A Roger Post, Are you interested?

[Connie Clark]

--0-992224970-1040052654=:46383
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Bad environmental advice from the New York Times follows after myintroductory commentsWhy bad advice? First of all, nearly all hydrogen made in the USA ismade from naturalgas, a limited-supply fossil fuel. Hydrogen is merely a troublesome wayto store energy, nota primary source of energy (but beloved of environmentalists because onemade it gives offno more carbon dioxide when burned). Once you have made the hydrogenfrom fossil fuel,or more expensively from wind energy, it won't power your car for farbecause of its inherentstorage problems.If you can overcome these two serious problems, most of the high power,cold start fuel cells stilluse platinum, which is so scarce that just US cars would about use upthe world supply.If this were not enough, a whole new fuel supply infrastructure wouldalso have to be createdfrom scratch. Thus do many improbabilities linked in a chain result inan impossible solution.Bottom line: The genuinely practical alternatives to driving as usualare the existing Japanesehybrid cars, motorbikes and motorcycles -- or better -- transit, compactcities, bikes, and walking.As world oil production peaks, the drive-as-much-as-usual techno-fixeswill be abandoned infavor of more practical and obvious ways to avoid the craziness anddenial implicit in currenttransportation trends in the United States. Arrogant trends worshippedby a desperate carbureaucracy but frowned upon by nature. -- Roger*********************************************************************http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/business/yourmoney/15VIEW.html?8bhpECONOMIC VIEWA First Step to Cutting Reliance on OilBy TOM REDBURNWHICH events of recent days are likely to have the most significantlong-term impact on American business and the economy?To my mind, it was not the Bush administration's new team of economicpolicy makers, who dominated the headlines last week. Nor the efforts toclean up Wall Street. And not the buildup of troops to fight a war inIraq, either.No, my money is on the barely noticed introduction by Honda and Toyotaof a handful of experimental fuel cell vehicles to be tested by theState of California.The possibility of running cars on fuel cells has been heavily promotedin business circles in recent years, and for good reason. Imagine aglobal economy no longer dependent on oil and the internal combustionengine. Fuel cells, because they produce energy from pure hydrogenrather than from petroleum, emit only water and heat as waste,potentially generating power without burning fossil fuels.By making it possible to shift from petroleum to other primary energysources, fuel cells could ease the threat of global warming withouttaking away the freedom and mobility that Americans and Europeans takefor granted   and the rest of the world is determined to get for itself.China and India, with more than one-third of the world's population,could sustain rapid growth for decades without choking the sky withpollutants and climate-damaging carbon dioxide.But this vision of a truly sustainable economic future is far frominevitable. The technological challenges to building a commerciallysuccessful fuel cell vehicle are overwhelming. And who would supplythem? Recasting the entire petroleum-based infrastructure to produce anddeliver hydrogen safely to hundreds of millions of such vehiclespresents a classic chicken-and-egg problem of immense proportions.Every major automaker and oil company has a hydrogen or fuel cellresearch effort under way; supporters say they recognize that fossilfuels can't last forever. Environmentalists carp that industry is simplytrying to preserve the status quo and avoid more immediate steps toimprove the fuel efficiency of conventional automobiles.In a generally positive article on the efforts of General Motors toreinvent the automobile, Wired magazine noted that Rick Wagoner, G.M.'schief executive, likes to call the fuel cell car "the holy grail," butthat the description "may be a truer assessment than he intends." Afterall, as David Redstone, editor of Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Investor, anewsletter, told the magazine: "The holy grail is something you spendyour entire life looking for. The whole point is that you never find it."No one knows for sure whether a hydrogen economy is a possible dream."The oil companies and automakers are not doing this because they wantto kill it," said Steven Taub, an expert on alternative fuels atCambridge Energy Research Associates in Cambridge, Mass. "But they arenot doing this because they know it's the future, either. They're doingit because they don't know whether or not it's the future."It's worth the risk to find out.Bolstered by modest support from the government and a new commitmentfrom the Bush administration, American automakers and other companiesare already investing in fuel cell research. But an effort to put tens,if not hundreds of thousands, of vehicles on the road within a decade,which many analysts regard as feasible, would require a substantialcommitment from Washington to help jump-start the market and support theinvestment in a supply infrastructure.THIS shouldn't mean giving up on less ambitious efforts, as both theWhite House and the auto industry have done in abandoning the researchprogram to build a very fuel-efficient car using existing technology. Ifnothing else, as an insurance policy to avoid being usurped again byJapanese automakers, Detroit should also be investing more infuel-efficient hybrid electric-gasoline vehicles like the Toyota Prius.True, big federal programs like the Interstate System of highways, thedevelopment of the Internet and the creation of the semiconductor chip(which grew out of the space program) have gone out of fashion. But evenin an era in which markets have rightly assumed a much greater role inallocating resources, government commitment is needed to set ambitiousgoals in crucial areas.And when the nation is preparing to spend at least $100 billion toliberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein and much more to maintain stability inthe Persian Gulf, nothing is more crucial than investing a fraction ofthat sum to help liberate the world economy from its addiction to MiddleEast oil.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
--0-992224970-1040052654=:46383
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<PRE><TT>Bad environmental advice from the New York Times 
follows after my
introductory comments

Why bad advice? First of all, nearly all hydrogen made 
in the USA is
made from natural
gas, a limited-supply fossil fuel. Hydrogen is merely 
a troublesome way
to store energy, not
a primary source of energy (but beloved of 
environmentalists because one
made it gives off
no more carbon dioxide when burned). Once you have 
made the hydrogen
from fossil fuel,
or more expensively from wind energy, it won't power 
your car for far
because of its inherent
storage problems.

