|
|
 |
|
I'm neutral |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydrogen isn't as plentiful as you may think. It would probably be better to produce pure water with
it versus fuel. And there are other way to make cars move besides gas or hydrogen |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well i agree its more effective and such and such but is there any reason to ignore these plant and
wind resources just because there's a better source? I mean when we have that food surplus we can
either sell it or turn it to energy, which in most cases we sell it for national debt : (. Now what
about plant waste? I mean we have all these fungus destroyed crops and to low quality crops that we
can use to produce this extra energy at little cost. However wind on the other hand is the best
source of energy, in my opinion. It causes very little effect on the environment, bring on the very
few bird death whines, and the only real thing spent is time to repair and keep the towers in
condition. The drawback however is the cost of the towers which can be rather high.
Hydrogen power is great and efficient but to tell you the truth is about as bad on the environment
as cars. OK first of all hydrogen cars are powered by a fuel cell. These days this hydrogen is
usually produced either by coal, nuclear power, oil, or natural gas. All of these can and do cause
negative effects on the environment and nuclear power has a tendency to create waste that cannot be
gotten rid of for many many years, a few hundred if i remember correctly. However there are many
nice things about it. For one there is a clean way to produce hydrogen. By sending electricity
through water to separate the oxygen and hydrogen which can then be saved for later. But there lies
a problem. Hydrogen is, not difficult per se, but not easy to store and very hard to keep stored.
This is what I'm going to say: Each and every form of energy production has its advantages and
disadvantages and for this I say we should use them all to our advantage. In the words of the great
sophocle's antigone" The toughest iron cracks first" one has to be flexible in order to be
successful. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Any real effort to remove ourselves from fossil fuel dependence will require a lot of different
answers. Answers that will likely be based on the available resources of a specific area, for
example an area with good geothermal sources of energy might well use the heat to purify hydrogen.
An area with a certain land use capabilities might well tend towards plant based fuel. Don’t fool
yourself all alternative energy sources have their own associated problems, and no one choice out
there right now is going to fix everything. Unfortunately it still takes more energy to purify
hydrogen than the hydrogen provides. Molten sodium used in creating high density rechargeable
batteries is also still problematic primarily due to the operating temperatures involved and the
energy stored in them still has to come from somewhere. Ethanol only barely creates an energy
surplus with current technology, somewhere around 125% depending on how far you transport it. Wind
turbines are erratic, expensive to maintain, and usually far from the endpoint user, not to mention
they tend to be hard on migratory bird populations. Geothermal sources are rare and dangerous and
expensive to maintain. Oceanic current turbines have the same problem. Solar panels are expensive
and environmentally problematic to make. Everything has its price and all these technologies are
still being developed. To restrict ourselves to just one would be foolish in the extreme. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
05 Mar 2009 02:27
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
