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

To: jimtorr
Great, then, we're agreed that hydrogen is not a practical fuel in today's world, or even in the near future. Fine.

I don't say that. What I say is that hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's not a question of practicality, but of definition: a fuel is something you can burn to get energy. If there were accessible unbound hydrogen on earth, it could be a fuel, but there isn't any of that.

Is hydrogen a viable transport mechanism for energy in the future? Yes, I think so. But I think the current buzz over hydrogen is a sales job by people with two separate agendas: 1) people who want to burn more fossil fuel, but want the general public to think hydrogen is an alternative to that and 2) people who want to burn less fossil fuel, and think that once the hydrogen economy is going smoothly they can then push alternative means for generating electricity that are very expensive. Caught in the middle there are many people--I've actually talked to them--who say, well we'll get energy independence and stop global warming and all the bad oil business by using hydrogen fuel. Bzzzzt. No, we won't. Hydrogen doesn't solve those problems.

Listen, I'm all for hydrogen if it gets people to drop their irrational fear of nuclear power. I just don't think it will. And if I know environmentalists, the first thing you're going to hear from them is: you want to generate an explosive gas like hydrogen next to a nuclear reactor? And that's the end of that track...

24 posted on 11/27/2004 11:30:45 PM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: FredZarguna
I don't think there's any doubt that using nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen is the only sensible solution, and I agree with you that nukes are political poison today.

However, later in this century, probably by 2040 or so, we're going to face a choice. Worldwide demand for oil will be far in excess of what can be produced as China and India continue to modernize. Even assuming we exploit tar sands, clean coal, etc., the worldwide demand for energy is going face a gap.

Stupid windmills and solar panels won't begin to make a dent. The only thing that possibly can is nuclear energy.

We will face that fight when the choice is between building new nuclear plants or entering a permanent depression. And I'm confident we'll make the right choice.

The only Hail Mary that would prevent that choice is a scientific breakthrough in fusion technology, but that's far more likely to be something perfected a couple centuries from now. Until then, it's nukes or nothing in terms of making up the energy gap.

58 posted on 11/28/2004 9:28:43 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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