Re: (ET) New Book Includes Pictures of My Elec-Trak

[Darryl McMahon <darryl econogics com>]

tbamc wrote:
> Darryl,
>
> I do look forward to reading your book.  Thanks for mentioning it on 
> this forum.
>
> It's all well and good for the nay-sayers to say hydrogen is a stupid 
> choice, etc., etc. but until I see the errors in Lovins' book 
> documented, I have no more reason to believe he's wrong than to believe  
> the 'never' hydrogen people are right.   Quite the contrary, given the 
> RMI's history, I would tend to believe him, over Joe Schmoe.

Understandable.  I have a lot of respect for Lovins and RMI.  It's one
of the reasons I don't get their stance on hydrogen.

> <I have given up on chasing Amory Lovins regarding hydrogen since the 
> Hypercar was corrupted to the hydrogen hype, and the debate over the 
> Twenty Hydrogen Myths paper. >
>
> I know nothing about these issues.   Do you have some references/links?

They are on my Web page at http://www.econogics.com/en/heconomy.htm.

The original Twenty Hydrogen Myths paper.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf

One response to it.
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=581

I saw one better, but can't find it on the Web anymore (or in my paper
files).

> < I suspect, as with so many other things regarding hydrogen lately, 
> with the right assumptions, you can reach the desired conclusion. >
>
> Agreed.  We're ALL just guessing about the future.  So the question 
> remains, why are his assumptions wrong and yours (and others) not so 
> wrong??   :-)

I have not read the book, _Winning the Oil Endgame_.  At 322 pages and
my schedule, that will take some time.

I have read the Executive Summary this evening.

It reads a bit like an expanded version of his later Hypercar writings.
 I agree with most of the Executive Summary.  I get stuck at these points:
"the leftover saved natural gas could be used even more profitably and
effectively by converting it to hydrogen"
and
"the optional but advantageous transition to a hydrogen economy and the
complete and permanent displacement of oil as a direct fuel"

Like the revisionist hypercar, virtually all the benefits of the overall
plan have nothing to do with the use of hydrogen.

By 2025, what leftover saved natural gas will there be in North America.
 Based on current trends, unless we start importing on a massive scale,
we have about nine years worth left.  That's 2015, not 2025, and not any
 left.

Why would we expect to displace oil as a direct fuel?  Hydrogen will be
more expensive and more difficult to handle.  Even Lovins refers to this
as optional.  There are better options, although they may not be as
homogeneous, unless we move to electric vehicles with advanced
electrical storage technology.  Personally, I think we may embrace
plug-in hybrids with biofuels as an interim measure for an extended
period of time.

Darryl

> Thanks again.
>
> Thon
>
> (And Chris, I know, I know.)  :-)

--
Darryl McMahon                  http://www.econogics.com
It's your planet.  If you won't look after it, who will?