# Was everything I believed about energy wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865 "2013-05-20T20:27:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/21 "2013-05-21T16:31:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Incorrect belief #1: Hydrogen cars will soon be here.\*\* By 2000, Democratic legislators in California and the Northeast [boldly took the initiative](http://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html) on this one. They passed laws stating that by 2003, 10% of all cars sold in those states must be zero-emissions, and everyone understood this to mean hydrogen fuel cells. The target date has come and gone and there are no hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road, other than expensive prototypes. Lawsuits by car companies and the Bush Administration played a role, but the main problem was that the technology which these politicians were trying to will into existence just didn’t arrive. [Certain sources](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-hydrogen-car-running-on-empty) keep saying that hydrogen will get here, but it never actually does. The technology exists. There are 112 private-lease Honda Clarity FCX models on California roads. What doesn’t exist is the refueling infrastructure which was always going to require major capital outlay. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/22 "2013-05-21T17:25:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **Incorrect belief #3: Solar and wind will take over electric production.** A July 2002 cover story in _Mother Jones_ assured me that wind power was ready to make its big move and become a major part of electricity production, but it was merely reflecting conventional wisdom at that point. Everyone was sure that the wind and its sibling, the Sun, would soon be supplying a big chunk of our electricity. First of all, a lefty publication like Mother Jones (which I enjoy and support, but still) is more likely to be a booster of alternative energy than most other sources. Second, I don’t recall its reflecting the conventional wisdom of that time. Maybe it was the conventional wisdom on college campuses, or at your college or university in particular. Hell, I don’t think it’s the conventional wisdom even now that solar and wind are about to supply a big chunk of our energy, even though it might actually become true soon, at least in solar’s case. > [@](#): > > **Incorrect belief #4: Peak Oil will force us to switch from oil to other energy sources.** You knew about peak oil when you were in college? I’m sure I didn’t hear about it while you were still in college. I think I first heard about it in the spring of 2005. > [@](#): > > Today oil production in the USA is [higher](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZeBk6vqWQSM/UB70jT5PEQI/AAAAAAAABI0/51n6U_tbMRM/s1600/US-Average-Annual-Oil-Production-2000-2012.png) than it was when most of that stuff was written. Even liberal magazines are now [explaining](http://energypolicyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/atlantic-cover.jpg) why we’ll never run out of oil. The Atlantic Monthly should not be confused with liberal magazines. And as best as I can tell, the oil bonanza from expensive sources like fracking and tar sands will barely replace the decline of the old fields. I’ve yet to see any evidence that the new sources will do more than make the peak a plateau. And then you look at the demand side (Western demand artificially reduced by recession; Chinese demand increasing) and you realize that this plateau is going to act like a peak, if our economy ever gets going again. > [@](#): > > **Incorrect belief #5: We must move away from fossil fuels because of global warming.** Carbon emissions in the USA have been trending upwards since forever. But in the past 5 years suddenly the [trend](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.08.01/emissions_p2.png) has turned downward. A triumph of solar, wind, hydroelectric, biofuels, hydrogen cars, carbon capture & storage, bicycling, mass transit, or anything else promoted by environmentalists? No. It’s a triumph of the one thing environmentalists hate most at the moment: natural gas from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). And again, you can’t forget the recession. If fracking is what it takes to keep carbon output low while we figure out a longer-term approach that will work when the economy gets going again, I’m good with it. I just want fracking to be properly regulated. For instance, the companies doing the fracking shouldn’t be able to cloak the nature of what they’re pumping into the ground behind this “proprietary” bullshit; people ought to be able to test for increased levels of fracking chemicals in their well water, but it’s hard to do that if you can’t find out what the chemicals are. But getting back to global warming itself, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing, crossing the 400 ppm level at Mauna Loa, which isn’t affected much by local fluctuations. And the effects are showing up in everything from the melting of the polar icecap to when wild raspberries are in season where I live. It’s great that U.S. carbon outputs aren’t increasing, but if we were part of some international agreement about global warming, it would help to get world levels down, which is what matters. ETA: So this one was basically right, and still is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865.md?page=1)