Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Hydrogen Economy

By Jeremy Rifkin
January 3, 2006   |   54 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"The hydrogen economy will make possible a vast redistribution of power, with far-reaching consequences for society. Today's centralized, top-down flow of energy, controlled by global oil companies and utilities, could become obsolete."

-- Jeremy Rifkin, Foundation on Economic Trends president

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

54 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 54
January 3, 2006
Jeremy, I love your vision, but I have a question about using fuel cell cars to eliminate central station generators: where will the electricity come from to produce the hydrogen to fuel the fuel cell car? Solar PV can't possibly produce enough electricity on rooftops to produce electricity for the home and hydrogen for the car AND produce enough hydrogen to eliminate central station electricity generation. The numbers don't add up. With a 5-8 kW solar PV system on the average home, enough electricity could be produce for that home's electricity and hydrogen needs, but our societies use a lot more energy than just this component: manufacturing, commerce, goverhnment, academia, air flight, etc. To truly wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we're going to have to rely at least in part on central station-scale renewable facilities like concentrating solar power and major wind farms.
Comment
2 of 54
January 4, 2006
First of all, Hydrogen is just a storage medium. What makes it better than batteries? (Why wouldn't we use more efficient, more powerful electric cars vice hydrogen powered cars?) Second of all, renewable energy sources don't come even close to providing enough energy for our country now. What makes you so sure they will be able to in the near future?
Comment
3 of 54
January 4, 2006
I don't understand how one can equate conservation with communism. Since we always seem to need a boogey man to be afraid of, next the next thing will probably be to equate conservation with terrorism. To quote Ronald Reagean in this context is absurd--he has been quoted as saying that trees cause pollution! Conservation has to do with increasing efficiency--that is getting more bang for the buck. That would seem to me to increase our standard of living not decrease it as might be implied from the most negative view of conservation, which would be doing without.
Comment
4 of 54
January 4, 2006
There are totally off the grid houses now, one was featured on a local news channel -- and there are enormous renewable resources already available -- read the Frame Document that was released by the Offshore Wind Collaborative Organizing Group for just one. A combination of renewable methods will cooperatively move us to the next energy regime -- the move has begun, I see a fair number of houses with solar cells, more every year, and we are preparing to install a number of technologies to make our own house, and our tenant properties, grid independent.

Using Methane Hydrate as a transition fuel, I don't see how humanity can fail. I am simply not impressed by the pessimists, I think most of their pessimism comes from a belief that mankind is evil and should be punished. I happen to think mankind is good and should go forward -- always.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
Schenectady, NY
radagast_23@yahoo.com
http://www.rebuff.org
Comment
5 of 54
January 4, 2006
There was an article in Science a few years ago claiming that hydrogen leakage could harm the ozone layer. Do we really want to risk repeating the mistake we made with CTC's? The difficulties switching from CFC's were trivial compared to what would happen if we needed to ban fuel use.
Comment
6 of 54
January 4, 2006
One more thing, Capitalists believe in efficiency, Communists believe in inflicting conservation on others. I've heard enough about enforcing some sort of conservation regime promoted by self-anointed energy tsars. I leave you with a quote from Reagan's inaugural:
The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.
And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.
Comment
7 of 54
January 4, 2006
The comments on this forum provide evidence that we need less heat and more light, less arrogance and more knowledge. In contrast to the misleading false analogy with nuclear fusion, hydrogen is here now and growing into a complementary role with electricity as an energy carrier in a decentralized, non-polluting system. Saying this is not prophesy, whatever that is supposed to mean in this context; rather, it is scientific forecasting based on a large number of relevant factors whose pattern makes a certain outcome more likely than others.
Comment
8 of 54
January 4, 2006
As a native of MN, I've known the anxiety of starting a car on a -20F morning with fingers crossed that the car starts on 1st or 2nd try. Make the entire commute using any battery is unrealistic! We need to use economies of scale and "realistic" available technologies and throw everything we've got into Methanol! Agreed, making hydrogen via electrolysis will require substantial amounts of demineralized water and electricity. We have cost-effective water delivery and filtration. I guarantee the electricity will be there as demand climbs. New IC methanol engines, high-efficiency electrolysis, 2 for 1 CO production and a national mobilization should produce a very comfortable methanol transformation at gasoline equivilant prices:
www.2020institute.org.
Comment
9 of 54
January 4, 2006
regardless of the form of energy storage or alternative forms of production, energy conservation will be a large part of the equation.
Comment
10 of 54
January 4, 2006
Based on a "water-cycle" the hydrogen economy is not ten years away - it's here now. In Iceland the conversion has begun, the Germans and Japanese (China as well) have operational fuel cell cars. The primary energy for electrolysis will come from Solar, Wind and Tidal power converters. The notion that this is somehow "inefficient" ignors the enormous amounts of solar energy, heat, pressure and millions of years of "cooking" required to produce fossil fuels. The rest of the world faces higher energy costs, and therefore is leading the US in these applications. One question for the Hydrogen economy is "will the US buy the technology from foreign sources? Or, sell it to them?
Comment
11 of 54
January 4, 2006
Edward Hobart - now you know why I received a nasty emails after the article writen by IndustrialInfo.com wherein they quoted me as referring to hydrogen fuel cells as the "free beer tomorrow" technology.
Comment
12 of 54
January 4, 2006
Same Old, Same Old. We need more engineers not prophets. Hydrogen like nuclear fussion will always be 10 years away. Let the market place make the decisions not prophets and politicians
Comment
13 of 54
January 4, 2006
Mr. Rifkin's remarks are not so far off if we find a way to use wind to produce electric power for the grid and hydrogen, and if we have a practical way to back up the wind when the wind isn't blowing. This is where biomass can come into play. Biomass can store energy for long periods by just lying around, and best of all it is dispatchable.

