Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen Won't Save Our Economy
anaesthetica writes "Physorg.com is featuring a story asserting that hydrogen is economically infeasible as a replacement for our current energy sources. The premise is that isolating and converting hydrogen into a usable energy source takes up a great deal of energy to begin with, and that subsequently converting that hydrogen fuel into usable energy results in an overall efficiency of only about 25%. Apparently, the increasing scarcity of water is going to make hydrogen too costly and just as politicized as oil." From the article: "[Fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel's] overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense. The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today."
we're going to have to keep the rising water levels in the oceans down somehow right? ;)
You must be new here, Mr UID 2679. If the "editors" don't bother to read articles before submitting them, I don't see why we should bother reading them before commenting.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Time to repeal the law then I guess.
The change is already here. Just take a look at how Chinese college students are living here. ;)
sea levels CAN'T rise.........after all, no matter how much water is in the ocean...SEA LEVEL is SEA LEVEL LOL.
The real solution to the entire problem is to eliminate the use of Money.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
Since it produces more energy than it consumes it should be easy to produce a full working example. For example a device consisting of a generator that feeds it's output to an electric motor that powers the generator.
"We have developed a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy."
davecb5620@gmail.com
So basically, you're suggesting taking the energy that the sun currently transfers into the oceans? Because.... the ocean doesn't really need that heat energy anyway, and it couldn't possibly be environmentally catastrophic if done on a massive scale? No thanks. Let's stick to nuclear.
Think of the children^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfish!
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Alcohol is one answer, but it's not exactly perfect either.
That's what I keep telling my friend Mr. Jack Daniels.