Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Sep 17, 4:49 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's _selling_ point is indeed that it is carbon-free. Of course,
there is the carbon that must have been released elsewhere in order to
produce it.

Yes -- it is like the "zero-emission" electric car. It really meant
"emission elsewhere." But the "global warming" issue is, well...
global. So the talk has to be in aggregates.

... -- all with an existing
infrastructure that has (perhaps unfortunely in some ways) already
been set up and exists and has been dearly paid for -- versus the cost
of generating hydrogen and transporting and delivering it, as well as
how practical that is in a vehicle. I don't have the answer.

Nukes are about the only thing that can (1) deliver massive amounts of
energy into the current infrastructure, (2) have zero CO2 emissions,
and (3) do it at a per-joule cost reasonably near today's fossil fuel
generation.

Obviously, people don't like the idea of the waste product nukes do
make.

And a terrible devil may lurk in the
details,...

Of course. Any "solution" to the "problem" I've ever seen has always
been poorly considered.

Some of the benefits of hydrogen _fuel cells_ would be: 60% efficiency
in conversion to electricity, and some motors can get close to 90%
efficiency making that into motion, for a combined 54% efficiency.

Leaving everything else equal, let's say we make a new machine that is
100% more energy efficient than the machine it replaces. Now we ask:
since we halved our energy bill, what do we do with the money we
saved? Do we stuff it in the mattress forever? Or do we spend/invest
it? What do all expenditures and investment ultimately result in when
it comes to energy?

IOW, why do people think energy efficiency is a way out? Our machines
have always gotten more efficient, but that led to more energy use,
not less. Why?

(BTW, I'm all for energy efficiency, but I don't think it does the
magic of aggregate reduction of like intuition suggests it would.)

Some problems my son found include the high cost of
ownership: $3000/kW versus $30/kW for a car engine.

Solutions for "global warming" include the imposition of poverty,
although nukes are probably the "cheapest" in tha regard. The
proposers ignore it, or are ignorant of it. But imposed poverty will
lower the aggregate carbon footprint.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... aggregate carbon footprint, ceteris paribus. ... energy efficiency. ... Increased energy efficiency on its own doesn't alter buying habits. ... All the mass to make CFL's is already ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)
    ... Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, ... you will have to have the energy efficiency of your ... EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... aggregate carbon footprint, ceteris paribus. ... That is an answer to a local energy conservation, ... Improving energy efficiency is always a win win situation for the ... Less fuel is burnt and more useful work is done with less ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: How a Flawed 2004 S.E.C. Decision Contributed to Present Morass
    ... Americans that we had to conserve, conserve, conserve. ... Conservation of energy is just fine. ... Energy efficiency is just fine, ... Basically, it uses reflectors instead of solar panels to concentrate light/heat to a central point, where a device turns that heat into energy. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lectro bike price drop
    ... It's intention is to make all forms of energy so f'ing ... Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, ... energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. ... energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make ...
    (rec.motorcycles)