www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_partnership_plan.pdf

This is where we are at with the program.

This is the key thing right here folks.

"The first public hydrogen refueling station was opened in Reykjavík, Iceland in April 2003. This station serves three buses built by DaimlerChrysler that are in service in the public transport net of Reykjavík. The station produces the hydrogen it needs by itself, with an electrolyzing unit (produced by Norsk Hydro), and does not need refilling: all that enters is electricity and water."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_station
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Meaning that the fuel can be produced right at the location of the "gassing up" location and then distributed to the vehicle in the form of compressed gas. These vehicles are busses right now, and on the streets of Reykjavík. See you don't just have to have the vehicle that can be powered by the alternate energy source, you also have to have the places throughout the network where it can be refueled. Otherwise no consumer is going to buy the product no matter what the advantages or cost savings are.

I'm not saying the United States isn't doing anything, I'm saying that we as a country with the largest demand for oil, aren't doing enough. Right now the entire DOE budget for this is less then 1 billion, yet we spend a lot more of our GDP maintaining a strategic oil reserve as well as looking for solutions for acquiring more and more oil and oil infrastructure. Fuel cell power plants as well as fuel cell powered vehicles could within 25 years be a majority rather then a decrepit minority. It will sooner happen in Europe then the United States given our nation's lust for oil and open roads.

Dan - You are new to the blog so I will give you one chance : Do NOT post blocks of text longer than the original article. Got something to say? Make a summary statement and then link to either your own blog post response or to whatever source you are citing.

 

 

Morningkill-

The population problem is a real one. But you know, when I read about Atzlan, and lots of rightwing blogs and sites on this subject, it seems no one is really safe from this kind of problem..

 

You are correct for the most part but there are nations that have disallowed rampant immigration or even more sanely have simply eliminated the vast social programs that allow immigrants to not integrate by speaking the language and holding actual jobs in their new nation. France (and Europe) burgeoning problem is directly related to their bloated social policies. Failure to integrate along with far too generous social services have led them there.

The Mother board inside the box, I mean the actual printed circuit board, more then likely produced in China as well. Nearly anything that is produced in the millions is done in China, especially if its production is going to be a durable good, one that is produced for a year or two and in high quantity. If not the PCB's, the component parts, except for maybe a single digit quantity were made there also. If your circuit board was wave soldered in the USA then it's a high end rig. Usually some work especially developement or prototype work is done here. If not high end, even a mainstream PC 500-$1000, was likely soldered outside the US, literally hundreds of solder connections. That would be a service item rather then a good done in China

Sorry but you're wrong on this. Dell only uses USA motherboards. I worked as an IT specialist for quite some time and "all" the company computers (150-200 units) were Dells. And every motherboard in them was made in the USA as are all their memory chips. They found to high a failure rate in boards made overseas.

The harddrive, made in China,

You're wrong on this too. Most H/D's are made either in the Philippines,Malasya or Hungary. There are a few made in Singapore but again they have a higher failure rate than the others.

Same with the CPU's "all" CPU's (Intel and AMD) are made here in the US. Not China.

Hydrogen fuel cells...Check with NASA.

The two basic problems with the new fuel cells are their cost and availability. Currently, a fuel-cell-powered car costs much more than an average one powered by a combustion engine. Part of the reason for this is related to the second problem—availability. Currently, there are very few hydrogen filling stations. The need for hydrogen fuel is low, so there are very few stations. To have more stations,

Link

Or this:

Hydrogen and fuel cells: fake promises?[fr][de] Published: Thursday 26 October 2006 | Updated: Friday 15 December 200 Like electricity, hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. In other words, the hydrogen economy will only be as clean as the original energy source it is made from (coal, nuclear, natural gas, or renewables); a hydrogen-based transport system requires a network of fuelling stations that will cost vast sums of money to set up. In a study published in December last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said trillions of dollars will be needed to develop infrastructure before the widespread use of hydrogen (EurActiv 2/12/05); fuel-cell batteries that convert hydrogen into electricity through a chemical reaction have limited efficiency and storage capacity with power losses being made in the hydrogen-electricity conversion process, and; fuel-cell batteries are still highly expensive (around €10,000 for a medium-sized vehicle), due to the materials used in their manufacture. These include platinum and Nafion, an acid membrane used in the electrolyte of fuel cells.

At best they have 27 buses running in 9 european countries running on Hydrogen. And this don't look like Europe:

Iceland has been at the forefront of developing this technology for decades. In 1978, Bragi Arnason, a professor of chemistry at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, proposed that Iceland could be a "Hydrogen Society"—that is, a society entirely free from the use of fossil fuels— by the year 2030-40.

Please take note that the following are "single station" of your European Hydrogen stations.

Hydrogen refuelling stations increase in Europe 24 November 2006 An increasing number of hydrogen refuelling stations are appearing across Europe as the continent begins to prepare for more fuel cell vehicles. Italy's Agip has announced the launch of a MultiEnergy service station at the Infraserv Hochst industrial park, in Germany, which will be able to supply fuel to vehicles such as hydrogen fuel cell cars. The official unveiling of the new refuelling station was attended by Alois Rhiel, minister of economics, transport and territorial development for the region of Assia. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, a hydrogen filling station was launched at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) at Petten. This new station will serve ECN's hydrogen-powered HydroGEM vehicle, as well as providing refuelling options for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the vicinity.

"Was Spain, Portugal, Switzerland laid waste in World War II? And Japan was totally brought to its knees. It suffered far more than say France did. Japan is doing great. Why isn't France? Germany was devastated more than nearly any European country and it's come back better than most. I don't think World War II is a good rationale" And with which countres does Spain, Portugal and Switzerland trade? You dont think WWII had any real contributing effect on the economic ability of European countries vrs the US and you call me ignorant?

Yes. I say you're ignorant.  I also noticed you ignored the inconvenient Japanese part of it. Who was Japan trading with? Why is Japan doing so much better than any country in Europe?

Um no. Apple invented the GUI. Microsoft dominates. You suggest a far tighter coupling between being first and being on top than is true of any field or discipline. There are a variety of factors that determine the leader of a particular field, or in this case economic power, than simply being first. I suggested what most reasonble people would agree as being a pretty good hiccup in the growth of Europe (A world war in its back yard!) but clearly this is irrelevant to you. A hiccup which not only severly reduced the economic competitiveness of the states involved but did simultaneously provide an economic sweetspot for the US...but of course to you this is entirely inconsequential.

I made no implication that Europe has been inventing anything recently.  You are switching your arguments midstream. You said that the US was based on European culture and values. Which I agree with (to a point). Therefore, why have they lost the lead?

Europe not only is not dominating in any major industry anymore, but they weren't even relevant in many of the major industries that have been created in the past half-century.  The question is, why?

I would agree with you that two major world wars is a major hic-up. But the last one was 70 years ago.  South Korea had a pretty major war in its backyard most recently. Would you like to do a GDP comparison of France and Italy compared to say South Korea per capita and look how it's doing? 50 years ago, South Korea was a land of peasant farmers with no industry. Now, they automobiles, computers, chips, and all kinds of other things that people use all the time. And it's not because it's "cheaper" (not the only reason).

In other words, World War II cannot be your crutch alone.

Your write off of Europe is far too simplistic and typical of the kind of whippersnapper state thinking that comes from countries so young. We've had people cross our borders for hundreds and hundreds of years. We're old enough and wise enough to know that they will be assimilated. We're confident in our ability to deal with change. We've done it for centuries. What you describe as old and tired is actually wisdom and self confidence a.k.a maturity. Something the US for all its contemporary might sorely lacks.

Translation: I have nothing to back up my claims so I'll resort to arrogance and insults. 

No wonder Europe is in decline. You're probably representative of the European mindset.  No one is more critical of the United States than other Americans. We are always critiquing ourselves, pointing out our flaws.  By contrast, there's little introspection in Europe from what I can see. Weaknesses are passed off as "wisdom and self-confidence".  (they say this as they slowly die off in the most literal sense).

"By all measurements, coming back in 50 years won't be necessary because Europe won't be enough of a player to even bother a comparison any more than making a comparison between the US and South America today is not worth the time." You know you chastise someone else on this thread about their ability to provide evidence of their claims; perhaps you can provide evidence of this claim of yours. Ive yet to hear or read anything that has any significant weight or merit that suggests "by all measurements" Europe will be economically irrelevant in 50 years.

Your inability to read is hardly my fault. I provided several links (they're the underline thingies in this article) to back up what I am saying.

I'll even help you out:

Here's a really interesting article regarding European economic growth and comparing it to the United States: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf Definitely worth reading.

I'll sum it up in easy to understand words:

a) Europe is already significantly far behind the United States in per capita GDP. 

Europe is growing at a significantly slower pace than the United States in per capita GDP.

c) Europe's population is in decline and only immigration from largely Islamic countries is keeping the population decline from being really severe.

Therefore: Given time, Europe will be poor and Islamic compared to the rest of the world.

I also pointed out how uncommon things like microwave ovens and dryers and other basic household items are in European households. Given that the gap is growing, one can imagine the typical continental European living almost like a third-world person.  I know when I've visited the continent how much it made me think I was going back in time because of the lack of conveniences.

While you're looking at that link, you might want to look at the plethora of other links provided in this thread and in the original article.

One of the primary reasons the US the invaded Iraq was to try and stave off a switch from the US petro-dollar to the Euro petro dollar. Europe. Irrelevant? Hardly. The US is quietly shitting itself about the future expansion of the EU.

Wow. I mean...WOW. What a mind boggling statement.  I've heard a lot of conspiracy theories as to why the US invaded Iraq but this is a new one. 

Seriously, do you actually believe this or are you tossing this out as just troll bait? I mean, do you REALLY think that the US is worried about European "expansion"?  Are you actually aware that the European economy is shrinking relative to that of the United States and other major economies? These aren't opinions, these are statistical facts that anyone who remotely follows this stuff is aware of.

The gap between Europe and the United States is widening but not in Europe's favor.  If the nations of Europe were American states, they'd be amongst the poorest here.

"One might argue that anyone who takes pride in how little of the world's resources they use is a symptom of the problem" One might argue that if they were a complete moron. Lets see I've got a tenner in my pocket. It's got to last me all my life. My strategy therefore, cause im so clever, is too spend it all at once and worry about the future when it comes. Hey i know. Maybe if i close my eyes real tight and deny the future, it wont come at all. Yep, thats my brilliant strategy. Think it'll work...... ?

WOW. This is really a great discusion because it really does highlight the different mindsets.  DO you realize what you've just said?  You look at the world's resources as truly finite as in very very limited.  WOW.

Looking back to the start of the 20th century... We didn't have automobiles, we didn't have airplanes, we didn't have computers, TVs, movies, phones, nuclear power, blood transfusions, antibiotics, and countless other things. Heck, we didn't even have the "fossil fuel" industry which you seem so convinced we're going to run out of.

And you're trying to argue what resources we'll be dealing with in another 50 years? Heck, odds are we'll have fusion power or god knows what.

But if you truly believe what you wrote above, I think we have our answer as to why Europe is becoming irrelevant and apathetic as their culture and people are being overrung by immigrants who see them as worthless infidels. 

What you have just written describes the attitude of the depressed retiree. They have a fixed income and they are conserving all their resources in order to stave off death. But in their hearts, they know death is coming.

In the United States, our culture is that we have a "tenner in our pocket" and we'll use that $10 to make $20 and then $40 and then $80.

And that, my friend, is the key difference between us. 

Um no. Apple invented the GUI. Microsoft dominates.

Actually, no.  Xerox invented the GUI.  They just did not do anything with it.

There's some great stuff here. Really representative of the European mindset. Let's go through them.

"According to the Cox survey, only 1 in 5 French households in 1999 owned a Microwave oven for crying out loud." omg, no microwaves, whats the world coming too. Maybe thats because they dont all eat out of a freeze dried packet. Ever had a real banana? Its comes with a skin that you can peel and all. Microwave statistics. Love it. Yep, you guys are a real cultural beacon thats for sure.

Yep. I eat fresh fuits and vegetables every day. They're a lot less expensive here than they are in Europe btw.  But I wanted to also note that you take pride in the fact that Europeans don't have modern conveniences like microwaves and that you think microwaves are primarily about making "freeze dried packets".

I know you don't realize this but you sound like the old guy who refuses to get into a car because his trusty horse-drawn carriage is much better.

btw when you make statements like this: "So yea, in 50 more years, Europe will be pretty much spent as a major force. It's just a matter of calculating the population of native Europeans and going from there. " What exactly are you saying? Are you saying Muslims are intellectually and culturally inferior to native (does this mean Aryan) populations? How in your opinion is an influx of Muslims directly linked to the downfall of Europe?

Islam isn't a race. I'm not sure you realized this. But they're not. A Turk is nothing like a Persian and is nothing like a Pakistani which is nothing like an Arab. They are all different races. A Pakistani, btw, is actaully (racially speaking) caucasian other than darker skinned but otherwise is as European in racial structure as any German.

But you've successfully identified yourself as a left-winger. I say that because when intellectually up against the wall, the left always tries to use the "racism" card to tar their enemies (insinuating that I'm some sort of racist by arguing that I fear the downfall of the "Aryans"?).  As a reminder, the only guys who got together to exterminate millions of people using their best industrial techniques to do so efficiently were Europeans. So I'd be careful about tossing around implications of racism. 

As for Islam as a culture. Yes. I think it's inferior. I think it's a grotesque culture. Wherever you find Islam, you find increased violence. Worldwide.

Islamic peoples don't value individuality, the rights of women, etc.  Islamic countries, worldwide, are amongst the poorest of all. And why shouldn't they be? They don't let half their population excel (women).

So to put it delicately, the more Islamic Europe gets, the more like other Islamic regions I expect Europe to become like.

" In secular Europe, it's a different matter. Nearly everyone is thinking about themselves or "issues" they care about." So your position is that Europe is too self involved to be more self involved? Too busy concerning themselves with the issues that concern them to be concerned about the issues that concern you? How American is that rational?

Um no. I said they're too self involved to do anything to that doesn't involve putting their energy into themselves. 

In other words, they're too into what makes them personally happy to give up the luxury and freedom that one has to in order to have children.  Being a father of 3, I can tell you that it requires a lot of sacrifice by my wife and I to raise our children.  Europeans, like secular Americans in this respect, see life as being very finite and hence don't want to give up their freedom and standard of living to raise children.

 

One comment to Dan since his giant mass is too lengthy  and all over the place:

Where a given thing is literally manufactured is not particularly relevant. It's the equivalent of giving credit to the country where a given website is hosted rather than where it is designed and run from. 

You claimed that the "Same could be said about the United States" when I asked how many things we have today are European in origin (as in, not very much these days).  I wasn't talking about where a given thing was outsourced.  Otherwise the discussion about BASF and Siemens and such (from Germany) would have had me respond with "Well yah, but the stuff they make is manufactured in China"

Maybe it's because I'm an engineer but I don't really care very much who literally manufactures what I create.  The software I make is duplicated by a machine. Does this mean I'm not making it? What if the duplicator is located in China? Does that mean China is making my software now?

What if I make a new kind of CPU and send it to India to be manufactured. Does that mean I didn't make the CPU? That India did?

If you want to get into semantical discussions, there's probably an apprentice-debating society you can join.  

e-Stab and I both understood what each other were talking about.  If you don't understand, you should go somewhere else.

Missed this from earlier:

"What do you think is the European cause for not reproducing? YOu don't think it could just possibly be because Europeans don't want to spend time and effort on other things other than their personal enjoyment of life? Do you have an alternative explaination Yup. And the US also has the highest incarceration rates in the world and the highest number of murders per capita. So wtf does that tell you. You might be good at making them but you're sure not very good at raising them. If you want to talk about real selfishness around the issue then lets talk about that. Even if your own simplistic rationals were true re:euro birth rates at least they were making the choice and considering the child. Clearly given the stats ive mentioned Americans are both having kids and "considering only their personel enjoyment of life". And you actually think your ways better. Squirt 'em out then if they haven;t already killed each other, lock em up. Nice. Thanks but I think we'll do it our way. Its a little more reasoned.

I noticed you didn't link to any statistics in this.  Educate me. Heck, educate all of us. What is the per-capita murder rate in the United States. BTW, I know you didn't look it up because you're totally wrong. We're not even in the top 10.  There are European countries with higher per-capita murder rates (Eastern European countries like Lithuania have 10 per 100,000).

But let's say .7% of the US population is locked up. So 7 out of 1,000 children end up as criminal. The big reason is that we lock up drug offenders (which Europeans don't tend to enforce as much). 

My answer is: So what? 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that life is better than non-life.  Europe is slowly disappearing and your answer is that a tiny percentage of Americans commit murder? And that this is your evidence that Americans don't raise good children? 

Yea, Europeans are so happy that they're twice as likely as Americans to commit suicide. Given how depressing your outlook seems to be, no wonder. If I only had a "tenner" in my pocket and my life was about conserving it, I'd probably be pretty depressed too.

Incidentally, what "stats" have you mentioned other than ones you made up? Why should I believe any stat you give when you made up the murder rate stat?

I have read through most of this discourse and find it very interesting. Perhaps a bit too toxic for my taste and as a European I also find it a bit depressing.

I live in Sweden where many muslims have immigrated during the past 20 years. Mostly from war zones as Bosnia and Iraq. I can't say that I can relate to any of the doom and gloom. The muslims I know and work with are kind and gentle people and even though none of them are as secular as the common Swede (without any stats to back it up, sorry Brad please don't kick my ass, I would say that Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world) but I have never felt any threat of them forcing their religion and laws on Swedish society. Perhaps I am just an optimist and mingle in good circles.

Who knows what will happen in 50 years? Drawing on a trend about European demographics is of course technically correct but 50 years that predicting the future with only one variable seems a bit far-fetched.

I won't get into a pissing contest about US and Europe. I am not that interested in that and I can't say that I really care. Live in the country you prefer. Strangely enough this seem to correlate with your country of birth.

I believe in our Western society and from what I have seen so far the immigration in our country has not had any negative impact on our society so far. Neither do I think it will in the long run. But, as I said, I am an optimist.

"Dan - You are new to the blog so I will give you one chance : Do NOT post blocks of text longer than the original article. Got something to say? Make a summary statement and then link to either your own blog post response or to whatever source you are citing."

I'm sorry if I broke a rule of yours, not intended. I was instructed to back up what I stated, and I did. I'll attempt to keep it brief. For the record the longest post was just that my longest. Sorry if it was a bit too much of a read. I can butt out if you'd like. No probs. Just trying to add something.

"I don't really care very much who literally manufactures what I create."

I'm sorry to have offended you with some comments about how things are made. Please excuse my ignorance I thought all viewpoints were tolerated. It was you that did ask for some credibility to my initial statements. I'll no longer add to the list of hypocritical replies in my own defense.

"Sorry but you're wrong on this. Dell only uses USA motherboards. I worked as an IT specialist for quite some time and "all" the company computers (150-200 units) were Dells. And every motherboard in them was made in the USA as are all their memory chips. They found to high a failure rate in boards made overseas."

High end stuff is made in the state during it initial run, then as production goes high rate it is done wherever it can be done cheapest.

Sorry but you're wrong on this. Dell only uses USA motherboards. I worked as an IT specialist for quite some time and "all" the company computers (150-200 units) were Dells. And every motherboard in them was made in the USA as are all their memory chips. They found to high a failure rate in boards made overseas.

"You're wrong on this too. Most H/D's are made either in the Philippines,Malasya or Hungary. There are a few made in Singapore but again they have a higher failure rate than the others."

Right, ok well China or the Philippines, Malasya, Hungary, are all mutually exclusive to the United States. I franky don't know where every item manufactured in existence, is made, but I do know that the harddrive in this comp, from Dell, was "MADE IN CHINA" If you'd like to debate that fine, as for other harddrives I've purchased and dealt with, it's been since 1998 that I've come accross a harddrive that wasn't made in China. Not saying they all are but if you can make any product in China for the cheapest labor which is in China, then you eventually will to stay competitive if you plan on making millions of them.

"Same with the CPU's "all" CPU's (Intel and AMD) are made here in the US. Not China." Incorrect.

The DX4 processor which is from the 1990's that I see daily in the building of the product I work with, have come from China.

www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/manufacturing/manufacturing_at_a_glance.pdf
news.com.com/Intels+manufacturing+cost+40+per+chip/2100-1006_3-5862922.html

Here's some information from Intel on where they make stuff. I'll concede that the exact locations might not be China, if you'll concede a large portion of manufacturing is outsourced, sucked from the United States by the lower cost per unit to produce. Meaning we don't produce the bulk here. Neither does Europe to be sure, and to keep the information relevant.

As for Dell...

news.com.com/Dell+bucks+the+notebook-outsourcing+trend/2100-1005_3-6134256.html

"The company does all the final assembly of its laptops at its own facilities in Malaysia and Ireland, said Glenn Neland, senior vice president for procurement at the PC maker. It takes partially assembled systems from its manufacturing partners--the "carcass," as Neland puts it--and sends them to its own facilities to add the finishing touches, such as the installation of the processor, hard drive, memory and other system components."

"Dell assembles a significant portion of its notebooks in its own facilities, just like it has done for years with desktop PCs."

Notice that neither indicate that they do all of it inside the United States because they do not. My point yet again, everything is connected. Without any part of the process of a product, concept, design, manufacture, testing, marketing, packing, shipping, service, there is no delivery and execution of a product, no solution to a customers problem.

Well Christmas is coming everybody and it is a great year to buy some new electronics, especially a computer. I hope you all get something good in your stocking.

I'm sorry to have offended you with some comments about how things are made. Please excuse my ignorance I thought all viewpoints were tolerated. It was you that did ask for some credibility to my initial statements. I'll no longer add to the list of hypocritical replies in my own defense.

My point was that the point of a discusison is to discuss the issues that both parties want to discuss.  Getting into a semantical debate is one of those things that people find obnoxious.

The context of the discussion matters a great deal.  When I buy a BMW, I don't care whether the parts were manufactured in Korea or China or wherever. It's a German car.  Similarly, I don't care where the actual Intel CPU is manufactured, it's an American CPU.  Heck, Coca Cola is manufactured in various places around the globe too but it's as American as say McDonalds (which gets its food from all over as well).

I live in Sweden where many muslims have immigrated during the past 20 years. Mostly from war zones as Bosnia and Iraq. I can't say that I can relate to any of the doom and gloom. The muslims I know and work with are kind and gentle people and even though none of them are as secular as the common Swede (without any stats to back it up, sorry Brad please don't kick my ass, I would say that Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world) but I have never felt any threat of them forcing their religion and laws on Swedish society. Perhaps I am just an optimist and mingle in good circles.

Hi Jelvis,

I only get on people's cases if they substitute their opinion as fact. So saying "Everyone I know wears green shoes" is fine. Saying "Most Swedes wear green shoes" would bring a "where's your evidence" comment.

I agree that Sweden is very secular. The issue isn't whether Muslims would force their religion onto others. I don't think that's the worry. The issue is that Secular Europeans, for good or bad, are decreasing in population at a fairly alarming rate and that Islamic immigrants are representing a fast growing percentage of the population. 

I think most Muslims are kind, friendly people. But that as a whole, they have a higher percentage than other cultures of people who turn to Jihadist type violence (as previous discussions of polls have made pretty definitely clear).

So what it boils down to is in 50 years, what will be the status of Europe given current trends? A better place than today or a worse place.   As someone who likes Europeans, I want it to be a better place. But my definition of what a better place is doesn't seem to jive with what some Europeans think (see previous toxic comments <g>).