The carconnection.com has run an interesting and balanced article on hydrogen-power in Iceland. In part it says, “The Shell station uses a process known as electrolysis to produce its fuel, electric current splitting water into its basic components: two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, the latter vented into the atmosphere.”
Interesting indeed that they are producing the hydrogen onsite. Better, cheaper and safer than trying to transport it. The hydrogen is for a small H-dedicated bus fleet, by the way. The article admits “Electrolysis is an energy-intensive process, in itself, and if you were to follow the wires leading out from the back of the station, they’d connect to the big towers snaking east, nearly 30 kilometers into the country’s rugged interior…As they approach the source, one can spot steam pluming into the sky. Some are natural vents, hinting at the violence roiling deep beneath the rocky soil.” It’s geo-thermal, folks.
So hydrogen is do-able, despite lower energy density and higher volatility. Especially so if you have locally renewable energy such as hydro or geothermal sources to tap into. In most countries you just don’t have that sort of energy locally available, of course. So we resort to oil or coal. Which defeats the benefits of using H in the first place. Of course there is also Nuclear power but again the production of the right blend of uranium isotopes is energy intensive. So you end up spending energy to make energy. Are we ever to get out of this cycle of fossil-fuel dependence? What will it take?
Hmmm, the evolution of humour. This came up a while ago but I keep thinking about it. Why did we develop humour – how does it better equip us for survival?
Much of our evolution (apologies to the ID crowd – just tune out if the weight of evidence is too great to bear) is in theory revealed during our early childhood, so that gives us a clue where to look. Humour could (he postulates!) derive from play. Play is a way to test ideas, to push boundaries and to learn or develop skills. It’s also useful as a socialising, bonding tool. With our social complexity and a big brain it probably doesn’t take much effort to use what we and many other animals have (the play impulse) and turn it into more abstract jokes, especially later in life when the original reason for being is no longer so relevant.
So we have a tool for learning and socialising – that conceivably will help us survive in the evolutionary jungle.
Here’s another thought. Humour is often built on knowledge – you have to know something in order to “get it“. By building a vast collection of facts about our surroundings (as humans do so well) we leave ourselves open to the observation of incongruities. In fact we may need to spot incongruities in order to pick the pattern that means danger or food or shelter. We’d select genes that support exactly that sort of thing. Having that in our evolutionary repertoire is but one small step away from seeing the humour or incongruity in things ‘going wrong’. It doesn’t pose a disadvantage so it’s not going to be selected against and it also helps bond the social group. So the first theory kicks in here and reinforces the latter.
Now with music I’d ask firstly why did birds develop song? Probably sexual selection, as a first guess. I’d say it’s similar for humans. Perhaps singing or rhythmic noises evolved from our mimicry of birdsong and subsequently became selected for its social advantages, like play. It may have become linked with some other characteristics, even inadvertently, and continued to be selected sexually. Rhythmic chants would also have been distinctive and by changing pitch would have carried communicative possibilities, before language itself developed.
How’s that sound for a theory?
Filed under
Humanity,
Raves by
Rob.
As always, my timely reminder that these posts represent my opinions only. If I quote someone else I attribute. If I recommend a web site it’s because I use it myself. If an advert appears it’s because I affiliate with Google and others similar in nature and usually means nothing more than that… the Internet is a wild and untamed place folks, so please tread warily. My opinions are just that and do not constitute advice or legal opinion of any sort.
All original material is copyright 2006 by myself, too. Other than that, please take advantage of the site, just remember to ask first or attribute fragments in the normal, polite way.
Well they aren’t hotcakes, for starters!
In short, hybrids make sense in many ways but their ROI is weak. It takes around 3-4 years to recover the higher cost via the small ongoing fuel saving, depending upon how much driving you do. They are also a ‘safe’ buy in that they still use the fuel you buy at gas stations (as against some alternative home brew, cold fusion or risky hydrogen). They aren’t such a leap of faith for consumers. They are also ‘feel-good’ purchases, which is great. On the other hand car makers are at a loss to know how to market ‘em because they are premium products offering savings at the low-end. This is an inversion of the case for most cars. Usually good fuel economy is aligned with the ‘cheap’ end of the market. Premium cars are at the high end of fuel economy – in the ‘who cares about the petrol’ category. The result? All up, sales are growing but from a very low base.
My take? They offer little advantage at the low end. I’d take a smaller car with the same or even better fuel economy anytime. Why would I want a Prius when I can have a Getz? I guess if I thought I needed something exactly that size maybe I’d consider it, but it’s a market segment that’s price driven, so you have to really want a car that size and really believe you are making a difference on climate change. Which of course is a delusion.
I’ve said it before, but here goes. You buy a car and it’s already consumed somewhere between 40 and 60% of it’s ‘carbon quota’. The numbers vary with size and complexity, number of miles driven, total life-span of the car but the point is that fuel use is only one factor. Unless your new car’s steel and aluminium was smelted with hydro or nuclear power it’s likely as not come out of a coal-fired oven. Then there’s all the petro-chemical plastics that go into a car…plus the shipping of parts and the finished good to you by ship and truck. The math is not as simple as ‘oh, hybrids are better because they save fuel relative to a petrol car the same size’.
Anyway, read the Forbes article here.
Whilst I’m in the mood to share links, how about:
1. Leader to Leader – the Drucker foundation – a bit heavy at times but really good for research. Perhaps not essential for a daily read but a good site to check from time to time
2. BNET’s Leadership and Strategy newsletter is an excellent source, with many other business related newsletters (including HR and Marketing) available from the main BNET site. The HR newsletter is also good. Subscribing is a good, and free, option
3. Forbes is a good read at times but the countless animated adverts drive me mad!
Filed under
Business,
Links by
Rob.
Just posting a few links for anyone interested in getting an insight into corporate jargon, business direction and ‘mindset’. Going forward, these weasel words may help 
Try MBA Depot for size. Excellent site. Helped me research a few reports in the past.
Or McKinsey’s. Subscribe to some content, or just get the Quarterly for free.
Filed under
Business,
Links by
Rob.
By 
