I am aware that there is a supply problem at the moment. ( not to mention the
distribution problem if there was a supply and demand ) And, I'm certainly not
suggesting that everything be hydrogen powered. I'm pretty much ignorant on
the subject, but I am aware that hydrogen is pretty much an unharnessed
byproduct at the moment and that there is some further complication to
retrieving it, but that's about as far as it goes with my memory, 'cause I
heard this several years ago.
But you know that we do have to move from fossil fuels. In twenty years
someone will have come up with something as an alternate source. Hydrogen
seems perfect, once you can get it. But, if not hydrogen, it'll be something
else.
How about if you covered all the surface of California with solar panels.
Wouldn't that both supply a lot of electricity and diminsh demand? :)
If we wanted alternate sources of energy, it might help to have leaders that
aren't earning money from oil production? ;)
> From: Bill L <pythias@pacifier.com>
>
> hydrogen is NOT a fuel source. it is only an energy STORAGE
> system. that's because it takes as much energy to extract
> hydrogen from the air, or from water, as you get back when you
> use it "as fuel". the energy has to come FROM somewhere, and as
> of now most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. UNLESS and
> UNTIL we go to nuclear power plants we will make MORE
> greenhouse gasses GETTING the hydrogen than we would by simply
> using the fuel in an internal combustion engine. this is a
> point that most greens (and the largely uninformed public) seem
> to miss. when asked about this very large stumbling block, the
> answer is, "oh, we'll get the electricty from biomass, or wind
> power, or solar, all nonpolluting power sources". .. i'm
> hopefull, but sceptical. .. if we covered ALL of arizona will
> solar cells, that would be enough only for the present
> electrical needs of california, .. without trying to power
> everything with hydrogen... ..
>
> OOPS.. sorry, enough rant.
|