Except as a solution to an energy shortage.

Jeremy Rifkin's 'Hydrogen Economy' is a wonderful vision. Renewable energy production via wind/solar powered electrolysis of H2O into hydrogen gas for fuel cell power. Distributed into a local grid complemented with hydrogen storage and and limited regional electric and H2 distribution. Hydrogen demand jump-started with natural gas fueled H2 reformers. etc. etc. until transport fleet and delivery system in place.

The problem with the above is peak oil is a liquid fuel transport problem and PEM fuels cells won't drive or fly. Too expensive, underpowered, and the hydrogen doesn't want to store.

People just don't understand EROEI.

http://www.eroei.com/

Don't be condescending please. Some of us are fully aware of the principles of EROEI.

I'm not touting Hydrogen or anything else as a viable option. I'm just not prepared to completely reject ideas of alternative forms of energy just because they are expensive, difficult, non-renewable or take more energy in another form to create.

Now, that should be a member quote.

If ushoys took out the "non_renewable" bit, I would tend to agree with him. For example, any energy derived from solar (or other sustainable sources) will have less than 100% efficiency. But the EROEI is irrelevant in this context (except for creating/maintaining the equipment itself) as the energy invested is from the sun.

A solar-water-heater scheme here in NZ has not been successful in spite of government subsidy.

But, in keeping with the theme of the thread, a combined solar wind hydrogen rural project is a world's first and is predicted to be nation-wide within five years.

Then with all due respect, if you understand the principles of EROEI, then you wouldn't make such quotable comments. You can't have it both ways.

You cannot produce Energy at a net loss and expect to be better off for it. You might as well use the energy you had in the first place as your source of energy and forget about what you are trying to produce with it.

If reports are correct as well, that oil is at a collective average EROEI rate of 3:1 then I think you may find very soon, that you will very easily reject those net energy loss ideas.

"You cannot produce Energy at a net loss and expect to be better off for it. You might as well use the energy you had in the first place as your source of energy"

Like using Uranium to fuel my car directly?

As a form of population control?

You weren't kidding when you said you'd be prepared to listen to any idea.

Imagine how long the World's Uranium stocks would last if every car used it to propel itself. You'd have Peak Uranium, Cliff and exhaustion within hours.

I wasn't serious, just responding to the previous post suggesting it was pointless to convert one form of energy to another at a loss and better to just stick with the original form of energy.

Clearly different forms of energy are suitable for different applications. For example, wind, wave, coal, nukes, solar are impractical to consider for powering personal vehicles but they are suited for electrical generation which can then be converted to other more suitable forms of energy for transportation. And all these processes are net loss.

Here is an update on this story which I just happen to see this morning on a NZ news web site called Stuff. I must emphasize that I am sceptical too like the lecturer mentioned in the article but I can't help admiring his persistence.



Stuff

It's hard to tell the difference sometimes. Although Cornucopia admittedly seems to have a withering population these days.

The transportation fuel of the future is hay.