quibbler <quibbler
...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of
> > its own volition.
> I'm afraid not. H2 is not going to distribute itself from nuclear power
> plants to people's fuel tanks of its own volition :). Nice try though ;)
> You should have at least invoked the "invisible hand".
Nice try yourself. If you have a safe, light, economical storage
medium, you can use a truck to distribute it. If it's simple as well,
you don't even have to distribute it. Make it at home when the sun
shines and save it for when the sun goes down. If you can store it,
you can move it, and in many cases you don't even have to.
> > If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we
> > may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> We already have reasonable storage mechanisms actually.
Reasonable in what way? Our interpretations of "reasonable" are
different in this regard.
> Hydrogen is just
> one of many reasonable ways to chemically store energy.
At 10,000 psi or 20K? Or what chemical scenario do you have in mind?
Actually I don't have any problem wih 10,000 psi if it can get through
congress. But Don Lancaster has threatened to pickett, and he's not
the only one.
> While storage is
> important, the greater challenge is cheap, reliable generation in the
> first place, especially if we are trying to do it in an environmentally
> friendly manner.
There are any number of ways to generate hydrogen, cheaply, simply,
safely, reliably and in an environmentally friendly manner. Use the
sun, use the wind, use the tides or the horse. Hook up an
electrolyzer to your treadmill. If you need several trillion joules
for a major project, fire up that nuclear power plant. If you can
truly store it, it doesn't matter when, where or how you generate it.
> > > If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel
> > > to make your hydrogen with,
> > Nuclear power.
> Fossil and fissile fuels only differ in power content.
Yes. By several orders of magnitude.
> Otherwise, both
> rely on rare materials that are often expensive to mine, collect and
> process.
As far as mining and collection go, Uranium wins again by an order of
magnitude.
> It also requires that we completely ignore externalities and
> the opportunity cost versus generating the power some other way.
Reverse that. Many are completely ignoring the opportunity to use
nuclear power which is clean, safe, and would be cheap but for the
loud ignorance of a few who make it expensive by political and
litigious means.
> > > or to charge your batteries with, you might
> > > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best
> > > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> > Agreed.
> Then what's your plan? To put miniature reactors in people's cars :)?
While I'm waiting for you tell me a good storage mechanism for
elemental hydrogen, my plan is to encourage and support research of
all forms with the goal of simple, clean, efficient and cheap storage
of energy. Batteries are ridiculously expensive for the amount of
energy you get out of them. Gasoline is not clean. Renewable energy
is hard to store in the first place, and the process is always
inefficient.
A good energy storage mechanism could serve to take down that ugly,
dangerous grid. In addition to simple, clean, efficient and cheap, if
we can possibly add light, then it will also serve as the final
divorce papers between the West and the Middle East.
