democracyforcalifornia.com

Hey, Diana -- Had a commenter at sustainablog note (as I missed) that the Wired article is from last year...

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff at March 29, 2005 04:38 AM

Glad you checked the link I sent. Hopefully this will become a reality if not immediately, at least within the next few years.

Posted by: Sara at March 29, 2005 04:15 PM

I did not know of the hydrogen highway in Cali until just a few days ago.

Posted by: Sara at March 29, 2005 09:37 PM

Oh, well. At least the hydrogen highway is good for discussion. Knowing California, I doubt they would abandon the project. And even without SUV's, trucks, hummers, etc. even regular gas cars still contribute a lot to pollution and even with waning SUV popularity, I still think that the hydrogen highway is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Sara at March 29, 2005 09:40 PM

I do think hydrogen holds some promise in the future, but the attention being given to it now (by publicity stunts like this)is misleading -- to my knowledge, the only viable means producing hydrogen in the necessary quantities would involve large amounts of oil and gas (and I'm certain that's why Dubya and his bunch think it's such a good idea). We'd be much better off if the folks in Washington, Sacramento, or even lowly Jefferson City would support technologies we currently have: hybrid vehicles, conservation measures and renewable energy...

Posted by: Jeff at March 29, 2005 11:45 PM

I'm for anything that gets us to think out-of-the-box, no matter how improbable an idea might seem. The way we think about these issues has to change before new ideas can even hope to manifest in reality. The notion that the economy and the environment can coexist in a way that is mutually beneficial, and that California might create a model the rest of the country could emulate, is really what compelled me to post this article in the first place, and I'm glad to see that it opened up some discussion both here and on Jeff's blog. I've learned from it.

Posted by: diana at March 30, 2005 07:51 AM

Same here, especially on where we get the hydrogen now. Later on, I heard, we may be able to obtain the hydrogen from water or something.

Posted by: Sara at March 31, 2005 08:23 AM

It evidently involves an overall energy loss. But at least it's a good way to store and use energy.

Posted by: karlo at March 31, 2005 03:21 PM

"Peak Oil" is
about as threatening as the (now largely forgotten) Y2K bug. Let me explain why
I believe this to be so:

I. Demand and consumption are both elastic and do not necessarily correspond to
supply.

The classic Peak Oil theorists are essentially Malthusian--believing that as supply
grows, demand and consumption grow until the peak is crossed. Logic suggests that
this is a gross oversimplification of the real world. Even oil-addicted societies
can deploy methods designed to conserve the oil supply (as as done in the early
1970s, but later abandoned until the gas crisis of 1979).

Furthermore, gas-electric hybrid automobiles, such as the Toyota Prius (which I
drive) or the Honda Insight, reduce gasoline consumption by as much as 67 - 75%
per user. Suppose hybrid technology becomes the dominant automotive trend over
the next ten years? The supply of oil will not change, but the demand and the consumption
rates would plummet.

II. Alternatives to oil exist and are already cost effective.

Most Peak Oil adherents argue that alternatives to oil are pipe dreams or false
hopes. For example, they argue that bio-diesel will not mitigate the oil shortage,
because bio-diesel crops require oil-based fertilizers to produce. I disagree.
Organic farming methods can eliminate the need for fossil-fuel based fertilizers,
but even if fertilizers are still needed, the use of oil for fertilizer is probably
more efficient than the use of oil for internal combustion, so once again, the supply
doesn't necessarily correspond directly to consumption.

Peak Oil alarmists argue that hydrogen is no better, because hydrogen is a carrier
of energy and not a producer, and hydrogen requires more energy to extract than
it saves in usage. Both of these claims, while technically true are utterly meaningless
if they are placed in practical context. Oil is itself, a "carrier" of
energy--not a producer; it, too, has to be extracted and that takes energy. Most
of the energy required in extracting oil for use as an internal combustion engine
fuel is derived from the burning of other fossil fuels. On the other hand, Hydrogen
can be produced using renewable energy. As for hydrogen requiring more energy to
extract than it saves, this claim is only true because the technology for its extraction
as an automotive fuel is in its infancy. Petroleum oil also had its share of "growing
pains" as a resource. Unlike hydrogen and renewables, however, fossil fuel
technology is highly subsidized by the government.

In any case, much of the negative, pessimistic claims about hydrogen are quite thoroughly
debunked by Amory Lovins, who is the CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, here:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf

III. Renewable energy is a viable alternative and developing rapidly.

Peak Oil alarmists argue that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels, but not
before a serious economic (and perhaps societal) catastrophe, primarily because
renewable energy technology cannot be developed fast enough to prevent it.

This pessimism (or perhaps deliberate fear mongering) is unwarranted. In the March
/ April issue of Solar Today, Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D. describes how Germany is on
a course to generate all of its electricity from renewable resources by 2050. In
fact, they are ahead of schedule. An abstract of the article is available here:
http://www.solartoday.org/2005/march_april05/Germany.htm

The previous issue (January / February) of Solar Today includes an article about
the rapid deployment of solar electricity generation technology in Japan.

EVen China is getting on the bandwagon. The demand for hybrid automobiles is higher
in China than it is in the US.

Peak Oil pessimists (and/or ideologues?) argue that the standard of living that
we "enjoy" here in the United States is what all industrialized nations
aspire to achieve, but Canada, Japan, and much of Europe all enjoy similar standards
of living but use less energy. There's no reason to assume that China will follow
the American model, particularly when the alternatives are cheaper and better!

IV. Peak Oil assumes that oil has biotic origins; it may not.

The idea that the world is running out of oil is based on the notion that oil is
a "fossil" fuel, i.e. that it is the remains of organic material. Suppose
that isn't the case? Suppose, as some Soviet geologists argued for half a century,
oil has abiotic origins and is instead the byproduct of chemical processes that
occur below the earth's crust? Keep in mind that oil is known to exist on Jupiter's
moon Io, and possibly on Venus. Did Paleozoic and Mesozoic lifeforms develop space
flight? Not very likely.

The Peak Oil crowd argue that the abiotic origin theory is pseudo-science, perhaps
as unbelievable as "cold fusion", but what evidence do they present to
back up such a pejorative and ad hominem attack?

Here are some--sadly obscure--discussions about the possibility that oil my not
be the remains of organic matter:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html

While the abiotic oil theory is by no means any less controversial than Peak Oil,
it is also no less a legitimate hypothesis.

Posted by: Don't Believe the Peak Oil Hype at May 8, 2005 09:06 AM

Interesting. I'll look into those links and do some reading.

Thanks.

Posted by: diana at May 9, 2005 12:14 AM