I don’t really care about Carnot limits; overbuilding wind turbines and solar panels enough to “charge” hydrogen fuel cells for global does not approach the Carnot limit of the sunlight shining on Earth. I’m more concerned with ecological stresses. The whole reason the hydrocarbon economy doesn’t work is because of these stresses. The environmental stresses induced by a battery economy would be less than for oil, but still there.

If nanotechnology allows supercapacitors and super battery systems, then why go through the extra step of creating hydrogen from water and an electricity source, compressing and storing it and then turning it back again to water and electricity in a fuel cell? All those steps will result in energy losses rather than storing the electric potential in the super battery/capacitor system and then discharging it.

If nanotech advances, it will be electric cars and not hydrogen cars that will rule.

I don’t agree with the 40 year hydrogen time-table and PEMs are an acceptable methos to harvest hydrogen from freshwater. Almost all composite innovations, call some of them nanotechnologies, in transport vehicle components, reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage.

My point in all of this is that CO2 does NOT cause climate change; I am not arguing that a change in the climate might be occurring. The climate on earth changes all the time and that global change is caused by the Sun (a new NASA finding). All life on the planet is carbon based, CO2 is part of our food chain, and it is not a pollutant. The biggest “green house gas” is water vapor. If climate change is caused by human activity then we would need to start eliminating life on the planet, yes this is absurd, so is the assertion that humans are causing climate change. It just is NOT the truth.

To date climatology is not a science it is an art and it’s in a fledgling phase and will not become a real science for many years. Science fact 2+2=4 a scientific fact is a truth that never changes can be reproduced by anyone every time.

We do have economic criminals using this issue for profit and we have some governments (mostly EU countries) using this issue as propaganda to eliminate reliance on oil (The U.N. Report).

Going green for the average consumer is a pure economic decision no matter what the lip service is. Therefore, some governments and their bodies are spinning what Green is.

Going Green for many countries of the world has nothing to do with the environment; it has everything to do with energy independence from the oil producing countries.

To date the cheapest forms of energy are oil and coal.

Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html