The latest is of the journal Science is devoted to hydrogen as a fuel and to other aspects of the energy equation. I've appended the titles; for access to full articles, you must be a subscriber. In the meantime, I'll post the series' editors introduction. ------------------------------------------------------------ Not So Simple Robert Coontz and Brooks Hanson Seen up close, hydrogen looks like a recipe for success. Small and simple--one proton and one electron in its most common atomic form--hydrogen was the first element to assemble as the universe cooled off after the big bang, and it is still the most widespread. It accounts for 90% of the atoms in the universe, two-thirds of the atoms in water, and a fair proportion of the atoms in living organisms and their geologic legacy, fossil fuels. To scientists and engineers, those atoms offer both promise and frustration. Highly electronegative, they are eager to bond, and they release energy generously when they do. That makes them potentially useful, if you can find them. On Earth, however, unattached hydrogen is vanishingly rare. It must be liberated by breaking chemical bonds, which requires energy. Once released, the atoms pair up into two-atom molecules, whose dumbbell-shaped electron clouds are so well balanced that fleeting charge differences can pull them into a liquid only at a frigid -252.89 Celsius, 20 kelvin above absolute zero. The result, at normal human-scale temperatures, is an invisible gas: light, jittery, and slippery; hard to store, transport, liquefy, and handle safely; and capable of releasing only as much energy as human beings first pump into it. All of which indicates that using hydrogen as a common currency for an energy economy will be far from simple. The papers and News stories in this special section explore some of its many facets. Consider hydrogen's green image. As a manufactured product, hydrogen is only as clean or dirty as the processes that produce it in the first place. Turner (p. 972) describes various options for large-scale hydrogen production in his Viewpoint. Furthermore, as News writer Service points out (p. 958), production is just one of many technologies that must mature and mesh for hydrogen power to become a reality, a fact that leads many experts to urge policymakers to cast as wide a net as possible. In some places, the transition to hydrogen may be relatively straightforward. For her News story (p. 966), Vogel visited Iceland, whose abundant natural energy resources have given it a clear head start. Elsewhere, though, various technological detours and bridges may lie ahead. The Viewpoint by Demirdöven and Deutch (p. 974) and Cho's News story (p. 964) describe different intermediate technologies that may shape the next generation of automobiles. Meanwhile, the fires of the fossil fuel-based "carbon economy" seem sure to burn intensely for at least another half-century or so [see the Editorial by Kennedy (p. 917)]. Service's News story on carbon sequestration (p. 962) and Pacala and Socolow's Review (p. 968) explore strategies--including using hydrogen--for mitigating their effects. Two generations down the line, the world may end up with a hydrogen economy completely different from the one it expected to develop. Perhaps the intermediate steps on the road to hydrogen will turn out to be the destination. The title we chose for this issue--Toward a Hydrogen Economy-- reflects that basic uncertainty and the complexity of what is sure to be a long, scientifically engaging journey. ============================================================ SPECIAL ISSUE: Toward a Hydrogen Economy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Introduction to special issue -------------------- Not So Simple Robert Coontz and Brooks Hanson http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/957?etoc p. 957 Toward a Hydrogen Economy: News -------------------- The Hydrogen Backlash Robert F. Service http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/958?etoc p. 958 The Carbon Conundrum Robert F. Service http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/962?etoc p. 962 Choosing a CO2 Separation Technology Robert F. Service http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/963?etoc p. 963 Fire and ICE: Revving Up for H2 Adrian Cho http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/964?etoc p. 964 Will the Future Dawn in the North? Gretchen Vogel http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/966?etoc p. 966 Can the Developing World Skip Petroleum? Gretchen Vogel http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/967?etoc p. 967 Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Viewpoint -------------------- Sustainable Hydrogen Production John A. Turner http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/972?etoc p. 972 Hybrid Cars Now, Fuel Cell Cars Later Nurettin Demirdoven and John Deutch http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/974?etoc p. 974 Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Review -------------------- Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies S. Pacala and R. Socolow http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968?etoc p. 968 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amex has always charged more than the other cc companies. Others have already pointed out that those mall cc purchases really hit small businesses hard. We have customers that are kind enough to be aware of that and write checks or use their debit card, or even, believe it or not, pay in cash. A lot of you have mentioned Costco. I've never shopped at one because they're just not convenient to me, but I used to shop at Sam's. I quit doing that years ago because they had an annual fee, and I didn't feel like I was saving enough to make up for that annual fee. Most of what I got at Sams I could buy as a loss leader at a regular grocery store. I've also not found coupons to be very useful, because they're rarely for real food, just processed food. After seeing several stories on the news, and listening to co-workers, I broke down and bought a Sunday paper several weeks ago for the coupons. Boy, was I disappointed. I spent $2.00 on the paper, and maybe found that much worth in coupons that I might use, (which I have to admit I've forgotten about), and then I had all this mess of paper to deal with. What a waste of time that was. Sally

Well competing technologies win out and defeat other competing technologies. Or the flood of cheaper panels cause companies with greater cost panels to go bankrupt. There is a technology that could eventually win out again and clean the field again... probably more than that after that and so on. You say how robust the panels are, they withstand hail. They do this, they do that. None of you *that I know of* actually install solar panels and deal with potential problems. None of you *that I know of* perform warranty calls on installed solar systems. Certainly neither do I, but I know from my experience as a HVAC Service Contractor that crap happens. Things go wrong. If the things you say didn't go wrong... what pray tell is the purpose of the warranty? Hail? how big of hail? pea size. Yeah no specifics from none of you. I've seen softball size hail in my life time. I've seen golf ball size, pea size. The larger the size the more the damage... Million dollar homes have solar panels & ugliness. My personal opinion is that they don't look any more ugly than anything else on a roof. Ugliness is a matter of personal opinion. I live in reality. In that reality I know that if I were to buy solar panels I am not going to drive them down the street. But if I start hearing that solar panels on roof tops are catching fire OR the myriad of other problems that *that could happen* --- my goal isn't to bury my head in the sand and call these sorts of things fairy tales. The con is lets put this contraption on a million dollar home, because it will save a fortune in utility costs (which it may) ---- but then because we are so focused on saving a buck lets not maintain it. It just sits there on the roof... (it's not a car or truck) Then mysteriously we drive home one day...... 5, 10, 15 years into the wild blue yonder to see a black smoke over head. All that money we saved on utilities or what we thought we saved. Don't worry homes burn down (million dollar or less) for other reasons than having solar panels as an ignition source. So feel free to use that excuse if you want to. Technology is a beast unto itself. Boom to bust. One tech gets swallowed by another. 30 years is a long time in the tech realm. To put that into perspective that smart phone you have thinner than a stack of cards --- didn't exist 30 years ago. The energy market (electricity creation) is probably easily a $Trillion$ dollar market. In high tech world... that doesn't spell anything good for a 30 year solar panel in *todays* world. There's some problems with newer competing tech, but it's just a matter of time until something better comes along. What is top notch tech today, is dust tomorrow. Boosting Solar Production to over come Tariffs

So much helpful feedback! Wish I could reply directly to everyone (alas, I’m not very Houzz-savvy & only use the mobile app). Sabrina, no worries about hijacking. I enjoyed the civil dialogue about affordability versus sustainability. Since the subject was raised I’ll weigh in! I found our sofa on eBay for under $200; it’s a George Smith English roll arm & the quality is incredible (had to laugh at the other commenter who mentioned training their husband about how to sit on the sofa; SAME!). Saving pennies to someday reupholster but the current cut velvet has been surprisingly durable & dog hair resistant. Got an all-wool mattress via Craigslist (pristine condition), inherited quality armchairs & a table, hunted consignment for the rest. We even have a kitchenaid double oven sitting in our living room for the next year and a half until the build! Price was a steal & still half in the original packaging on Craigslist… while we have no storage for it, I couldn’t resist! (This bargain is my biggest gamble since obviously it meant foregoing a warranty). So long story short, we are doing our best on a VERY limited budget to be sustainable, buy quality durable items, AND cut costs. I’d be open to marmoleum flooring if I knew it could hold up to our abuse… but not vinyl. (We will probably just opt for local-ish milled lumber harvested here on the East Coast, and some tile.) Concrete is too hard on my feet/knees & the cement industry is a big contributor to air pollution. We’re hoping to build a “pretty good house” a concept I believe originated in Portland, ME which emphasizes a realistic/more attainable approach to passive house/LEED. It focuses on a tight envelope & smaller footprint. My response turned into a novel, sorry! Thrilled to have such useful advice & direct confirmation on a few things I’d wondered about already (like a skirted Toto toilet, for example)! Thanks, everyone.