You are not logged in.
I guess someone would eventually have to come and rain our parade about an environmentally friendly future powered by hydrogen. Some Caltech researchers (lost the url) stated an excessive amount of hydrogen leakage into the atmosphere might eat away the ozone layer and also threaten to cool the planet down by creating more atmospheric moisture. At this point I don't think we have a choice but to develop a hydrogen power economy as there doesn't seem to be any real alternatives.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
Just found the url http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,59220,00.html
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
i read it at yahoo a short while ago; some others argue the researchers could be overstating things a bit; they're not totally convinced that hydrogen wouldn't just get absorbed into the ground, and besides that, the technology can be developed to make the leaks less likelly. All in all, we'll find away around it.
Besides, we just might be out in space by then anyways.
Offline
I pretty much agree with you. Considering the abundance and relative cleaness of hydrogen compared to fossil fuels I think it would be unwise to get ourselves all worked up against developing hydrogen as a fuel.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
I also agree with flash, the article is really quite exaggerated.
What I would point out, though, is that, no, hydrogen isn't cleaner than fossil fuels all on its own, because it requires that one create it. Fossil fuels were created long ago by sunlight, whereas a hydrogen economy would have to be created by current energy processes, either solar, nuclear or fossil.
Sure, the benefits of using hydrogen for cars is probably much better than using fossil fuels, because it's easier to mandate the emissions of a power plant than it is tens of millions of cars on the road. But since hydrogen needs to be created via some other energy process, it's not clean naturally.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
We definately need to produce hydrogen from clean, renewable sources of energy for it to be an environmentally friendly fuel source. If we burn fossil fuels to produce hydrogen that could actually make air pollution worse as a lot more coal and gas would have to be burned. I think a lot of the public isn't aware of this though. They don't realize that plugging their car into a fossil fueled powered house to recharge isn't the way to go.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
Thermoelectricity, either from Solar heated, or geothermal heated thermopiles, to generate d-c current for hydrogen production by electrolysis, would be "clean" in every sense of the word. And wind generated electricity, too. So, what's the fuss, about how to produce clean hydrogen...?
Offline
Was surprised to find this topic but its my guess that it predates my joining as to why I had not seen it.
Offline