60 mpg by 2025

[justme]

Ren,

>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that does not represent what I said. I did not say that.

>> more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water

Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?

And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.

Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.

Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise. Get real.

The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[justme]

I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.

[justme]

I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.

[justme]

I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.

[justme]

I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.

[justme]

I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.

[Coronita]

[quote=justme]I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.[/quote]

With all due respect, I think you’re wasting your time.

1) You don’t even work in the green field (or for that matter, probably aren’t an enginerd) to be capable of really effecting change. So as much as I find your science ficition idealogy entertaining, it’s not going to move the needle one iota…Just like most other americans who choose not to enter a technical profession. That’s why I find this idealogy spew by so many so hysterical. It’s like asking government to mandate that we a law that tells doctors must provide a cure for cancer or AIDS by 2025 or else…Love folks that can’t do it trying to tell everyone else who possibly can what they should/shouldn’t be doing…(Kinda like politicans!)….

2) Your response about whether I can question one’s green-ess is misdirected. I’m not on the soapbox telling how everyone else should live, you are…So of course I can question your sincerity.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about this subject, because frankly I’m pretty happy with my footprint. Anyone else who thinks others, frankly can kiss my axx.

[Coronita]

[quote=justme]I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.[/quote]

With all due respect, I think you’re wasting your time.

1) You don’t even work in the green field (or for that matter, probably aren’t an enginerd) to be capable of really effecting change. So as much as I find your science ficition idealogy entertaining, it’s not going to move the needle one iota…Just like most other americans who choose not to enter a technical profession. That’s why I find this idealogy spew by so many so hysterical. It’s like asking government to mandate that we a law that tells doctors must provide a cure for cancer or AIDS by 2025 or else…Love folks that can’t do it trying to tell everyone else who possibly can what they should/shouldn’t be doing…(Kinda like politicans!)….

2) Your response about whether I can question one’s green-ess is misdirected. I’m not on the soapbox telling how everyone else should live, you are…So of course I can question your sincerity.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about this subject, because frankly I’m pretty happy with my footprint. Anyone else who thinks others, frankly can kiss my axx.

[Coronita]

[quote=justme]I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.[/quote]

With all due respect, I think you’re wasting your time.

1) You don’t even work in the green field (or for that matter, probably aren’t an enginerd) to be capable of really effecting change. So as much as I find your science ficition idealogy entertaining, it’s not going to move the needle one iota…Just like most other americans who choose not to enter a technical profession. That’s why I find this idealogy spew by so many so hysterical. It’s like asking government to mandate that we a law that tells doctors must provide a cure for cancer or AIDS by 2025 or else…Love folks that can’t do it trying to tell everyone else who possibly can what they should/shouldn’t be doing…(Kinda like politicans!)….

2) Your response about whether I can question one’s green-ess is misdirected. I’m not on the soapbox telling how everyone else should live, you are…So of course I can question your sincerity.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about this subject, because frankly I’m pretty happy with my footprint. Anyone else who thinks others, frankly can kiss my axx.

[Coronita]

[quote=justme]I had Ren mixed up with Flu in something I wrote and deleted.[/quote]

With all due respect, I think you’re wasting your time.

1) You don’t even work in the green field (or for that matter, probably aren’t an enginerd) to be capable of really effecting change. So as much as I find your science ficition idealogy entertaining, it’s not going to move the needle one iota…Just like most other americans who choose not to enter a technical profession. That’s why I find this idealogy spew by so many so hysterical. It’s like asking government to mandate that we a law that tells doctors must provide a cure for cancer or AIDS by 2025 or else…Love folks that can’t do it trying to tell everyone else who possibly can what they should/shouldn’t be doing…(Kinda like politicans!)….

2) Your response about whether I can question one’s green-ess is misdirected. I’m not on the soapbox telling how everyone else should live, you are…So of course I can question your sincerity.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about this subject, because frankly I’m pretty happy with my footprint. Anyone else who thinks others, frankly can kiss my axx.

[Author]

Posts