[SunkenCiv]

subtitled, "Nine myths and misconceptions, and the truth about why hydrogen-powered cars aren’t just around the corner".

---

FR Lexicon·Posting Guidelines·Excerpt, or Link only?·Ultimate Sidebar Management·Headlines
Donate Here By Secure Server·Eating our own -- Time to make a new start in Free Republic
PDF to HTML translation·Translation page·Wayback Machine·My Links·FreeMail Me
Gods, Graves, Glyphs topic·and group·Books, Magazines, Movies, Music

---

[narby]

What's your point? Everyone knew that already.

[FreeKeys]

HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS WILL END GLOBAL WARMING

WHAT A CROCK! After THAT bunch of transparent BS, why should we believe ANYTHING ELSE in that article?

[billybudd]

Has anyone been saying hydrogen-powered cars are "just around the corner"? I think everyone following this topic is basically aware of the technology and infrastructure issues. Furthemore, hydrogen fuel cells are clearly an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

[Rodney King]

Why would Hydrogen cars ever be desireable? I suppose if you had a bunch of nukes making the hydrogen perhaps.

[Brilliant]

The only "primary energy source" is nuclear, which includes the sun.

[bahblahbah]

"Electricity from a nuclear plant would electrolyze water—splitting H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Ballard champions the idea, calling nuclear power “extremely important, unless we see some other major breakthrough that none of us has envisioned.”

I am for more nuclear power plants just for the sake of diversifying our energy needs. But the waste is still radioactive after thousands of years. If we are going to go forward with nuclear power then we have to reverse Carter's executive order which banned reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The waste from the the reprocessed fuel is only radioactive for a few hundred years. That at least makes it engineeringly possible to create a structure capable to hold the waste.

"But economist Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England calculates that converting every vehicle in the U.S. to hydrogen power would require the electricity output of a million wind turbines—enough to cover half of California."

Works for me. We need a couple cheap wind turbines to put in every farm field across America and plug them right into the grids.

"Solar panels would likewise require huge swaths of land."

We can put solar panels on ever roof facing south. Farmers could fit their barns with solar panels.

The only way renewable energy is going to take off and provide a significant amount of energy in the US is if we get our farmers involved. We can force it by requiring farmers to spend their some of their subsidies money on renewable energy programs which benefit them and the US in the long run.

[Petronski]

New nukes (many many nukes) can power the hydrogen economy.

[P.O.E.]

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you - just one word.
Ben: Yes sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Ben: Yes I am.
Mr. McGuire: 'Plastics.'
Ben: Exactly how do you mean?
Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Ben: Yes I will.
Mr. McGuire: Shh! Enough said. That's a deal.

[ddtorque]

you might find this interesting: Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation

[BillF]

Are you involved with research on this?

PS. Hope that you're coming to the FR ball and the Inaugural Parade.

[add925]

I know where there are vast deposits of Methane gas:

[SunkenCiv]

I guess a duplicate thread that is newer doesn't get deleted anymore.

Google

[SunkenCiv]

happy, pappy?

Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears
Popular Science | 12/15/04 | Michael Behar
Posted on 12/15/2004 5:34:11 AM PST by crv16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301843/posts