For what it's worth, my thumbnail view, as a semi-retired chemist and engineer, is that hydrogen backers (1) prematurely declared themselves winners, and (2) built a lobby and mini-industry based on government largesse.

I really don't have a problem with research bets spread across the board.  In fact that's what I've been supporting in the face of "The Hydrogen Highway."

See, the Highway is all about building infrastructure, public support, and profit, before the end-user cars are ready to roll.

... but maybe that's just me.  Maybe I need to read a book or something.

That's an completely erroneous position. If we're to have a prayer of decarbonizing our energy system, we must be clear and rigorous about all the costs and benefits of the proposed alternatives. We can't waste time and resources pushing unfeasible boondoggles, even if they do make pretty dreams.

Criticisms of Amory Lovins' hydrogen ideas were given in Taking the long way home: What's wrong with the hydrogen path. See both the post and comments.

rather than comment back, it's all covered in the book.

Given the sheer volume of factually incorrect statements and misperceptions in Tamminen's Gristmill interview, why would the book be any more worthwhile?

Ped Shed Blog

I'm betting he'll be on cable news very soon!  That is not going to be helpful to our cause.  Maybe that's why/how he got the audience he has?

Find people who engage in obvious deception to champion renewable energy and it quickly loses credibility?  is that too conspiratorial?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I'm guessing that the overwhelming majority would not choose TT.  The confusion and outright mistakes in his commentary are very hard to overlook.  Some of us did try though.  

We tried to make his hydrogen fuel cell dream a bit more palitable, but it just doesn't work. Like this:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/01/ford_ai...

And his ethanol pronouncements  are just plain ridiculous.

I know you have to be polite to your guests, but we don't.  We can call a spade a spade, or a "greenwasher" in this case.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

DrX, that's the wrong question. I don't much give a damn who "talks up" our cause. If you'll pardon my French, POVs are like assholes -- everybody's got one.

I write words on the internet. Tamminen persuaded the (Republican) governor of one of the biggest and most powerful states in the union to institute a comprehensive emissions reductions plan, complete with rigorous assessment of emissions sources, possible reduction strategies, and economic projections. That plan is being celebrated and held up as an example, both nationally and internationally. Now Tamminen's spreading that experience and expertise to other states.

That's is just the latest chapter in Tamminen's long career of green advocacy, but in and of itself it's probably more concrete, tangible change than I'll create in my lifetime, no matter how many pixels I push around.

So that's my answer: Tamminen's gained my respect through action. He can advocate for eating babies for all I care, as long as he continues to make things happen.

grist.org

That is why nothing much is happening.

If the political interest in ethanol were at least expanding to support a broad spectrum of technologies then the professional scientists, engineers, and capitalists would join the party and great things could happen, things that would reverse market growth for oil, gas, and coal power.

So I wish Tamminen good luck and God's speed.

California does not have any direct interest in greenhouse-gas emission reduction. If it is the business of any government, it is the business of a comprehensive international super-government. Therefore, Tamminen essentially convinced the head of California to commit an act of corruption -- thereby directly damaging the competitiveness of California, and indirectly damaging the competitiveness of international society.

David Roberts wrote: That plan is being celebrated and held up as an example, both nationally and internationally. Now Tamminen's spreading that experience and expertise to other states.

I would agree that corrupt acts do tend to breed further corrupt acts.

As it happens, I have had a bad experience, writing to my Governor (yes, California), expressing caution about "the hydrogen highway" and what I called "premature infrastructure."  I tried to draw a distinction between research, and throwing money away on model filling stations, whose only purpose is to feed the lobby (in both dollars and public relations).

The letter I got back was very disappointing.  It was pretty much "don't worry your pretty head about it, all the technology problems will be solved."

So I wont bet personal, but I very much believe that a "hydrogen lobby" had control for a while, and was very damaging to the spirit of placing bets widely, across (as Mr. Tamminen) "all technologies" and letting the true winners prove themselves.

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America's Utilization of Energy sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy."  We must protect it.  "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy."  The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc.  The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years.  At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.  (This can be done by amending building code)

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair "NET METERING" (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of "renewable energy technology" with various long term incentives and grants.  The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.  

