[pillbox_girl]

From the sun .... solar water splitting.

The eight year estimate for solar panels producing the energy required to produce them is a little optimistic. Most estimates I've seen is ten to fifteen years. Solar panels, for the first decade they're used, are not so much an energy source but rather a way to pay for ten years of electricity up front. They are simply not efficient enough or cheap enough to be a viable means for efficient hydrogen production from electrolysis.

how much energy does it take to power all the vehicles in the world compared to how much energy it takes to warm and sustain a sphere 25,000 miles in diameter 93 million miles away?

But that's not the point. Yes, a lot of energy come to the earth from the sun every day. But how is that energy going to be collected, stored and transported? The real issues with energy use are always issues of collection, storage, and transportation. Why do you think we use fossil oil and coal? Because the energy in the fossil fuels has already been collected by plants over billions of years and stored by them in an easy to transport form that we can go out and dig out of the ground.

we have only to learn how to take advantage of the obvious.

But the "obvious" comes with a plethora of not so obvious pitfalls and technical hurdles for us to overcome. If a solar powered hydrogen economy were really so obvious and simple, we'd be running one right now.

[layman]

If a solar powered hydrogen economy were really so obvious and simple, we'd be running one right now

Up to now cheap oil has been selling for $20-25 per barrel. This will not be the situation in the future because demand will exceed supply ..... India and China have joined the demand side of the equation. Until now hydrogen was not economically competitive so capital was diverted to oil exploration, etc. This will not be the case in the future. Oil will be around for a long time but it will slowly be replaced by hydrogen and nuclear energy.

[Wonder Warthog]

The eight year estimate for solar panels producing the energy required to produce them is a little optimistic. Most estimates I've seen is ten to fifteen years. Solar panels, for the first decade they're used, are not so much an energy source but rather a way to pay for ten years of electricity up front. They are simply not efficient enough or cheap enough to be a viable means for efficient hydrogen production from electrolysis."

This is only true if you consider "boule-grown, diamond sawed" type solar cells. Look up "Konarka" solar cells for CURRENT cutting-edge technology.

[mission9]

You seem to have an inexhaustible well of negativity about the "hydrogen economy." Unfortunately, you are not very well read on the subject and you have no practical experience. Yes, hydrogen is not a true energy source, but a energy storage element. Are there technical problems to be solved? yes.

You are not even asking the right questions. The real question is "can hydrogen find a place in reducing the dependence of the United States on carbon based fuels?" The answer of course is yes. Two technical innovations which are presently practical, yet are not contemplated by you nor the author of this hit piece are: Catalyzed hydrogen gas storage, and geothermal electrical generation (think Yellowstone).

Another point of the discussion must include that virtually every hydrogen energy solution is in the prototype stage. To compare hydrogen energy solutions on the experimental scale with this carbon fuel infrastructure misses the point. Economies of scale will solve many of the "problems" so craftily raised by this article. Trying to set yourself up as some kind of expert who knows the real problems of hydrogen, as opposed to the engineers and experimenters who are making this goal a reality, solves nothing.

Your attitude sums up a huge part of the problem - how does one enlist the average investor and consumer to do things which they have not done before? Arguments such as those as you are making remind me of city slickers who eat ice cream every day, yet view dairies as sources of pollution, and have never milked a guernsey, much less cleaned out the barn.

[humint]

The eight year estimate for solar panels producing the energy required to produce them is a little optimistic. Most estimates I've seen is ten to fifteen years.

We don't need photo-voltaics to do the job when mirrors are so inexpensive... the H-economy is possible but painful. In all the commentary in this thread I didn't read any one mention a major setback to the H-economy, hydrogen embrittlement. The small H atom works its way into the crystalline matrix of standard metal pipes and renders them brittle and very dangerous within a relatively short period of time. Pipelines required to move H are extremely expensive, but so is war. That is if you subscribe to the BS argument that we are at war for resources alone. There is a little thing called freedom that’s worth fighting for as well. But here’s the heart and soul of the new H-economy if the powers that be decide to move in the H direction.

An H-economy regime that makes sense is not in our cars but from the outlet in our homes. 1 -- Split H2O using focused solar energy. 2 -- pipe the H to FC power plants around the country or simply burn the H and use a typical turbine to produce E. 3 -- Connect H plants to existing electric grids. And if you're still concerned about the emissions from your car, buy one you can plug in at night.

The transition to the H-economy will be a big project... too big without major corp or gov sponsorship. But we’ve got folks working on that I’m sure.