<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cheat Sheet on the Future of Cars &#038; Energy&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/</link>
	<description>A Personal Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: will</title>
		<link>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-7</link>
		<author>will</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:37:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-7</guid>
					<description>If you convert natural gas to hydrogen for fuel cells, or use methane as the feed stock for fuel cells, won't you still produce CO2?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you convert natural gas to hydrogen for fuel cells, or use methane as the feed stock for fuel cells, won&#8217;t you still produce CO2?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mobius</title>
		<link>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-8</link>
		<author>Mobius</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-8</guid>
					<description>Sorry, you are a few innovations short of the technology revolution: Fusion power (Not the stupid Tolomak being built in Cadarache, but the tiny container-sized reactors developed from George Bussard's plans.) will dominate the future.

No need to crack hydrogen from natural gas (Not very environmentally friendly) when you have power-for-africa to crack it straight from water, locally.

This prevents the intractable of transporting H - which is problematic at best and downright dangerous at worst ("Explodes with a squeky pop", i.e. Hindenburg 101) and so the future of the world looks very different to today: instead of centralsied power generation and massive losses in transmission, power is generated almost at a neighbourhood level.

Solid H is nothing but a dream, and will be completely unnecessary in the localised economies of the mid and late 21st century.

Also, the combustion engine will be with for a very long time to come. I predict that petrol motors will still be produced as late as 2050 - and they'll be in cars, too. There is just too much infrastructure in place for it to simply disappear. I think it will take around 50 years of Fusion before the internal combustion engine makes a graceful exit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, you are a few innovations short of the technology revolution: Fusion power (Not the stupid Tolomak being built in Cadarache, but the tiny container-sized reactors developed from George Bussard&#8217;s plans.) will dominate the future.</p>
<p>No need to crack hydrogen from natural gas (Not very environmentally friendly) when you have power-for-africa to crack it straight from water, locally.</p>
<p>This prevents the intractable of transporting H - which is problematic at best and downright dangerous at worst (&#8221;Explodes with a squeky pop&#8221;, i.e. Hindenburg 101) and so the future of the world looks very different to today: instead of centralsied power generation and massive losses in transmission, power is generated almost at a neighbourhood level.</p>
<p>Solid H is nothing but a dream, and will be completely unnecessary in the localised economies of the mid and late 21st century.</p>
<p>Also, the combustion engine will be with for a very long time to come. I predict that petrol motors will still be produced as late as 2050 - and they&#8217;ll be in cars, too. There is just too much infrastructure in place for it to simply disappear. I think it will take around 50 years of Fusion before the internal combustion engine makes a graceful exit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-13</link>
		<author>Anonymous</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-13</guid>
					<description>Will - 
Yes, when you reform natural gas for H2 you do have CO2. (Though much less than through combustion.)  As long as we are dealing hydrocarbon inputs then I am comfortable with the CO2 byproduct- and believe we'll have a way to neutralize it sooner or later. Yes, the most ideal system is solar-electron solar-H2 but I am looking for a compromise to 'greening' fossil fuels and put my bet on electrochemical / biological conversion over combustion. Thanks for the comment..!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will -<br />
Yes, when you reform natural gas for H2 you do have CO2. (Though much less than through combustion.)  As long as we are dealing hydrocarbon inputs then I am comfortable with the CO2 byproduct- and believe we&#8217;ll have a way to neutralize it sooner or later. Yes, the most ideal system is solar-electron solar-H2 but I am looking for a compromise to &#8216;greening&#8217; fossil fuels and put my bet on electrochemical / biological conversion over combustion. Thanks for the comment..!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-14</link>
		<author>Anonymous</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://garrygolden.net/2007/04/21/garrys-cheat-sheet-on-how-to-talk-about-the-future-of-cars-energy/#comment-14</guid>
					<description>Mobius - 
Yes, I'm certain there are great innovations ahead not listed in my piece.  I think our timelines might be different - I am looking 5-10 years out.  I wasn't aiming for a tech revolution- just an evolution of electricity.  

And yes, electrolysis is a cleaner method if the inputs are clean - so I am with you! 