 A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy.  The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.  

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth.  (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy - energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."

Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA.  91325
1-15-2007

P.S.  I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.

Installing renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.


JayDraiman

Hydrogen grand plans were pushed at a time when it looked like battery advancements would never arrive. People have actually been working on batteries for centuries.

I think the jury is still out on whether fuel cells will eventually be integrated into series type hybrids. It could possibly make sense for plants to use idle capacity to generate hydrogen at least until the number of EV users becomes much much larger, on the order of 1-200 million. China in particular is keen to adopt the hydrogen infrastructure, in large part because the high capital cost of batteries, but also the urban planning and electrical infrastructure does lend itself very well to electric vehicles (few own houses with garages or park cars around outlets).

In the US, I think electric-gasoline series hybrids will win in the fight for next gen vehicle, followed by pure electrics.

Not every interview Dave does draws this much fire. He brought it down on himself with his numerous erroneous comments. He seems surprisingly uninformed about competing energy schemes and appears to be one of the last of the hydrogen enthusiasts. Like ethanol enthusiasts, he thinks that if we can convince the government to grease the skids with infrastructure, it will make hydrogen cars happen---putting the cart in front of the horse. I'm all for government funding to continue research into hydrogen extraction, storage, transport, and power, but not with government subsidizing infrastructure. He uses nuclear as an example of how government can't pick winners, and as usual, turns around and wants government to pick his darling instead.

I agree that thanks to his political appointment he has managed to do a lot of good things for the environment but that does not make him immune to critique. He chose to blow off a chance to defend his arguments and I really don't blame him. He might regret it. I suspect the book is more of the same. Putting his penchant for hydrogen aside, his message that we need to find alternatives isn't particularly earth shattering. Not to be rude but, based on this interview, I have my doubts that this book has much to say that's new, and probably contains the same errors mentioned in the interview, and then some.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

You were more polite about it than I anyway.  Which is usually the case.  Maybe I need a decafinated coffee.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Sort of like vitual producers.  The talking head shows have producers that write all the questions and tell the heads what to say and do.  Spokespersons for the energy re-evolution need us.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I did my PhD thesis in steam reforming of methane, the main means of generating H2 today - the kinetic model for steam reforming that I developed is what is being widely used in literature today. My inventions in H2 PSA are being used in plants with capacitities of greater than one billion standard cubic feet per day of H2. I have been involved in coal gasification projects, and am very familiar with generation processes. I also have patents in fuel cell-fuel processor integration, in safe dispensing of hydrogen etc. I would have a lot to gain if stored would indeed become the dominant means of energy for transportation. However, I will tell you that it does not make sense. I have listed the reasons in the previous discussion forum on this subject. Here I will only touch one important area that I did not mention earlier: Environmental impact of a H2-powered transportation system.

If H2 for whatever reason would become the predominant source of energy for transportation, there would be a lof of H2 leaked from the filling stations and other productio and distribution channels, the vehicles etc. This leaked H2 would likely to rise to the upper atmosphere, and react with the ozone up there. I have not seen any scientific confirmation that shows this would not destroy the ozone layer.

Without any scientific evidence that the leaked H2 would not destroy the ozone layer, how can someone say H2 is the solution to our transportation problem???

in the previous post should be:

"My inventions in H2 PSA are being used in plants with total installed capacitity of greater than one billion standard cubic feet per day of H2 - more than 25% of the H2 production capacity of this country"

In the case of hydrogen I have seen many proposals from, compressed gaseous hydrogen to liquid hydrogen.

STUPID, IMO.

Hydrogen is a great fuel supplement.

I have worked on hydrogen as a fuel for IC engines for over 30 years.... and yes there is a way forward here, that is a fuel fill as convenient as filling up your tank with gasoline,,,, in that you do not use a gas, nor do you use a cold liquid (energy wasteful)

and you do not burn your fuel to make a product such as electricity (as in a fuel cell) to then run your vehicle.

I will not divulge my system, but be heartened there is at least one system that will allow you to transfer onto as easily as gasoline for your energy needs.  No footprint is the motto.