If you can overcome these two serious problems, most 
of the high power,
cold start fuel cells still
use platinum, which is so scarce that just US cars 
would about use up
the world supply.
If this were not enough, a whole new fuel supply 
infrastructure would
also have to be created
from scratch. Thus do many improbabilities linked in a 
chain result in
an impossible solution.

Bottom line: The genuinely practical alternatives to 
driving as usual
are the existing Japanese
hybrid cars, motorbikes and motorcycles -- or better 
-- transit, compact
cities, bikes, and walking.
As world oil production peaks, the 
drive-as-much-as-usual techno-fixes
will be abandoned in
favor of more practical and obvious ways to avoid the 
craziness and
denial implicit in current
transportation trends in the United States. Arrogant 
trends worshipped
by a desperate car
bureaucracy but frowned upon by nature. -- Roger


*********************************************************************


<A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/business/yourmoney/15VIEW.html?8bhp" target=_blank><FONT color=#003399>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/business/yourmoney/15VIEW.html?8bhp</FONT></A>

ECONOMIC VIEW
A First Step to Cutting Reliance on Oil
By TOM REDBURN

WHICH events of recent days are likely to have the 
most significant
long-term impact on American business and the economy?

To my mind, it was not the Bush administration's new 
team of economic
policy makers, who dominated the headlines last week. 
Nor the efforts to
clean up Wall Street. And not the buildup of troops to 
fight a war in
Iraq, either.

No, my money is on the barely noticed introduction by 
Honda and Toyota
of a handful of experimental fuel cell vehicles to be 
tested by the
State of California.

The possibility of running cars on fuel cells has been 
heavily promoted
in business circles in recent years, and for good 
reason. Imagine a
global economy no longer dependent on oil and the 
internal combustion
engine. Fuel cells, because they produce energy from 
pure hydrogen
rather than from petroleum, emit only water and heat 
as waste,
potentially generating power without burning fossil 
fuels.

By making it possible to shift from petroleum to other 
primary energy
sources, fuel cells could ease the threat of global 
warming without
taking away the freedom and mobility that Americans 
and Europeans take
for granted   and the rest of the world is determined 
to get for itself.
China and India, with more than one-third of the 
world's population,
could sustain rapid growth for decades without choking 
the sky with
pollutants and climate-damaging carbon dioxide.

But this vision of a truly sustainable economic future 
is far from
inevitable. The technological challenges to building a 
commercially
successful fuel cell vehicle are overwhelming. And who 
would supply
them? Recasting the entire petroleum-based 
infrastructure to produce and
deliver hydrogen safely to hundreds of millions of 
such vehicles
presents a classic chicken-and-egg problem of immense 
proportions.

Every major automaker and oil company has a hydrogen 
or fuel cell
research effort under way; supporters say they 
recognize that fossil
fuels can't last forever. Environmentalists carp that 
industry is simply
trying to preserve the status quo and avoid more 
immediate steps to
improve the fuel efficiency of conventional 
automobiles.

In a generally positive article on the efforts of 
General Motors to
reinvent the automobile, Wired magazine noted that 
Rick Wagoner, G.M.'s
chief executive, likes to call the fuel cell car "the 
holy grail," but
that the description "may be a truer assessment than 
he intends." After
all, as David Redstone, editor of Hydrogen &amp; Fuel Cell 
Investor, a
newsletter, told the magazine: "The holy grail is 
something you spend
your entire life looking for. The whole point is that 
you never find it."

No one knows for sure whether a hydrogen economy is a 
possible dream.

"The oil companies and automakers are not doing this 
because they want
to kill it," said Steven Taub, an expert on 
alternative fuels at
Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Cambridge, 
Mass. "But they are
not doing this because they know it's the future, 
either. They're doing
it because they don't know whether or not it's the 
future."

It's worth the risk to find out.

Bolstered by modest support from the government and a 
new commitment
from the Bush administration, American automakers and 
other companies
are already investing in fuel cell research. But an 
effort to put tens,
if not hundreds of thousands, of vehicles on the road 
within a decade,
which many analysts regard as feasible, would require 
a substantial
commitment from Washington to help jump-start the 
market and support the
investment in a supply infrastructure.

THIS shouldn't mean giving up on less ambitious 
efforts, as both the
White House and the auto industry have done in 
abandoning the research
program to build a very fuel-efficient car using 
existing technology. If
nothing else, as an insurance policy to avoid being 
usurped again by
Japanese automakers, Detroit should also be investing 
more in
fuel-efficient hybrid electric-gasoline vehicles like 
the Toyota Prius.

True, big federal programs like the Interstate System 
of highways, the
development of the Internet and the creation of the 
semiconductor chip
(which grew out of the space program) have gone out of 
fashion. But even
in an era in which markets have rightly assumed a much 
greater role in
allocating resources, government commitment is needed 
to set ambitious
goals in crucial areas.

And when the nation is preparing to spend at least 
$100 billion to
liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein and much more to 
maintain stability in
the Persian Gulf, nothing is more crucial than 
investing a fraction of
that sum to help liberate the world economy from its 
addiction to Middle
East oil.</TT></PRE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>
--0-992224970-1040052654=:46383--