On 10-May-2006, email@example.com wrote:
Before you get all hot and bothered about the use of solar hydrogen, or any
other solar energy source (including ethanol), consider how many acres of
land you need to use to capture the amount of energy currently being used
(and mostly wasted) with petroleum. Solar is limited by how much land we are
willing to convert to energy production. Realistically, none of these
to reduce oil dependency will work unless people stop wasting so much energy.
You don't need a 6000lb truck to take the kids to soccer practice.
How will you fund the "Ponzi" social programs that are based on
exporential worker growth? (Social Security in the US or the policy in
most of western Europe)
It is going to take a lot of new <tax paying> workers to make our
government's promises come true.
And if we'd drill in ANWR and the Gulf for oil,and process oil-shale,it
would not be $50 a bbl.
OPEC would have to lower their price because of supply and demand
changes,and we would not be paying adversaries(hostiles) large sums of
And the cost of the "plant". Bear in mind most "sunny" places also
have exciting weather. I had 2 hits and 4 close misses from hurricanes
in 2 years. My solar took a beating and it is low tech stuff. Glad I
didn't have a hundred grand on my roof.
On 10 May 2006 07:08:35 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
You meann nuclear power? The electricity generated at nuclear power
plants is no better at splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen than
is any other electricity.
Hydrogen doesn't have any other relationship with nuclear power
(except that if cold fusion is ever developed, it will *use* hydrogen,
not generate it.)
It's no less of a problem then, except generation of electricy might
be cheaper, especially as the cost of oil goes up. We could also burn
coal to make eletricity to generate hydrogen.
Energy use is in several forms, not all of which can be met with wires
that carry electricity.
Petrochemicals (oil related, ethanol) are easily transportable, have
high energy density, and allow things like cars, truck, trains and
airplanes to run. A viable alternative MAY be hydrogen, if we can
figure out how to generate, store, and transport it safely and cost
Electricity can be generated using many source fuels, falling water,
coal, petrochemicals, nuclear to name the most popular. Electrical
generation of hydrogen is possible, but at what cost?????
Batteries can store and transport electrical energy safely and have been doing
for a long time. We are now seeing advanced battery technology - e.g. lithium
can be recharged in a few minutes - and the technology can be improved further.
So - why do we need hydrogen? Batteries can return a huge percentage of the
you put into them.. PEM fuel cells _might_ hit 50% efficiency sometime in the
We don't need hydrogen. The hydrogen economy is a scam.
Wise words. I am rethinking electric cars. If you don't drive that
far it is a viable option. The problem is we are only moving the
"gasoline" problem to the electrical grid. Same shit, different smoke
Then why aren't we using it? The Federal Government promised to take care of the
remains of the Yankee Nuke Plant when it was decommissioned. When the time came,
they simply came in and said, "Okay, we're responsible now", and left everything
sitting exactly where it was onsite. They did not move one drum 5 feet from
where it was sitting, much less transport anything to Yucca Mountain.
Terry & Skipper, Clearlake Texas
We aren't using Yucca because anti-nuclear obstructionists have done
everything they can to stop it or slow it down. It would have been
done 10 years ago, if not for that. Some anti-nuke person wrote a
letter to the local paper along the lines of the above, blaming the
federal govt for not having a safe disposal, why they are the ones
responsible for all the delays.
On 11 May 2006 04:32:06 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
The fact remains, there is no safe storage of the remains being done,
regardless of the reason, or reasons, or excuses. It's not happening.
There is plenty of blame to go around, and fingers pointing in a cross
fire, but its not happening. Get it?
If you remember the Bush / Kerry presidential debates,
it was Bush that made political hay out of saying he would not
authorize the use of Yucca mountain.
Is he the anti-nuclear obstructionist you are thinking of?
On 10-May-2006, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Exactly right, whether battery or hydrogen. If you work out how much
equired to replace gas, you see that the amount of power to be produced is
We're not talking about one or two more nukes - we're talking about more than
existing electrical capacity!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.