Is hydrogen energy truly sustainable or just a deceptive hoax?

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino... ok listen carefully.

hydrogen can only release the amount of energy that is put into it... this means that it takes resource energy to extract the hydrogen from water. If you want hydrogen energy... it will take more of the other resource chosen to create hydrogen, then hydrogen will yield.

it is only a transporter, you put (outside energy) into it. then it moves around and is eventually used in a car... if you could magically create energy, converting it back and forth... if you did it millions of times, you would have more then the entire univesal energy combined.

Ok ok, listen carefully.

The whole hydrogen economy's key is to use nuclear or renewable sources. This means that efficiency is irrelevant. It would make sense to talk about efficiency if we're talking about using gasoline or natural gas to create hydrogen. Obviously, if you use the same combustion generation as a car, its implied less efficiency since you throw another process is. However, renewable sources (what the 'hyrdogen' economy would also use) mean that efficiency isn't ncessary to talk about since all you have to do is build more say, solar panels or more wind turbines (however of course, you DO get to efficiency problems if you start running out of places to put either. And of course, nuclear power presents a whole lot of power for a very little mass so its not as big as an efficiency problem to warrant even trying to compare it to fossil fuel generation.

 

[Ar edhel]

Pengwuino, i concede... nuclear power yields shorterm value... this may sustain long enough to transfer over... however...

With diminishing non renewable, we must seek long term sustainable methods for producing consumable energy. if ever expended our world will face the next 10k years with little to non of the resources we enjoy today.

however, it has been a very short amount of time and already we deal with nuclear waste issues, after 100 years... to create the energy required to power countless millions of vehicles, not to mention power many resource using systems. without our current supply of non renewable, the amount of energy required to run these for just a year is astronomical.

Unless we want to keep piling nuclear waste for the next centuries to come, Nuclear power plant may provide a transition but not an ultimate solution.

As you may know, I am sure i may not... a shortage of renewable resources has more then the implication of getting to work each day. with a high price for hydrogen how many impovrished nations could sustain their energy requirments? its a grandios explenation that we build a hydrogen power plant there... with millions of solar panels, wind turbines. or a couple nuclear power plants? But this transition Is hugely expensive, the amount of energy millions of cars in one american state use daily would require is enormous. Especially from a nation that up until the end will care more about horse power then actual milage.

The plausibility of the usa sending over free hydrogen is strange and unrealistic... If the hydrogen economy kicks into gear, hydrogen will represent the same value as oil gas and petroleum... usa seems to want more, not less

Do you really think as america watch's millions starve yearly they will assist in more then a token generosity? The cost of feeding a child for 1 day is 1 dollar. How many trillions are they hoping to contribute? Do you actually believe that after amounting the vast vast resources to outfit thei own country with renewable energy they will have both the money or compasion to spend that same value on the other 4 continents? Do you understand that africa is still paying for mega projects the USA lent money to build? How successful have they been? IF America summed up the resources to outfit themselves. how happy would other nations be? The war in Iraq, how many trillions have they already spent? how far would that have gone in poor nations... guess what, they were serving themselves... and when and if they manage to outfit themselves...

guess how many osamas are going to have grudges.

Oh ps, president bush may not be bright but he's proally well advised. coal is proally the only source currently effective.


While it may not be scientific, it deals with an issue that even political views effect the very nature of the science... And sorry if I am wrong on this one (and others)

 

[Pengwuino]

Fission nuclear energy is like... well we're dealing with a different monster then what we're use to. Most issues we face is like, comparing 2 different things for a similar goal. With this, we're in a situation where we're not asking which is better, we're asking what else is there because its not like mother nature and science is providing us with hundreds of different ideas that we can pick and choose from. We're more like, facing a hundred problems and can't find 1 real answer.

We are currently capable of handling nuclear waste in a good enough manner that it will not be a problem for a while. Projects such as Yucca Mountain are a prime example of solutions that have prospects of inevitably working out for waste right now. Nuclear power teamed with solar and turbine will inevitably keep us going for at least a century if we act quickly... but we're going to at some point have to find a 'miracle' cure. At some point we need to figure out a way to create massive amounts of power, 24/7/365 to replace nuclear power plants. Some say that miracle is fusion energy... let's just hope... If we can get that to work, we'll have many many centuries until have to come up with another source. Or of course, russia goes nuts and nukes everyone and our power requiremnts become much less :D lol

As for poor nations.. that probably very well might be the answer... according to their terrain. Good thing though is that one of hte positives that come from being a poor nation is that their energy requirements are nothing compared to many developed nations so it wouldn't exactly be a mind boggling project.

I think your post spun into ideology though at this point. Why does America have to be the only one who does anything? Theres plenty of other nations that can help and there's an international organization that is suppose ot be in charge of doing this kind of stuff too. I don't know where this feeding thing is coming from or again, the idea its Americas sole duty to fix the world. And why are you asking me questions on topics I haven't even brought up? And exactly when did the Iraq war become part of the hydrogen economy? Or are you just brainwashed into thinking it was some "war for oil"? And we've spent trillions? Interesting... I did not know that... or believe it for that matter... And bashing a country that gives hte largest sum of money to poor nations isn't exactly nice. I'm sure that's exactly how you make a country give money, by denouncing them and criticizing them... I am sure that's what most starving african kids think... "lets criticize America and hope they give us more money because of it".

And i really don't think there's going to be many international terrorists born out of countries that get their rage out of the idea that they arent getting more and more and more money.

And you may think Bush is not bright, but as we're finding out, not many politicians are lol.

 

[Ar edhel]

hehe, well sorry to spin into ideology. I guess the main issue, and the ease of my challenging you, is you chose nuclear powerplants as the ultimate solution. this however may not be the case simply because they may choose a wide spectrum of energy producers, the combined total ranging from wind air water and others. may yield enough to supply.

However i doubt that the support structure will be created to provide to more then the already deemable wealthy nations... unless in small doses

im not asking people to solve hunger, only if after 100's of thousands of years of learnign to seek and attain food... if we are still un able to provide this... how likely will it be that this will be of universal benefit...

as you said... underdeveloped nations require less energy, in other words we admit to consuming the greatest share... and when/if the resources run out they still have more then half the problems.

 

[pervect]

Ok ok, listen carefully.

The whole hydrogen economy's key is to use nuclear or renewable sources. This means that efficiency is irrelevant. It would make sense to talk about efficiency if we're talking about using gasoline or natural gas to create hydrogen.

We currently get only an insignificant fraction of our power from renewable resources. Thus, with existing infrastructure, the hydrogen economy would not and cannot use renewable resources. Instead, it would just use existing resources in a manner that's likely to be less efficient. Thus the hydrogen economy currently does not make any sense.

Money spent on the hydrogen economy could MUCH be better spent on developing and encouraging the implementation of renewable resources. Of course, encouraging the use of renewable resources would piss off people who have a vested financial interests in non-renewable resources. So the hydrogen economy is basically a political ploy that has little to no actual utility.