For the answer to this debate see http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9907/21/wind.biomass.enn/
Comment
14 of 54
January 4, 2006
My comments above are supposed to include http://dematerialism.net/rifkin.htm, a file produced for this forum and for this forum alone.

So far, the response has been disappointing. No one who has responded since has read my remarks. The response varies from the person who wrote "I think the optimists and great spirits will prevail, as usual" to people who think the energy problem will be solved but not by hydrogen.

These people may believe in Peak Oil, but they don't believe in Maximum Renewables. They have some serious waking up to do. Perhaps, they had better read http://dematerialism.net/rifkin.htm or "The Demise of Business as Usual". Write twayburn@wt.net.
Comment
15 of 54
January 4, 2006
I wonder if hydrogen's place as a benign and useful energy-carrier is primarily in manufacturing and distribution of goods, in an infrastructure re-designed for mass-transportation for the long-distance exchange of essential goods and services, and an agriculture re-designed for sustainable, self-sufficient, low-energy, local production and local distribution of food. Perhaps hydrogen technology will advance to the point where we can affordably produce it from renewables and distribute it in this lower energy-demand redesign of our economy. I'm all for cars to facilitate our liberty and fun, but having lived in Europe I know there are more energy-efficient ways to get around which can grant us more liberty and happiness to boot. With efficient mass transit and cooperative use of fewer, more efficient cars, could renewable energy in hydrogen run the transportation show, affordable to us and Nature? And, hey, bicycles and horses and buggies and walking are lot of fun.
Comment
16 of 54
January 4, 2006
Jemery, I am having trouble with the conversion cycle from water to hydrogen to water. It appears to only be about 30% to 40% efficient. For city size power storage, other options might be more efficient, such as pumping water up a hill when the renewables are producing excess power and then using the water to generate electricity during the off-production times.
A 24x32 roof, has about 440 sq ft, easily enough for a PV system to meet its electrical demand. A PV/T system would meet both the electrical and thermal (hot water and space heating) needs. If designed as one plane, that 24x32 roof would have over 760 sq ft and also meet the transportation needs of the average household.
Comment
17 of 54
January 4, 2006
Might be worth reading the Industrial Information Resources (IRR) article re waste heat recovery vs fuel cells, LNG, coal gasification, etc. see below.
http://www.industrialinfo.com/showNews.jsp?newsitemID=74483
Comment
18 of 54
January 4, 2006
Dimitar, I think there will be real opportunities to omit hydrogen from the loop using or mimicing, for example, photosynthetic processes. But there is already a massive infrastructure in place for all aspects of gas generation, transport, and use, so unless batteries evolve along an astounding growth path like, say, microprocessors - which seems extraordinarily unlikely, then welcome hydrogen economy. - Craig
Comment
19 of 54
January 4, 2006
Mr.Rivkin who is proposing a hydrogen economy and those who propose alternative fuels, electric, ethanol and biodiesel are concentrating on only one issue, transportation fuels. None delineate the possible consequences of their proposals on the total US demand for petroleum products. Today gasoline constitutes approximately 46-48% of a refinery's production and other vital products constitute 52-54%. In practice, replacement of gasoline/diesel with alternate sources could reduce crude runs at refineries and crude imports but it would increase the need to import finished products LPG, jet fuel, kerosene, heating oil, lubricating oils, military specification fuels and lubricants, industrial oils, process oils, petrochemical feed stocks for the plastic, rubber, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and a myriad of other industries to cover the shortfalls. The law of unintended consequences at work.
Comment
20 of 54
January 4, 2006
Whether or not your electricity comes from renewables, it will always be a losing proposition -- monetarily, environmentally, and from the standpoint of simple energy efficiency -- not simply to use that electricity directly. Rifkin needs to get advice from real scientists. Real scientists, and responsible politicians, car companies and energy companies, are not anticipating or promoting a "hydrogen economy."
Comment
21 of 54
The world is not waiting for a hydrogen economy. The only advantage of hydrogen is that hydrogen cars do not smell. By the way, electric cars do not smell either.

The world is waiting for a solar economy. And we will see whether the concentrating solar power plants on all deserts of the world will produce hydrogen next to electricity and desalinated seawater or not. First comes renewable energy, hydrogen comes later.... or not.
Comment
22 of 54
January 4, 2006
Craig, it is not about pessimism or low spirit. It's about not answering fundamental questions about Hydrogen Economy.
Where all the energy that will be STORED in hydrogen will come from? Do not answer "renewables" because there is big lack of political will to make them substantial energy source.
How much will cost and what will be the needed to build the infrastructure that will support the Hydrogen economy?
Why not make pure EVs or Hybrids on biofuels instead?
Comment
23 of 54
January 4, 2006
Idealisticaly a very appealing approach but as discussed in the various comments, not a very practical approach, at least for the foreseeable future.

There has been much discussion regarding the efficiencies (or the lack thereof) in the various energy conversions needed to obtain hydrogen. In addition there are other major concerns such as storage, distribution, portability, the current inability of fuel cells to "black start", their need to load follow or incorporate expensive high maintenance rectifier systems, etc., etc..

I agree with the need to develope revewables but that is way out in the future but we also need to start now. In the interim we need to develop our vast resources of coal, shale, tar sands, etc.. to hold us over while we "learn".

Bottom line we need a national energy policy that really does something and some focused long term objectives not managed by policiticians
Comment
24 of 54
January 4, 2006
Reading the above article and comments, two famous quotes come to mind:

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty - Winston Churchill

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein

I think the optimists and great spirits will prevail, as usual.
Comment
25 of 54
January 4, 2006
Mr. Rifkin just doesn't get it. Storing energy in the form of Hydrogen is not efficient. The only sensible route is to store electrical energy (sourced from PVs/solar/wind/wave/tide systems) in a battery. The tragedy is that battery technology has improved so little in the last hundred years that we have suffered the infernal internal comustion engine Had batteries been just three times more efficient, then the horrible ICE would have died a natural death in 1900. If battery techology can be improved just five-fold, then hydrogen will be far less important in the future. Indeed if electrical energy storage technology makes serious efficiency strides in the next few years, the whole hydrogen-based economy to which Mr. Rifkin refers may be leap-frogged and may never need to exist.
- Robin Blackburne, Bermuda
Comment
26 of 54
January 4, 2006
While the promise of Hydrogen is exciting, it is still far far away from reality.In this century the probable solution is a mix of renewable energy sources.For transportation, biofuels in the form of ethanol and methyl esters shows most promise in the short term.We have to bear in mind that emmissions have to be cleaned up and Fast!While biofuels do have emmission they are much less than normal petroleum fuel.
The problem of creating enough biofuels is to be addressed.The research with regard to producing oils from algae is much more advanced than hydrogen research and shows promise of enabling us to convert sunlight to hydrocarbons and oils in sufficient quantities.
To conclude, hydrogen research should be encouraged, but for immediate (next 100 years) we should concentrate on biofuels and other renewable sources like wind,solar,tidal etc which are much more feasible commercially than hydrogen.
Comment
27 of 54
January 4, 2006
I hasten to add that nothing should be done to discourage the conversion to renewable energy. Renewable energy will be needed in any future energy scenario that is to avoid a catastrophic Die-Off. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that the people of the United States can summon the political will to avoid a Soviet-Style Collapse. This will result in a much more dismal future than anything the world has seen previously with very little chance of recovery.
Comment
28 of 54
January 4, 2006
Unfortunately, Leith Elder is right. Only this morning I cobbled together a reasonable explanation which I posted at http://dematerialism.net/rifkin.htm. "The Demise of Business as Usual", a short summary of "On the Conservation-within-Capitalism Scenario", is available at From The Wilderness. For a free copy, write me at twayburn@wt.net.
Comment
29 of 54
January 4, 2006
The peak in production of easily recoverable oil is about NOW. Energy demand will grow. Road transport worldwide depends on oil at 98%. Biofuels never will be able to cover more than 15-20% of this vehicle fuel demand. By 2010 half of the biomass potentials will be used for stationary applications. Hydrogen allows long range vehicles (other than battery vehicles) and provides the maximum fuel flexibility and everybody's participation in the game - due to not being a primary energy. It will be based on renewable energies (wind, biomass, geothermal, solar-thermal and then PV) and on natural gas as long as we have it still. Not on nuclear - too expensive and not acceptable to grown up societies. Coal only if carbon sequestration really will be feasible (safe large-scale depositing). Increasing energy efficiency is the first priority. The US should half their per capita energy consumption on average European level first. The hydrogen is the most promising automobile fuel.
Comment
30 of 54
January 4, 2006
"A renewable energy society is impossible unless the energy can be stored in the form of hydrogen"? :-)
Comment
31 of 54
January 4, 2006
Jeremy, still the same crap. Please provide answers to the following:1. Where does the energy come from to make hydrogen?
2. Where does the water come from (9 kg water for 1kg hydrogen, replacing 1 gal. of gasoline)? The future will be based on electricity from renewable sources and highest source-to-service efficiency. In your hydrogen economy only 25% of the original green power become available from fuel cells. Electric grids supply up to 90%. The energy problem is not solved by a wasteful hydrogen economy. Please observe the fundamental laws of physics and stop spreading fairy tales. May I suggest you read our analysis "The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak?" to be found on www.efcf.com/reports? Let us stop the hydrogen illusion now and concentrate on the establishment of a sustainable energy future. Your writing skills could be very useful for this task.
Comment
32 of 54
January 4, 2006
biofuels .... maybe you are right Ron .... but I don't know what we will eat when the worlds fields are all producing biofuel feedstock, from depleted soils that already require massive doses of fertilizer dependant upon fossil fuels for their production .....

.... maybe it will never get to that anyway .... the resource wars and rising sea levels will probably get us first .....

.... Paradox
Comment
33 of 54
January 4, 2006
I vote for cold fusion
Comment
34 of 54
January 4, 2006
I can't believe we are still entertaining the hydrogen fantasies.

Sunlight is not a solid, liquid or gas. You can't touch it or put it in a bottle. Hydroelectric, windpower and photovoltaics take advantage of the non-tangible <B>field</B> characteristic of the hydrological cycle, wind flow and sunlight. In the bargain, these technologies produce energy with a conveniently compatible field quality, namely, electricity.

Electric batteries already exist with 2 minute charges and 1,000's of cycles.

Sunlight constrained into bottles will be necessary for tractors, ships and airplanes but likely will come from biofuels, not hydrogen.

Let's move on!
Comment
35 of 54
January 4, 2006
Lieth, Lee ... either demonstrate some depth .... or keep your abuse to yourself ....

"Hydrogen is just another storage medium among many" only applies if a fossil fuel is use to produce the hydrogen.

If renewable energy is used to produce hydrogen, then it is possibly the only fuel usable for transport and mobile applications that can be scaled up to replaced the natural gas and 84 million barrels of oil per day the planet currently consumes.

.... and an added bonus .... it is environmentally friendly (when produced by a renewable energy source)

..... Paradox
Comment
36 of 54
January 4, 2006
Which is more efficient to transform energy from electricity to hydrogen and later from hydrogen to electricity OR to store electricity in battery and extract it from there later? Keeping in mind that you do not have to build hydrogen infrastructure.
Because we are going to see a massive improvement in the quality of the batteries in the next 5-10 years. Which I think will destroy the Hydrogen Myth.
Comment
37 of 54
January 4, 2006
Leith and Lee, don't dismiss Rifkin's vision on hydrogen so quickly. If only 5% hydrogen was to be fed into a gasoline or diesil or any hydrocarbon engine, virtually all the common pollutants produced by burning hydrocarbons or turpentine or fry oil, would be eliminated, because hydrogen burns 40 times faster than gasoline. It therefore produces a hotter combustion that burns completely. CO and CO2 are eliminated, although if sulpher is in the fuel used it still would cause some pollution. This would get around the problem of trying to carry as much hydrogen as a 100% hydrogen burning engine would require in a car, to get equal distance to a tank of gasoline. With only 5% hydrogen in the mix the timing can be set at top dead center, thereby eliminating the backpressure required to burn gasoline, and at the same time extending the life of all engines indefinitely. Miles Adam
Comment
38 of 54
January 4, 2006
I agree with Leith
Comment
39 of 54
January 5, 2006
I have to agree with Craig. Out of all of the mass of alternative energy sources, Biomass biofuel, hydrogen assisted ICE, hydrogen ICE and fuel cells, high efficiency lithium Ion batteries and the like, the future will evolve by itself. Cost will mandate the evolution. However the main problems facing us are the problem of oxygen depletion of the atmosphere. Petroleum ICE's have given us an excess of CO2, massive hydrogen usage depletes oxygen. Unless the source of the hydrogen generator releases oxygen into the atmosphere for the recombination back into h20 we will have a bigger problem than we do now. Therefore the source of H2 needs to be green (no atmospheric emissions, oxygen releasing) rather than black (atmospheric polluting, oxygen capturing).
Comment
40 of 54
January 5, 2006
My educated guess is that we'll soon see some of everything the commenters have proposed along with things none of us can possibly imagine yet, far beyond "mere" breakthroughs in nuclear or "cold" fusion, superconductivity, super batteries, biotech, etc. My greatest frustration is that oil and nuclear industries, and their sister industries like the auto industry, have extraordinary influence in where the major R&D investments get made. So it's left to smaller investors, inventors, visionaries, and even politicians, to keep pushing forward along ALL these renewable, decentralized, non-polluting, and more efficient energy fronts.
Comment
41 of 54
January 5, 2006
Wow, Rifkin relly got thrown to the dogs on this one. If all the above arguments hold some validity: if we can't grow enough fuel to drive our fleets (as we use them now), can't produce enough hydrogen through renewables to replace current usage patterns, don't have the battery technology to make everything electric, only have so much time before our majority of energy sources run out, and government in general moves too slow to meet the challenges facing us in this century... what population (and what level of sophistication and culture) can we support when renewables are widespread? (sorry they can't be maximized because for now their production and distrubution still rely on cheap oil)
Comment
42 of 54
January 5, 2006
could somebody please post some links on the breakthrough battery technologies referred to above ( .... "Electric batteries already exist with 2 minute charges and 1,000's of cycles. ....")
Comment
43 of 54
January 5, 2006
The bad thing about Hidrogen Economy is that it shifts attention from the major problem - lack of investments in conservation and renewables. I am not against fuel cells but everybody talk about them like some magical solution to the Global Warming, energy dependance ect. But they are not. Unless governments make huge (I mean really huge) investments in conservation and renewables hydrogen economy is a fable.
That's why I think pepole are not happy with it. I will be happy if governments invest fifty or more times more in reneweable research (not "clean" coal or nuclear power) than in fuel cells research.
Comment
44 of 54
January 6, 2006
I must say that I enjoyed reading the comments more than the actual article.

I think hydrogen will play a significant part in our future energy economy but should not be a limiting factor in discussing energy storage.

What is important is that we maintain emphasis on the development of energy extraction and storage. Renewables and newer technologies require serious attention from private industry and from our leaders who are in charge of spending our tax dollars.

Future politicians should change present laws to aid in the transition away from oil. The feeble attempts in the last energy bill do not do our great country justice. Shame on our leaders.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
45 of 54
January 6, 2006
The issue as I see it is the need to displace carbon based fuels from our economy now.

In the above discussion I see a number of proposed perfect solutions. The only problem that I see with them is either the technology will not be in producton for 10 or 20 years or more, or the cost of the energy produced is far more than the cost of energy from carbon based fuels.

Carbon based fuels will not be displaced from our economy by energy sources that cost far more than carbon based fuels.

Congratulations to Robert Bernal for pointing out that wind power is competitive in cost with carbon based fuels and is sufficiently abundant to provide all of the people on our planet with energy at a price they can afford.

Thank you,
Charles Butterfield
Comment
46 of 54
January 6, 2006
Strong evidence of climate changes due to human activities is summarized in a National Academies of Sciences report linked (at the bottom of the brief news release) here:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20051230.html
Comment
47 of 54
January 6, 2006
Lee Ellard wrote, "By the way, does anyone have any of those quotes handy about the 'impossibilities' that would be encountered in pursuing certain endeavors such as flight, automobiles, computers, etc.? Some of them are quite hilarious in retrospect, and we wonder how could those prognosticators have been such idiots!"

I wonder how many of those 'idiotic' prognosticators backed up their predictions with easily verified arithmetical computation such as http://dematerialism.net/CwC.html summarized in dematerialism.net/demise.htm and, for this forum, in http://dematerialism.net/rifkin.htm. Go ahead, Lee, do the math. This time the predictions are for real; and, yes, if we don't abandon American-style capitalism quickly, we may indeed be "living in caves".

Tom Wayburn, Houston
twayburn@wt.net
Comment
48 of 54
January 6, 2006
What an unwarranted bashing and name-calling fest by a few of you. Calling someone an idiot because they a general vision of what might possibly be an alternative for the future?! Shame on you! Thank God there are only a few of you, and you have no power ( I know this, because with your narrow, negative attitudes, you could not possibly achieved any real power in the real world). If mankind were dominated by your type of thinking, we would still be living in caves!

By the way, does anyone have any of those quotes handy about the "impossibilities" that would be encountered in pursuing certain endeavors such as flight, automobiles, computers, etc.? Some of them are quite hilarious in retrospect, and we wonder how could those prognosticators have been such idiots!
Comment
49 of 54
January 6, 2006
One thing the author said that is true: Fossils will eventually cost more than renewables.
So I would go with wind (at first).
5 million times 5 MW (class turbines on about 1% of the continental shelf) times 25% capacity times 8,765 (hours in year) = 54,781,250,000 MWH divided by 10.5 (average per person usage) = enough to supply 5.2 billion people at a cost of not much more than new conventional power plants now (plus the costs of the battery or hydrogen infrastructure)
It's gonna cost us - one way or another.
Comment
50 of 54
January 7, 2006
will this solve the hydrogen fuel storage problem as claimed ? .....

Danish Researchers Reveal New Hydrogen Storage Technology:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm

.... Paradox
Comment
51 of 54
January 7, 2006
.... "By the way, does anyone have any of those quotes handy about the 'impossibilities' that would be encountered in pursuing certain endeavors such as flight, automobiles, computers, etc.? Some of them are quite hilarious in retrospect, and we wonder how could those prognosticators have been such idiots!" .....

.... reading the links below, it's a miracle civilization has moved forward in spite of itself.

38 instances of scientists ridiculed and ostracized for major discoveries, often to the point of career destruction, destitution, mental health loss, and not acknowledged until long after they are dead ....
http://www.amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j1


Bell & Wright Bros.:
http://www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm

Philosophical quotes:
http://www.mike-austin.com/home/quotes.shtml

after-all .... we are all on the same side .....

.... Paradox
Comment
52 of 54
April 6, 2006
I want Para Dox to understand why a technological solution to our energy problem is much less likely than a technological solution to the problem of heavier-than-air flight at the time of the Wright Brothers, for example. All of the technological advances of which he speaks increased the degradation of energy and, in fact, depended upon large, readily-available supplies of high-grade primary energy to succeed. But, the lack of the means to solve all those problems is precisely the problem this time. Technological progress has collided with the laws of thermodynamics, which, as Einstein said, is the least likely scientific theory to ever be overthrown. Technology can't trump science.
Comment
53 of 54
July 22, 2008
Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?
Comment
54 of 54
July 23, 2008
hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Richardson RFPD, Inc. Midwest Renewable Energy Association Apricus, Inc. SunMaxx Solar Canadian Solar Inc. SolarNexus Conergy Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters