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
