Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010

From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: 23 Sep 2004 07:54:09 -0700

"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<10kou22mpviam79@corp.supernews.com>...
> Don W. <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sa-dnWZYf8KyP9fcRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> > "Tkalbfus1" <tkalbfus1@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040917003824.15036.00003468@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > > >Isn't it true that a percent or two of that
> > > >would support a very much larger hydrogen car fleet
> > > >than history suggests there is demand for?
> > > >Shortage of hydrogen motorists, not of hydrogen, is the
> > > >problem, I think.
> > >
> > > How can you count them if their are no hydrogen powered cars to buy?.
> Some
> > > entity should build hydrogen powered cars and mass produce them so as to
> get
> > > their costs down. The US Government should pony up this investment and
> pay Car
> > > companies to manufacture them, it should subsidize the cost of hydrogen
> to make
> > > it compeditive with gasoline, a progressive tax should finance this
> nicely.
> > > Lets say for every kg of hydrogen someone buys, the US government pays
> for half
> > > the cost.
> >
> > There it is! You finally said it -- you don't care what the cost of a
> > 'hydrogen economy' is as long as someone else is paying for it.
> >
> > Don W.
> >
> >
>
> That was a good one, Don. You in fact, have highlighted the main reason
> that I don't like liberal thought patterns in general. Almost invariably, a
> liberal do-gooder wants to implement a marvelous scheme that will no doubt
> do a lot of good for his pet social problem. Unfortunately, this type
> rarely thinks enough of the problem to put his own money on it ... he wants
> to force me, via taxation, to fund his pet problem.

Shifting the cost of something to the government doesn't reduce the
cost. In most cases, there's a premium to be paid in having the
government handle it.

So, to ask the government to solve our energy problem by subsidizing
uneconomic processes is worse than doing nothing. It perpetuates
patterns of abuse that waste resources the market would otherwise put
to better use. The recent history of coal conversion is a good
example of this;

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/07/1532235

Even so, there is a role for government in some things. A fair and
honest police force backed by a fair and reputable judiciary is not
something the market is particularly good at creating. But its
something that everyone benefits from - despite its cost. Those
benefits are not economic, they're social. So, even conservatives
would agree that spending public money on police and courts and so
forth is a benefit to society, even if those benefits cannot be
accounted for in terms of money spent. We can go down entire lists of
things that carry huge social benefit but those benefits are not easy
to account for - so, its impossible for the private sector to come up
with the capital needed to implement them. Schools most would agree
benefit from government involvement, but not too much. Hospitals and
medical care, could provide huge social benefit with more government
involvement, provided that involvement didn't destroy profit centers
and those things that make medicine work well where it does work well
in the private sector.

Unfortunately, the social benefits accrued from a police force, a
court system, a system of public mails, a school system, or even a
medical system, are unavailable to an energy system. One might argue
rather weakly that government involvement in basic research is
warranted - but one can equally argue that research tax credits could
do as much.

There just isn't any social benefit in having the government get
involved in mandating patterns of energy use that increase the cost of
energy to people.
  
Also, my definition of liberal and conservative are different than
yours. A liberal is a person who seeks to change things for the
better even if things are working now. A conservative seeks to
preserve those things that are working well and does not like change.
There is a natural tension between these two viewpoints - and the
working out of differences are a good thing. The liberals prompt
change. The conservatives make sure we don't get rid of things that
actually work.

Also, people can be conservative about some things and liberal about
other things. One may be conservative when it comes to finance, but
liberal when it comes to sexual practice for example.

So, these labels in this context are not worth much.

Even someone who desires true and lasting change in humanity's pattern
of energy use must agree that promoting government involvement in
uneconomic technology is a misuse of funds and resources.

Even so, is lasting change possible? That's the first question. And
how would that change take effect?

Humanity uses about 5.5 trillion watts of power. This from burning 28
billion barrels of oil per year. This energy costs $550 billion per
year.

To capture this from sunlight requires that a little over 25 trillion
watts of solar generator capacity be deployed. At an efficiency of
20% this requires 148 billion square meters of collector area.
148,000 square kilometers of collector. Assuming typical maintenance
costs for power equipment and usual discount rates and equipment
lifecycles - the $550 billion could support something like $3 trillion
worth of equipment. This is $20 per square meter of collector, or
2/10th cent per square cm. Silicon costs about 20 cents per sq cm.
So, we're off by a factor of 100!

But this is the task before us - to reduce the cost of solar
collectors by a factor of 100 or more if we're going to make
significant use of solar energy as a primary energy source.

Once we achieve these targets then the market itself will provide the
necessary capital - because of the profit that will be earned.
Consider, that over $9 trillion was vaporized when the market bubble
burst in the late 1990s. The $40 trillion per year world economy
could easily come up with the necessary capital if the technology
really existed that was competitive with oil.

Government mandate or government fiat doesn't change this. It only
adds to the cost and confuses the efficient operation of the market.

Government's can do things like give tax credits for research, support
strong school and college physics and engineering programs, provide a
safe and sane environment for work and investment, and provide clean
and safe environments to live and work in... to help this process
along. But its up to engineers and scientists and entrepreneurs to
figure out how to achieve what's needed. On this even liberals can
agree with conservatives.

The nature of the problem doesn't change -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010
    ... >>Shifting the cost of something to the government doesn't reduce the ... Energy is a strategic resource. ... some political support following 9/11 - but it won't help the economy. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Subject: 1975 vs. 2005
    ... the government is engaging in creative accounting. ... >>of control energy cost percolates throughout our economy? ... > As for demand, China is foremost on the list with rapidly expanding petroleum ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?"We_are_in_the_middle_of_a_revolution_and_Im_happ?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?y_
    ... planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." ... how the environment figures into his small-government agenda. ... What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the ... to certain forms of pollution. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Equipment, and the Useless Eco- legislation ...
    ... trying to make manufacturers hold mountains of spares at their ... Once a manufacturer is committed to a particular design, ... Perhaps a government inspector should be invited to ... Typical is about 20 times the cost of the finished unit. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: Equipment, and the Useless Eco- legislation ...
    ... I do think that they should have to hold spares that are ... Once a manufacturer is committed to a particular design, ... Typical is about 20 times the cost of the finished unit. ... your government did it to mine over steel imports ... ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)