Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aculeus
There are serious problems with a "hydrogen" fuel economy in terms of leakage when the hydrogen is in the form of gas.

Methanol is another good fuel. However, too often, we see promoters and people looking for the next "technological silver bullet" that will cure all of our energy problems.

Once upon a time in the US it was "hydro" (TVA, BPA, Hover Dam, etc.) At another time it was nuclear power. At another time it was central station coal fired power plants. Recently it has been natural gas fired combined cycle combustion turbines. Wind seems to be in vogue again as "the solution."

The point is that different technologies are promising. We should not over promote any of them and we should develop all of them that we can, but not put too much faith on any of them as "the single solution to our future."

2 posted on 03/27/2006 7:50:45 AM PST by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Robert357

Dear Robert357,

"...but not put too much faith on any of them as 'the single solution to our future.'"

Great point. However, mostly what I see here at FR and at other sites I see these questions discussed is that the naysayers of a given technology are usually the folks characterizing the technology as a potential "silver bullet." And then, after creating that straw man, they knock it down.

Thus, biodiesel from waste products, ethanol production, oil from ANWR, oil from shale, off-shore oil, expanded nuclear, etc., are all considered unrealistic answers to the problem of energy production because no one of these solutions appears to be the single answer.

However, if each of these potential sources can add modestly to our overall domestic energy production, we would greatly expand overall energy production, and be able, if we decided as a country, to reduce reliance on foreign energy imports.

Folks will point out that these alternatives are costly, certainly more costly than the production costs of Arab or Venezuelan oil. However, that's only when we're looking at the direct costs, and ignoring the externalities.

Who here thinks that the Middle East would play such an important role in our foreign policy if these countries didn't supply crucial world energy supplies? Who here thinks that Saddam Hussein would have ever become so powerful and dangerous without critical oil reserves?


sitetest


4 posted on 03/27/2006 8:02:26 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Robert357
Wind seems to be in vogue again as "the solution."

As long as the windmills are kept out of the view of wealthy leftists' residences, and far away from birds.

5 posted on 03/27/2006 8:05:52 AM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Libs: Celebrate MY diversity! | Iran Azadi 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Robert357
"problems with a "hydrogen" fuel"

Would you buy a car built by the Hindenburg Auto Company?
6 posted on 03/27/2006 8:05:54 AM PST by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson