> > africa
> > (which contrary to US history books, did not end with Mr Lincoln
efforts,
> > noble as they were) and the disagreeable situation in South
America with
> > reguards to corruption and kidnapping. Dumping hundreds of billions of
> > dollars into either economy is hardly going to magically improve
either
> > situation. Especially if America et all employ a cack-handed policy of
> > trying to run the governments in question like puppet nations, as
it tried
> > to do in the Middle East.
> >
> > Interestingly, Mr Zubrin ignores the problems of keeping the
supply of US
> > fuel inside America. Not only is self-reliance a good thing
> > economically and
> > politically - but the days when American can command the markets are
> > growing
> > numbered. India, China and even Europe (laugh all you want) will
> > require as
> > much if not more fuel than the US. America can't depend on always
getting

> From: Jake
> That may be true right now, but it doesn't mean we should cut off
> funding for the research..

Technically the problem with hydrogen is the cost of plantinum extraction on
Earth. If we find a cheaper source off planet (We wouldn't need to refine or
machine it much, just get enough of it onto an earth-located landing site)
then it might be possible. Especially if combined with SSPS style power
generation or production of hydrogen via modified-algae.

Or course by then it's very likely that *other* alternatives will simply
make more sense. Despite the best atttempts (invariably using lead-acid
batteries) to prove that battery cars are impractical, lithium-ion cars are
getting more and more powerful, and the Teslar Roadster has already gone
into production. Over a hundred thousand mile 'lifetime' the two
technologies are equal in terms of cost, though electrics suffer in terms of
range beyond ~200 miles.

Given that night time electricity works out to 1p per mile and petrol costs
8p per miel, but electricity will only take you so far, plug in hybrids are
the obvious solution. Yes those are UK costs, but the ratio is similar
elsewhere. Especially those that can run on mutltiple fuel types, as Zubrin
states.

ANTIcarrot.

On 1/29/07, ANTIcarrot wrote:
(...)
> Technically the problem with hydrogen is the cost of plantinum extraction
> on
> Earth. If we find a cheaper source off planet (We wouldn't need to refine
> or
> machine it much, just get enough of it onto an earth-located landing site)
> then it might be possible. Especially if combined with SSPS style power
> generation or production of hydrogen via modified-algae.
(...)

As far as I understand, Platinum is just part of the hydrogen problem,
and a part that just affects hydrogen-based fuel cells, but not for
instance a hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine.

However, there is still the storage and distribution problem of
hydrogen. There are several strategies, each one with its own
problems. And finally there is the problem of hydrogen production:
currently the easier way to produce hydrogen is from hydrocarbons, but
then you are not contributing to lower carbon emissions.

On 1/29/07, ANTIcarrot wrote:
(...)
> Going by trends it may well be the former. Like Africa before it, the
> Middle
> East is shooting itself in the foot and selling off its nattural resources
> without putting any real thought into what it will do once the market for
> it's sole exporrt dries up. Many south American nations are doing the same
> by selling off their national resources without thinking about what will
> happen affterwards. Except instead of selling black people, or black gold,
> they're selling off darkest rain forest.
(...)

Well, I think it is my time to join Omar and clarify more common
misunderstandings and generalizations about South America. About half
of the Amazonian rainforest is in my country (Brazil) and I can say
that the affirmation that we are "selling off darkest rain forest"
(seemingly implying that we are as dependent on rain forest
destruction as some Middle East countries are dependent on oil
exploration) is simply not true.

As you can see by a simple introductory article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil), our GDP by sector is
sectorized as agriculture (10.1%), industry (38.6%), services (51.3%);
and our major exports are transport equipment, iron ore, soybeans,
footwear, coffee, autos. With an economic profile like that, it is
hard to think how in hell our economy could be dependent on the
destruction of rainforest. You could possibly imagine that, say,
cultivation of coffe and soybeans is destroying the rainforest, but in
fact the vast majority of that cultivation is in the southeast, south
and central regions, while the rainforest is in the North. (Remember,
our territory is about the same size of the US and with a great
diversity of environments... I am Brazilian and I never saw the rain
forest - never got the motivation to travel thousands of kilometers to
the North to see it...) You could also argue that mining maybe
destroying the rain forest, but again most of mining is concentrated
in one of the Southeastern states (Minas Gerais, where I live by the
way). There *is* a large mining operation (Carajs) in the middle of
the rain forest, but I can hardly see how the few hundreds of square
kilometers affected by that can affect significantly the *millions* of
square kilometers of rainforest.

Please note that I am not saying that the rainforest is not being
destroyed. It is. But that is not being done (as you implied) because
it is extremely important for the economy of the country. It is simply
a product of (a) chaotic human occupation and (b) difficult in
controlling a huge area sparsely populated.

Arthur Smith wrote: Well, a couple of things from my point of view...

"The New Atlantis" is indeed new, and has featured several Zubrin essays
among the few dozen total they have published. I've read a few of their
issues in full, and was not very impressed with overall editorial
quality. They also hold some odd anti-evolution anti-stem-cell stance on
the part of the publisher, though not particularly relevant to this
topic I think.

But Zubrin's right about the basic point that hydrogen is no solution.
Read the study from the National Academy of Engineering a few years
back, we're nowhere close on the technologies, and there are better
solutions already on the road (like the plug-in hybrids you mention, or
the much-neglected mass transit).

Arthur Smith

ANTIcarrot wrote: