I love fuel cell technology, but remember the main drawbacks we still have.

1) It takes as much electricity to make hydrogen as it saves.

2) Hydrogen is hard to store in enough bulk to give a vehicle long legs.

Better electric cars are still our best bet, although I see no reason we can't merge technologies: Batteries, backed by fuel cells driving cars made of light but strong composites, with flexible solar panels on the upper levels.

These will make great, no emission cars. Of course, even now, the price of hybrids are beyond most families. How much are these going to cost? Many of us are just stuck with whatever we could find used somewhere, and had to ask price instead of mileage.

You guys figure that one out, you have plenty of time.

The world WILL continue to use fossil fuels till exhausted.

We won't be running out anytime soon.

The better way is increased fuel efficiency.

Neitheyou nor anyone else knows for sure when we will run out of oil. various estimates I have read range from 10-200 years, depending on how many cars people in China and India buy (and other developing nations as well, of course, but those are the two "biggies" because of their enormous populations); and depending on how much new oil is discovered.

But the main point here is that just in case Al Gore and his "Inconvenient truth " advocates are right, (and no one knows this for sure either, it is far too complicated), WE SHOULD GO AS SLOW AS POSSIBLE WITH BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, AND CONVERT TO SOLAR HYDROGEN FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY ASAP, JUST AS A CONSERVATIVE, CAUTIOUS THING TO DO!

The idea that fuel cells use as much energy to create as they put out is based on getting that input energy from fossil fuels in the first place!( or dirty, problematical nuclear). When we learn how to get the input energy from the sun, (and we will,or we will have to abandon vehicles altogether when fossil fuels run out) , we will have an inexhaustible supply of fuel for as many vehicles as humanity wants!! COOL, HUH? YES!!

Thanks for listening

Cavalier, M. Morrison, please read my post below about Dr. Nocera's plant-imitating solar-to-fuel-cell "leaf." The technology already exists, although it needs refinement. Here's the link again, although if you Google the key words, you'll find lots of articles.

http://inhabitat.com/mit-scientists-create-artificial-solar-leaf-that-can-power-homes/

Spoken like a true scientologist.

No, sir, no con artist scientology here, sir. READ THE BOOK, I DARE YOU!! It IS ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE!!! ROBERT WHITAKER, "ANATOMY OF AN EPIDEMIC"

Dare you, bro....Scientology is just another con game to get your money. They have a "treatment" for mental health called "auditing" which is probably even more bullcrappy than PROZAC!!...The Scientologists just don't want the competition from Big Pharma!...for depression, use GOOD DIET, SUNSHINE, EXERCISE, talk therapy if you can afford it(although it's somewhat of a con game too!), and the passage of TIME, which HEALS ALL WOUNDS! have a wonderful day and a wonderful life.

thanks for listening!

While it's true that many antidepressants have poor success rates, and they're not for everyone, they are for some people. I had a friend with severe depression. He exercised every day, had talk therapy for almost a year, and still attempted suicide multiple times. He tried a few different antidepressants, and, because of their low success rate, did not find much success. He was also well-educated on the problems of antidepressants. HOWEVER, eventually he found a drug that worked for him. Through the COMBINATION of an antidepressant (after much experimentation and consultation with a psychiatrist - not just taking the first prescription the doctor hands you and running with it) and other therapy, he is doing much better. Not all antidepressants work, and they're not for everyone, but they can still form an effective part of treatment if you use them intelligently instead of blindly.

no one can ever tell from one case if the medicine worked for any given individual or if they got "better" from other factors, like, say, the passage of time, or the many other variables that happen in people's lives. Your friend ,may he live a long and wonderful life, may believe that he has found, at long last, "just the right drug or combination of drugs" to make him and keep him "better", but he can't know for sure if it is the drugs or other factors, or a combination of both, that is making him "better". It is simply a matter of belief, and must be taken on faith, and even if the drug regimen he is on now really "works" for him, there is no guarantee that it will always "work" in the future, without serious, possibly brain damaging side effects. The Doctors are con artists who have conned even themselves into thinking they know far more than they really do about the interaction between these drugs and the BRAIN/BODY duality. Caution is the smartest approach, for most people, given the very poor state of current knowledge about how these drugs work, and what their long term side effects are.

Thanks for listening.

No, of course he can't "know", in the epistemological sense of empirical knowledge. However, he had been trying all this other therapy for months, and suddenly a rapid improvement was seen when he started this drug. Correlation doesn't mean causation, but it sure as heck suggests it. Believe me, my friend is well aware of the possible risks of these drugs, but he feels that it's worth it. I absolutely agree that people should do thorough research into ALL drugs that they're taking, but in some cases, the risk of possible brain damage down the road is outweighed by the benefit (or perceived benefit, even if it's entirely placebo it still has the same effect) of no longer being a suicide risk, or the benefits of holding down a job, etc.

Obviously not. They also didn't hunt their food to extinction, pull things out of the ground to pollute the water, air, and earth. I don't think smart is the word you want, though. Wisdom and intelligence don't always go together. We seem to have the brains, but wisdom is completely lacking.

maybe we can send them the BILL

No, you saw a headline that stated that distasterous weather leaves people stressed out. They then put all their marbles on the belief that scientific extrapolation that Global Warming will cause an increase in disasterous weather is true. Therefore, global warming will stress people out. Funny how these well educated Scientists can't even form a strong logical statement. They go on to build on this questionable logic to opine that people should do "tree hugger" friendly things to avoid being stressed out.

How can we send them the bill for hastening the collapse of modern society?

Yep, and at some point in the past, a warm cycle caused famine that almost pushed the humans species to extinction, paleontologists tell us. It might be argued that we are just finishing the job that God started now.

Seriously. Don't make decisions based on science! No way!

Except of course when the decision generates money for your Merck cronies via a mandatory HPV vaccination. Then it's science baby, science!

Um, it's been done, and is being done. Where have you been since the fifties?

Eric,

I think the key words Fubarak was using were "Objectively and Long periods of time". In terms of this planet, 100 years of measurement isn't a long time. And, unfortunately, there is a lot more Subjectivity in Climate research from both sides than you'd expect to find in a "scientific study". This statement here is a perfect example of unscientific science. Regardless of your beliefs towards man's role in making this planet warmer or colder. The direct affect on the scale and frequency of disasterous weather is unproven. Yet, the entire article says that, since people stress out during disasterous weather, you should takes steps to curb emissions deemed harmful to the environment to maintian your sanity. Really? Tell me that, put differently, this article sounds like science.

You are correct about "man cannot destroy the earth" but you forgot about the earth destroying man.

No dear, the earth WILL destroy man.

Just like evey other extinct species, we are but a blip in time.

so we are but a blip in time...so therefore we should not even TRY to make our time here last even a little bit longer, and just be short-term hedonistic no matter how much evidence may or may not exist that we might be doing something (burning fossil fuels) that might, however small the chance, cook our species to death within a few decades or a few hundred years? As opposed to discontinuing burning fossil fuels and maybe lasting, say, another 5,000 or 5,000,000 years as a species? Or maybe way longer,say, 100,000,000 years? well, friend if you feel that way, I'll just have to agree that you have the right to your opinion, but I, for one, want to see my grandchildren have their own children, and I want to play it safe, cautiously and conservatively, by reducing fossil fuel burning to a bare minimum asap. That would save a lot of oil for future generations for lubrication and plastics; and save the taxpayers a lot of money by not having wars for oil, like Iraq and Afghanistan too. And it will save a lot of soldiers to not have oil wars too. Anyone who thinks those wars were for "freedom and democracy" and /or for chasing terrorists or protecting ourselves from terrorists is very naive and easily brainwashed. Don't fall for that big lie anymore, folks ,IT IS ALL ABOUT THE OIL, BEYOND DOUBT!

Thanks for listening

Very Noble.

I will not tell you that you are wasting your life, but you are burning the candle for

no real reason.

First, fossil fuels will be exhausted (by man).

Second, you will NEVER get any third world or developing country to stop their pollution.

You can mandate safer air standards in the US, but, the world is a much bigger place.

We should do what's needed whatever the cost? Because the cost will be greater than we ever could imagine? Seriously? Let's not let economy stop us, let's just burn through every resource available regardless of whether not expending those resources will even change our situation. Why? Well, because whatever you cost you can imagine, the consequences of not going out and mindlessly throwing resources around without a plan has to be bigger than.. Oh.... Let's say every living thing on this planet spontaneously catching fire 3 weeks after all the drinkable water on the planet mysteriously disappears; wait, I can imagine that so the cost must be much worse...

Well said....

Solar-fuel cell technology already exists in a very cheap and usable form.

MIT Scientists Create Artificial Solar Leaf That Can Power Homes

Read more: MIT Scientists Create Artificial Solar Leaf That Can Power Homes | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World

So if right-wing politicians and deniers will get out of the way and allow the rest of us to do something about the problem, it can be solved.

http://inhabitat.com/mit-scientists-create-artificial-solar-leaf-that-can-power-homes/

Sokrates, I read that too. Very interesting. I receive Team Treehugger e-mails. I liked the article on the rechargeable liquid batteries for cars too! When the weenies here get back on their chair from falling out laughing at the term "team treehugger" they should check it out sometime. Not much different than Popular Science.

Cool, Sokrates-3314271, thanks for the heads-up...my future great granchildren(if there are any, my only granddaughter is not quite 12) also thank you , in advance of being born...lol...:-)

Brad

Hey - if it's cheap why is it not being used? I smell a rat. So build the unit and sell it and I will use it in a second. If anyone thinks I love that gouging power company of mine they missed their bet.

The articles state that Dr. Nocera hasn't figured out an efficient way to trap the hydrogen and oxygen being generated by his "leaf." That's why it's not commercially successful yet. A gas is a gas, and there isn't any device that will cheaply and efficiently separate hydrogen gas and oxygen gas and send them to separate containers.

But given a little research money, I'm sure Dr. Nocera will come up with a solution.

Actually, since I graduated from that institution, I know that Dr. Nocera is thinking about the problem when he goes to sleep and when he wakes up, and the money isn't a factor. Money would merely make it easier for him to spend all his time thinking about the problem.

Geez, I hope the intelligent humans aren't wiped out by the stupid ones.

Geez, at least we're having a discussion in which the dread subject "GLOBAL WARMING" is admitted as a fact.

Al Gore is getting desperate! They've bilked billions from the public already, Franklin Raines used 9 million of the 90 million bonus to buy the formula for Cap and Trade, and the scheme they've planned since the early nineties blew up. They set up companies in the Isle of Man to avoid US taxes (hypocrites). Gore's is Generation Investment Management, partnered with Goldman Sachs David Blood, and Obama's early company, Chicago Climate Exchange. Check out the Kyoto Protocol and see what they are planning to do to the world. All the money they collect from USA will be going straight out of the country, another global redistribution to break America. Soros, Maurice Strong, et al, are spending a lot of time in China helping them become the next world power.

Look at the mini ice age we had in the late 1700's. Our weather has been hot/cold before there was EVER any man made polution! There are more theories that the sun spots have more effect on the weather than anything else! But Gore and Google (changed search algorithm for Obama and part of the hierarchy) are hiding any other debates.

NASA GETS CAUGHT FAKING CLIMATE CHANGE DATA...AGAIN

//biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/05/13/nasa-gets-caught-faking-climate-change-data-again/

No, Hollywood will. As long as there is profit in saving it we are fine. The folks that say it's being destroyed by profit turn a blinds-eye to the profit to 'save' it.