Hydrogen cars and other alternatives
I appreciate when people write for all the viewers as that makes it easier to figure out what you are typing about. Please continue to assume we are neither experts nor extremely bright.
There are at least 5 considerations in the hydrogen car verses the plug-in electric car. In order of increasing importance: 1 Carbon dioxide emissions. My guess is this is unfixable in the near term and extremely costly to try and fail. Worse we may soon have a new ice age and wish we had more green house warming. 2 Other kinds of polution are very costly in money and misery, both present and future, so polution type 2 should be a major priority. 3 Fossil fuels will be in short supply, perhaps as soon as we recover from the world wide recession. We need to act now to avoid panic later. 4 Money is important = Continued extravagance may make USA a 3d world country in weeks rather than years. Next year may be too late. 5 The money we give people who want us dead in exchange for oil is very imprudent.
Hydrogen has several problems, some of which likely are not fixable in this decade. We likely do not have enough prosparity left to get hydrogen to even 1% of our energy needs. Fuel cells will remain too costly in my opinion. Hydrogen may not help carbon dioxide emissions in this decade as building the infrastructure will release lots of carbon dioxide.
10% of our vehicles can be plug in electric in less than ten years, sooner if we get a major break though. With rare exceptions , the present electric grid can handle the charging, if we do most of the charging after 10 pm. Batteries are much less costly than fuel cells, which are less likely to respond to ecconomy of scale
I'm not optimistic that our lieing society can build safe nuclear power in the USA before 2019, and it will take even longer and be very costly to get an additional 1% of our energy needs from nuclear.
I like algae in transparent pipes as it depletes our water resources less than most other energy sources. 2% of our energy needs in less than ten years maybe possible and practical.
Big wind turbines and solar farms, are awaiting eminent domain to get the power lines built that will bring the electricity to customers. Geothermal may also be cost effective in the better locations, such as Yellow Stone National Park. We should go for 1% of our energy needs from Geothermal in the next few years. The bottom line is we need pursue every viable alternative faster than seems prudent, including CNG = compressed natural gas. Neil
There are at least 5 considerations in the hydrogen car verses the plug-in electric car. In order of increasing importance: 1 Carbon dioxide emissions. My guess is this is unfixable in the near term and extremely costly to try and fail. Worse we may soon have a new ice age and wish we had more green house warming. 2 Other kinds of polution are very costly in money and misery, both present and future, so polution type 2 should be a major priority. 3 Fossil fuels will be in short supply, perhaps as soon as we recover from the world wide recession. We need to act now to avoid panic later. 4 Money is important = Continued extravagance may make USA a 3d world country in weeks rather than years. Next year may be too late. 5 The money we give people who want us dead in exchange for oil is very imprudent.
Hydrogen has several problems, some of which likely are not fixable in this decade. We likely do not have enough prosparity left to get hydrogen to even 1% of our energy needs. Fuel cells will remain too costly in my opinion. Hydrogen may not help carbon dioxide emissions in this decade as building the infrastructure will release lots of carbon dioxide.
10% of our vehicles can be plug in electric in less than ten years, sooner if we get a major break though. With rare exceptions , the present electric grid can handle the charging, if we do most of the charging after 10 pm. Batteries are much less costly than fuel cells, which are less likely to respond to ecconomy of scale
I'm not optimistic that our lieing society can build safe nuclear power in the USA before 2019, and it will take even longer and be very costly to get an additional 1% of our energy needs from nuclear.
I like algae in transparent pipes as it depletes our water resources less than most other energy sources. 2% of our energy needs in less than ten years maybe possible and practical.
Big wind turbines and solar farms, are awaiting eminent domain to get the power lines built that will bring the electricity to customers. Geothermal may also be cost effective in the better locations, such as Yellow Stone National Park. We should go for 1% of our energy needs from Geothermal in the next few years. The bottom line is we need pursue every viable alternative faster than seems prudent, including CNG = compressed natural gas. Neil
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Everitt on -
After reading your post Neil I wanted to add these three viewpoints:
1.If an orange represented the planet and considering the time it takes for black gold to become black gold how long would that orange keep itself if taking just one drop of orange juice from it daily with a medical syringe?
2.When it comes to strip mining coal or even leveling mountain tops for coal/whatever the reasons for leveling mountain tops and cutting right to the chase of changing directions of an underground water stream,it would take valid proof to convince me as example that building/digging the Panama Canal didn'nt disrupt an underground water flow that might of even caused Mexico's and California's,Arizona's and Colorado's and areas current drought stricken problem.
Think about it. Who,not really a question,but who as a kid didn't barefoot play in the mud after a heavy rain to to learn how easily it is to make lakes and rivers and dams to stop the waterflow? In my opinion courses of water can be changed below ground even as they are above ground. As for the Panama Canal example no matter how tiny any underground flow was by that opinion when those first cement walls of that canal went up 80? years ago to hold the water in the canal on the back side of those cement canal walls acted exactly as an above ground dam would. If yes,then even the tiniest of underground water flows for the the entire length of that canal went somewhere,but where? Following the sides of the canal to the major bodies of water at both ends of the canal maybe?
If yes again then there's the cause of the noted drought and not just the drought but adding to the dilemma of rizing ocean waters of which Nations are losing shorelines,let alone for the land mass for the island Nation of Maldize (sp?) who their government is looking for a place to relocate all its People to or the rest of the world to listen to their pleas of quit dumping in the oceans.
3.As for the money factor I heard it said lately both something like y(our) Nation depends on both small businesses and intellectual properties,GREEN or otherwise. And am sure that's right. But my opinion from my personal experience by all the so called hoops that we wantabe's are expected to jump through just (just!) because it worked for others,to get so bogged down in paperwork and other expectancies may as well be an Nations self-inflicted embargo. Lift it,especially in the matter of GREEN and there's part of the so called boot strap for many Nations. For those it won't I don't expect no change,y(our) Nation will still be there for them is my opinion.
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
