This is highly probable: Hydrogen will not be an alternative fuel

 Here's why--- 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awN2w3sGj1w 

Sabine Hossenfelder, a German physicist, explains precisely why Hydrogen most likely will not be used as an alternative source of energy.  Because of her persuasive argument, I fully agree.  The video is only about seven minutes long, and is very convincing.

.....................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Mother of All Feedback Loops re Human Society

A short while ago, I posted the following as a small part of a new book description---

"the complex feedback loop involving constant economic growth, which requires more energy, which then creates more complexity in society, which then requires more energy, which then creates even more complexity, etc. is ruining our habitat;".

This essay is an expanded view of that concept.

In our past (and ongoing) pursuit of infinite economic growth, we've created a System, a "Superorganism" according to the ecologist, Nate Hagens.  This System is so large, so filled with complexity, and so out-of-control that a) it can't be fully described, and b) it can't be reined-in, and c) it's ruining the ecosphere.  It's the ultimate Rat-Race.  It's a primary cause of our ecological overshoot.  It's a runaway machine with no one at the helm.  It's literally killing us, not only with pollutants, but also with food insecurity, the stress of job insecurity, inadequate health care facilities, wars, inequality and inequity, declining democracy, and the like.  About twenty percent (maybe less) of Earth's human population are managing to stay afloat in the ongoing energy binge; the rest of us are in a slow descent to subsistence living.

[The twenty-six richest people on Earth own as much wealth as HALF the entire world's population combined.  In a civil society, that's an obscenity.  It's most likely also why the Rich and Powerful (perhaps with a few exceptions) want the runaway System to continue.  They appear to not be long-term, comprehensive, holistic thinkers.]

The ever-increasing complexity is causing significant problems in the arenas of:  global supply chains, manufacturing, transportation, consumption, extraction of natural resources, generation and distribution of electricity, health care equity, income inequality, institutional functioning, and more.  As society becomes more complex, the need for more and more energy increases.

Even a High School biology student could tell you with a high degree of certainty that such a scenario is unsustainable on a planet with finite resources.  Unfortunately, it appears most (not all) of the Powers-That-Be are relying on ideology, not science, to navigate through this current Crisis.  They appear to believe the benefits of our 150-year energy binge are the norm, but fail to see the Mother of All Feedback Loops, and the negative externalities of fossil fuel use.  They also don't seem to grasp the looming minerals problem relative to our necessary transition to Green Energy.  Never mind the soil crisis and the impending food supply shortage.

According to the mining engineer and geologist, Simon Michaux, in about only five years there will be serious problems regarding necessary minerals for Green energy.  In about ten years, agriculture also will be having significant problems.  It all revolves around energy.

If we don't voluntarily reduce our energy use, we'll be forced to by lack of cheap, easily available, and abundant fossil fuels AND lack of cheap, easily available and necessary minerals (about 70 of them) for renewables.  Less energy use will lessen eco-overshoot by leaps and bounds.  It also will slow down the Rat-Race by lessening societal complexity.  This all can happen if we phase out of infinite economic GROWTH, and phase into economic development in a steady state economy.  [See https://steadystate.org/ ]

...............

Not only my opinion.  Be Well, and Be Aware

More on: "Choices & Change on the Path to a Sustainable Existence..."

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CSSVWB3N?ref_=pe_93986420_774957520

If you would like a free pdf copy, email me with the title, "Choices & Change".

Below is a list of major topics in the book---

• why we're blind to the Big Picture regarding the "carbon pulse" (fossil energy), and what it will take to transition away from it;
• why the pursuit of infinite economic growth must be abandoned ASAP;
• our blindness regarding mineral requirements for a Green economy;
• while "Going Green" is necessary, unfortunately the present approach by the Powers-That-Be is insufficient;
• why we are not superior to and separate from Nature;
• why our society must convert from high-energy use to low-energy use;
• the complex feedback loop involving constant economic growth, which requires more energy, which then creates more complexity in society, which then requires more energy, which then creates even more complexity, etc. is ruining our habitat;
• ecological overshoot is THE problem, but Powers-That-Be mostly are trying to address only the symptoms of that;
• why there's a soil crisis, and the best choices for resolving it;
• ditto for the fresh water crisis;
• ditto for the food crisis;
• why healthy ecosystems and biodiversity are the bedrock of our existence;
• how factory farming is ruining agriculture, and the best choice forward;
• what many people don't seem to understand about science;
• what is "sustainability", and numerous examples of it;
• the shift in our ethics which is necessary for humans to survive and thrive;
• the propaganda coming from the Corporatocracy;
• why the petrochemical industry must be reined-in;
• why "The Market" can't solve the ill effects of Climate Change; and
• what's needed for a bright future for us and our descendants.

.............................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"Choices & Change on the Path to a Sustainable Existence..."

 My second book is now available at the link below.  Please read the Description, in which I discuss who probably would enjoy the read and who would not.    

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CSSVWB3N?ref_=pe_93986420_774957520

If interested at all in sustainability, you may also want to read a sample of the Introduction.  Click on "Read Sample" in the upper left quadrant of the page.  From time to time, I'll post other excerpts on this venue.  A hardback version will out soon.  I doubt that an eBook will be because (as I learned with the first book) getting it up and out is somewhat of a nightmare for a High Tech Dummy like me - even if I hire someone to do the eBook formatting.  😵

In any case, Thanks to All for your consideration, and 

Happy Trails,

Scott

Approaching the Net Energy Cliff

 https://steadystate.org/approaching-the-energy-cliff/#comments

It's difficult to see how any objective person can deny it, but apparently (from what I've read and watched), many do.  Combine what's at the link above with the narrative at the link below, and any denial becomes nonsensical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0pt3ioQuNc&list=WL&index=70&t=11s

When reality says there's a high probability troubles are coming soon, it's best to plan for them instead of burying our heads in the sand or relying on a vague notion of "human ingenuity" (and the Market) to somehow see us through.

..................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"Unseen Costs of Net Zero", Simon Michaux

To be clear:  YES, we do need to GO GREEN.  The Establishment and much of Main Street, however, apparently are not aware of exactly what it will take to do so.  They also seem to be unaware of the scale needed for such a transformation, and of the entire mining-minerals-metals situation.

The current thinking of most people who support a transition to Green energy appears to be as follows.  Here's what we'll do:

a)  get off petroleum and all its products;

b)  build a large number of Green energy gizmos;

c)  electrify all transport vehicles (personal and commercial);

d)  scale up nuclear energy, if necessary;

e)  recycle and reuse materials;

f)   increase energy efficiency;

g)  use carbon offsets and cap & trade to balance things out; and

h)  with all the above in place, we can continue the pursuit of infinite economic and population growth on our finite planet.

Sounds great, eh?!

But there's a massive problem (which The Establishment doesn't want to acknowledge), and here it is---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGvTbB38bwA&list=WL&index=68

Infinite growth is not necessary for humans to thrive, and for the sake of all life on Earth, it must cease.  Do a Search for "CASSE top 10 policies for a steady state economy".  Read anything by Herman Daly.  Neoliberal/neoclassical economics is not sacrosanct.

.........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"Planet of the Humans" - Overwhelmingly Right on the Mark

Preface
This isn't really a Michael Moore film (link below).  He was only an Executive Producer, not the Director or primary Producer.  This is a Jeff Gibbs documentary; he was co-producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11" & "Bowling for Columbine".  He's a long-standing and legitimate environmentalist.  [Side Note:  my own environmentalism started about 1970.]

Because it's critical of primarily mega-sized Green Energy projects, the political Left already is attacking the film.  "Misleading... dangerous... destructive."  More than Mega Green Energy, though, this documentary is disapproving of the developed world's pursuit of seemingly unlimited growth and ever-expanding consumption.  Those are Sacred Cows, and almost no one is willing to risk challenging them.  Too bad, because they need to be challenged above all else.  The problem is not only fossil fuels.  Pursuing infinite growth (including infinite population growth) and expanding consumption on finite Earth is dooming us to disaster.

In addition to everyday people, Gibbs interviews authors in this field, academics/scholars in sociology, anthropology, engineering, ecology, et. al., as well as experts in industry, social psychology, the Law, and environmental activism (such as Bill McKibben and RFK, Jr.).  On top of that, he includes relevant News and/or Briefing clips of well-known politicians (Bloomberg, Gore, Obama, and others), plus industry spokesmen.

The only error I've found in the film so far is a brief segment that seems to claim sewage sludge is not "biomass".  It is biomass, Mr. Gibbs.  In my view, that's a minor error.  Overall, this is a "turning-point" film that's right on the mark.  I suspect that John Muir (Conservationist and Founder of the Sierra Club), Bucky Fuller (genius inventor and author of "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth"), Roger Revelle (pioneering climate scientist who studied global warming as early as 1957), and Barry Commoner (Biologist/Ecologist and author of "The Closing Circle", 1971, in which he said that the U.S. economy needed to be restructured to be in harmony with Nature) all would agree.  I'm guessing the critics of this film know little to nothing about any of those great men.  Point being:  I suggest everyone should ignore the neophyte environmentalists (& others) who are criticizing this crucial film.

