Wrong. I would bet that you either 1) work for an oil or energy company and are just trying to spread FUD, or 2) you bought someone else's FUD and don't know any better.
Oh, and a lump of coal IS persistent?
Give me a break. Which is MORE persistent a lump of coal that is burned once or a solar cell?
How much energy is reproduced by the smoke at a coal plant vs. energy that is "reproduced" from the products of a solar plant?
What stupid, retarded arguments: do you solar cell poo-pooers REALLY think that a producer like First Solar, and its products, is wasting MORE energy than a coal plant?
Wow, a well thought out discussion of the pros and cons, plus an analogy that clearly reiterates the point, and all YttriumOxide gets for this post is a Score of "4"?
I used to be a big proponent of fuel cells simply because it didn't seem that electricity could really fit our transportation needs. But let me explain why I'm a bit of a convert (so far). It's not that I fear fuel cells I just think electricity is making some serious in-roads.
Think about it: if your car has batteries and ultra-high capacitors then, yes, you could charge your car at home (more on this below). And with an ultra-high capacitor, or a well designed system of exchangeable batteries, there is the opportunity to "refill" at a filling station or with interchangeable batteries you just pull out the discharged stack and stick in a new one - think about how you can easily exchange your propane tank at grocery stores.
Also, extend the idea of improved batteries and ultra-high capacitors: EVENTUALLY, most of us would like to have inexpensive solar panels on our homes powering most of everything we own (there is also geothermal, solar thermal, etc. to tap into) so that we don't have to pay someone else for that energy. And now think of the economy-of-scale, if this comes to fruition then those same batteries being designed and improved upon can be put in our homes to capture energy during the day-time, or night-time if the wind kicks up, whatever.... I think you get my point: these improved battery systems and ultra-high capacitors would be useful to our everyday lives - minus the challenges of storing hydrogen.
(I know, I know, those solar panels and such cost money so we have to pay someone, but again, think economy-of-scale to the point that those costs are more affordable than today....)
Oh, and re: hydrogen tanks: I'd rather have an accident where the harmless gas dissipates up into the air than have gallons of environmentally destructive gasoline spill out onto the road and down into your drainage/sewage system. Imagine if that spill is ignited vs. a stream of gas escaping from a hydrogen tank - Note: those tanks are not designed to completely explode, they'd blow the valve off before blowing up completely. Which would you rather deal with? A jet of hydrogen flames shooting in one specific direction or a full-on gasoline fire spreading out underneath your car... and you and your family.?
Don't worry, HangingChad, there are *plenty* of.NET "programmers" out there banging out spaghetti code in.NET.
You'll have the joy of being paid to fix crap code for a LOOOONG time....
So/. (I think I found that link here?) had a posting here short time ago linking to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846 673788606&pr=goog-sl
Is Google going to follow up with that train of thought and partner with a few investors (read: other data centers) to see if Dr. Bussard's fusion reactor is feasible?
Seems like a great opportunity to me....
Slashdot Mirror
And lemme guess, it is Citibank's vast army of War Kittens that saves us in this film?
Wrong.
I would bet that you either 1) work for an oil or energy company and are just trying to spread FUD, or 2) you bought someone else's FUD and don't know any better.
Right.... And vast expanses of tar and sand (aka roofing shingles) is soooo much more attractive.
Oh, and a lump of coal IS persistent? Give me a break. Which is MORE persistent a lump of coal that is burned once or a solar cell? How much energy is reproduced by the smoke at a coal plant vs. energy that is "reproduced" from the products of a solar plant? What stupid, retarded arguments: do you solar cell poo-pooers REALLY think that a producer like First Solar, and its products, is wasting MORE energy than a coal plant?
Wow, a well thought out discussion of the pros and cons, plus an analogy that clearly reiterates the point, and all YttriumOxide gets for this post is a Score of "4"?
Right, and there a NO maintenance costs for a nuclear plant.... Whatever, dude.
I used to be a big proponent of fuel cells simply because it didn't seem that electricity could really fit our transportation needs. But let me explain why I'm a bit of a convert (so far). It's not that I fear fuel cells I just think electricity is making some serious in-roads.
... and you and your family.?
Think about it: if your car has batteries and ultra-high capacitors then, yes, you could charge your car at home (more on this below). And with an ultra-high capacitor, or a well designed system of exchangeable batteries, there is the opportunity to "refill" at a filling station or with interchangeable batteries you just pull out the discharged stack and stick in a new one - think about how you can easily exchange your propane tank at grocery stores.
Also, extend the idea of improved batteries and ultra-high capacitors: EVENTUALLY, most of us would like to have inexpensive solar panels on our homes powering most of everything we own (there is also geothermal, solar thermal, etc. to tap into) so that we don't have to pay someone else for that energy. And now think of the economy-of-scale, if this comes to fruition then those same batteries being designed and improved upon can be put in our homes to capture energy during the day-time, or night-time if the wind kicks up, whatever.... I think you get my point: these improved battery systems and ultra-high capacitors would be useful to our everyday lives - minus the challenges of storing hydrogen.
(I know, I know, those solar panels and such cost money so we have to pay someone, but again, think economy-of-scale to the point that those costs are more affordable than today....)
Oh, and re: hydrogen tanks: I'd rather have an accident where the harmless gas dissipates up into the air than have gallons of environmentally destructive gasoline spill out onto the road and down into your drainage/sewage system. Imagine if that spill is ignited vs. a stream of gas escaping from a hydrogen tank - Note: those tanks are not designed to completely explode, they'd blow the valve off before blowing up completely. Which would you rather deal with? A jet of hydrogen flames shooting in one specific direction or a full-on gasoline fire spreading out underneath your car
Don't worry, HangingChad, there are *plenty* of .NET "programmers" out there banging out spaghetti code in .NET.
You'll have the joy of being paid to fix crap code for a LOOOONG time....
So /. (I think I found that link here?) had a posting here short time ago linking to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846 673788606&pr=goog-sl
Is Google going to follow up with that train of thought and partner with a few investors (read: other data centers) to see if Dr. Bussard's fusion reactor is feasible?
Seems like a great opportunity to me....