Disagree on your skepticism of H2 storage/transportation. And I'm sure with your energy knowledge you know the truth with the Hindenberg.  All the gas left within seconds and the fire was from the coating on the material.  It wasn't a H2 gas explosion.  H2 is a light gas that is not explosive unless contained. Gasoline is more dangerous as a liquid than H2 as a gas.  Even so- my strategy is H2 as a solid.  

H2 stored as a solid is actually very realistic.  Look at metal hydrides in short term with physical adsorption in MOF-like materials for long term. (A liquid solution could emerge...but I think solid state is most compatible with local production- and will be less energy intensive.) 

I disagree that it is 'a dream'- and of the H2 'transport' problem.  I've heard the argument before and think it falls short. It was a relevant argumentin 1999 but won't stand up against technologies of 2009. The arguments are dated and do not speak of major advances in materials science over the past few years.  

We are doing quite well in understanding solid state storage systems.  But if you have research evidence that suggests otherwise please let me know! 

Solid blocks can be transported on trains, boat or vehicles. And they make a great 'add on' to the existing electrical grid.  Solid blocks could capture energy from remote wind/solar farms without the cost of connecting to lines. 
  
And yes the combustion engine will be around for a long time.  Agreed. But will it be the 'growth platform' for the autoindustry?  Probably not. LPs and CDs are still around the music industry, but they are not the growth platform.  Growth is the key.  And electric motors are too appealing from a manufacturing/design standpoint.  

I cannot see any player in the auto industry being able to compete after the all electric vehicle platform matures.   The money is not in making cars - but selling telematic services- and aftermarket customization.  

Alright - good comments, good stuff. 
And thanks for the Bussard link-- I'm reading up now!   
Thanks-- Garry</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mobius -<br />
Yes, I&#8217;m certain there are great innovations ahead not listed in my piece.  I think our timelines might be different - I am looking 5-10 years out.  I wasn&#8217;t aiming for a tech revolution- just an evolution of electricity.  </p>
<p>And yes, electrolysis is a cleaner method if the inputs are clean - so I am with you! </p>
<p>Disagree on your skepticism of H2 storage/transportation. And I&#8217;m sure with your energy knowledge you know the truth with the Hindenberg.  All the gas left within seconds and the fire was from the coating on the material.  It wasn&#8217;t a H2 gas explosion.  H2 is a light gas that is not explosive unless contained. Gasoline is more dangerous as a liquid than H2 as a gas.  Even so- my strategy is H2 as a solid.  </p>
<p>H2 stored as a solid is actually very realistic.  Look at metal hydrides in short term with physical adsorption in MOF-like materials for long term. (A liquid solution could emerge&#8230;but I think solid state is most compatible with local production- and will be less energy intensive.) </p>
<p>I disagree that it is &#8216;a dream&#8217;- and of the H2 &#8216;transport&#8217; problem.  I&#8217;ve heard the argument before and think it falls short. It was a relevant argumentin 1999 but won&#8217;t stand up against technologies of 2009. The arguments are dated and do not speak of major advances in materials science over the past few years.  </p>
<p>We are doing quite well in understanding solid state storage systems.  But if you have research evidence that suggests otherwise please let me know! </p>
<p>Solid blocks can be transported on trains, boat or vehicles. And they make a great &#8216;add on&#8217; to the existing electrical grid.  Solid blocks could capture energy from remote wind/solar farms without the cost of connecting to lines. </p>
<p>And yes the combustion engine will be around for a long time.  Agreed. But will it be the &#8216;growth platform&#8217; for the autoindustry?  Probably not. LPs and CDs are still around the music industry, but they are not the growth platform.  Growth is the key.  And electric motors are too appealing from a manufacturing/design standpoint.  </p>
<p>I cannot see any player in the auto industry being able to compete after the all electric vehicle platform matures.   The money is not in making cars - but selling telematic services- and aftermarket customization.  </p>
<p>Alright - good comments, good stuff.<br />
And thanks for the Bussard link&#8211; I&#8217;m reading up now!<br />
Thanks&#8211; Garry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