A significant portion of the doc legitimately criticizes the burning of whole trees (after they're shredded/ground into chips) in biomass power plants.  Trees are the last thing we want to use for that purpose.  They convert atmospheric CO2 into O2; burning them creates CO2.  Hello.
...........................
Below is an email (slightly edited) I sent to family & a few friends encouraging them to watch this film.  The title of the email is in quotes.
...........................

"Probably the Most Controversial and Important Film You'll See This Decade"---

Shortly after it starts, if you think you know what it will be about... you don't.  Plus, don't miss the postscripts interspersed among the film credits at the end.  Finally, if the orangutan scenario close to the end doesn't get to you, you're not very human... or humane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

A few things this doc illustrated to me (or reminded me of)---

1.  Paul Ehrlich (author of "The Population Bomb", 1968) was correct; it's only his timeline that was a bit off.

2.  The political Left gets propagandized probably just as much as the political Right... & often buy into it.

3.  Industrial-sized Green energy has monumental problems.

4.  The Powers-That-Be (including those on the Left) are tinkering around the edges of humanity's greatest physical/material problem.

5.  Just as important as (or perhaps more important than) our sources of energy are:  our consumption & lifestyle; and our attitude toward life other than humans, as well as toward Nature in general.  This philosophy in the developed world of ever-expanding consumption and infinite economic growth (along with infinite population growth) needs to be discarded.  Even dolts know that Earth is finite, not infinite.

6.  Many things, if not most, are gray rather than black or white.

..............................

Not only my opinion.

Think out-of-the-box.

Is it Obvious Yet? [re: Offshore Drilling]

Is it obvious yet that offshore oil drilling is a tremendously bad idea? In arguing against that opinion, one could cite the relatively good overall safety record of the offshore drilling industry (as Obama did prior to this accident), but to my mind the current catastrophe eliminates that as a cogent argument. One could cite our need for domestic oil as a necessary evil (so to speak), but that doesn't change my mind either. We could be on a different energy path, or numerous different paths. As the late genius Buckminster Fuller once said (perhaps not an exact quote), "The Sun [solar energy] should be our 'checking account'; oil should be our 'savings account'." in terms of "energy banking".

The current problem well is about 5,000 feet below the water's surface, and look at the difficulties that causes. Now consider this: some of these offshore wells are deeper than that---up to 9,000 feet below the surface. Imagine the trials and tribulations if one of those began discharging oil at the wellhead.

All of this reminds me of a larger issue. In the early '70s (almost forty years ago), this country started to plan seriously for the day when oil would no longer be such an important source of energy. It was the first modern-day Green Movement. Ten years after that, it was all but forgotten. Blame Reagan if you must, but the fact is that most everyone abandoned Green. The corporatists claimed that it was too expensive to switch to solar power, wind power, biomass power, geothermal power, hydropower, hydrogen power, fuel cells, etc. The Media joined in the chorus. Many fragments of Green Energy survive to this day, but there is no longer any comprehensive, dedicated, focused energy policy moving in a completely Green direction.

It takes about twenty-five years for a society to switch from one primary energy source to another. The Executive Branch Department of Energy was created under President Carter for the express purpose of getting this country off foreign oil. [It's fair to say: that was a failure.] Imagine if the Fed Government had continued to offer huge tax credits to corporations who developed affordable Green energy, and if they additionally would have given lucrative government transportation contracts to companies who developed (just as an example) a safe, affordable hydrogen-powered vehicle. Imagine, too, that the Feds offered other incentives as well. The chances are good that we would now be divested of our oil addiction.

None of that happened. I think it's fair to say that the probability is high that Big Oil lobbying played a significant role in our continuing addiction to petroleum. The Republicans and Democrats in office in DC love Oil money... and Banking money, and Defense Industry money, and Big Pharma money, and Airline money, and Big Coal money, and on & on. After all, election campaigns are expensive. :)

We need an energy policy with the stated goal of getting us off oil, and we need to stick to that policy.

[I, having taught Biology, Ecology, and Environmental Science for many years, fully admit to a bias regarding this subject.]