I meant, the conversion of water to hydrogen (+ oxygen) by means of electricity (obviously). The point is that the system Mage describes is actually less efficient than contemporary gasoline engines. So we are being invited to invest a huge portion of social capital + labour in alternatives which are no more efficient that what we have already, and which ultimately still depend on fossil fuels -- show us, Mr Mage, one PV manufacturing facility which is in operation now or which is planned or which is even a gleam in anyone's eye, which (a) is not built by means of fossil-fuel energy inputs and (b) which will not use fossil-generated electricity in its manufacturing process. It is simply, nonsense to say that PV's can substitute for fossil, they cannot. PV's are not going to replace fossil fuel. PV's + windpower + biomass + nuclear can not (for well known reasons) supply even theoretically, more than about 20% of current total world energy consumption. PV's etc cannot substitute for petrochemical feedstocks into industry and agriculture on which all our food and most everyday production items, todays depends. Even if it is theoretically possible to reduce US energy consumption by 70% (is it? How?) this will not do more than *slow down the global increase in fossil fuel consumption*. This is because of the conversion lead times involved (first) and (second) the fact that the remaining 95% of the human population who live outside the US and who consume far smaller amounts of energy pro rata (the USA alone consumes 25% of fossil fuel) will still be catching up. This is exactly what happened after 1973: energy per unit of GDP fell in the West, but overall energy consumption continued to rise, more slowly than before, but still fast enough to get us to where we are now, ie, facing energy-famines and a global economic meltdown. World oil production is peaking. The US now imports around 70% of its oil. Opec is already at full capacity. Nopec production is generally declining. What will happen will be severe and debilittaing shocks to the world system, followed by economic catastrophe and worse. What the post-capitalist world will inherit will be (a) a destabilised climate and (b) an energy famine and (c) a wrecked biosphere. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Mark Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 September 2000 11:07 To: Subject: more nonsense on alternatives This exchange is from Shane Mage and Yoshie Furuhashi on lbo-talk (for some reason, can't imagine what, Mr Mage doesn't want to expose his arguments to the rigours of this list). Unfortunately, Mr Mage is evidently still not able to do better than (as Tom says) the "Pollyanna dream state in the scientism of denial." Here are very simple questions for Mr Mage to think about: what is the energy efficiency and net energy cost of the most efficient forms of conversion of hydrogen to electricity? Are they more or less efficient than the energy efficiency of gasoline engines? And (finaly, the question Mr Mage never answers) where is the electricity coming from to convert water to hydrogen? If the answer is 'photovoltaics', what will be the capital cost of building enough PV arrays to substitute for fossil fuels, and what kind of conversion efficiency will such PVs have to have, if the transition is to be successful? Mark > >Shane Mage says: > > > >> The following, from the 16/9 Science News, is only one of many > >> refutations of the manic doomsday pessimism of Mr. Jones: > > > >how does this refute mark's post? this Science News abstract describes > >something in a lab, a cool result the way they've sandwiched the > >layers of photo-electricity and conversion to hydrogen together, but > >how does this relate to the issues mark jone's raises? whats at stake > >is not simply what can be produced in a laboratory and reported in a > >technical journal, but what can be deployed now or soon that will make > >a sizeable difference in energy budgets and anthropgenic climate > >forcing. you're arguments have to be more forceful than bob dylan song > >snippets ... > > > >what will they think of next??? > >The point of course is the speed with which science and technology are >proving the practicality of the hydrogen economy. What has been demonstrated >in the lab will soon, historically speaking, be the basis for material >production. This report came just on the heels of Mr. Jones's rant. >Technological >progress is ongoing over a much wider front. The time scale of the >crisis is still >measured in decades. Two decades is plenty for full growth of what >is now a fledgling >--no longer incubating--fuel cell technology based on renewable >energy sources. >Existing hydrocarbon sources will last much longer than that and can be >phased out before irreversible climatic deterioration strikes most of the >world's surface. > >Shane Mage > >"L'intendance suivra"--Napol�on What is technically possible, however, does not always go into practice. It was technically possible to create densely populated cities mainly served by mass public transportation in America (and American cities were indeed so served before the rise of highways & suburbia). Instead, we have what we have -- under-populated cities, suburban sprawls, & longer commutes dependent upon individually-owned automobiles. Politics, not technical feasibility, is what matters most. Can we create political conditions for radical transformation of social relations & then productive forces necessary for the "hydrogen economy" in a matter of decades? Yoshie _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
