Talk:Hydrogen economy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →


Contents

NPOV? WTF?

Dude, if you think this page is biased, why? 129.16.97.227 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My rationale was that the article is biased because hydrogen economy is NOT a feasible economy under current conditions. Much more practical is battery electric vehicles. Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, on earth it is very rare. 71.163.29.45 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you point out any factual errors? Unwarranted assumptions? If you can't, there is no POV dispute. It's not biased just because you think it won't happen. (For the record, I'm also a big fan of batteries. My personal opinion is that H2 mediated energy transfer will happen, but for political rather than scientific or economic reasons. But that's completely irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry.)
129.16.97.227 12:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I read through reference 2 to see if it did indeed find "hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to be more efficient, well-to-wheels, than either the current fleet of conventional gasoline vehicles or a hypothetical fleet of hydrid-electric vehicles.", which would have been a surprising finding. Alas the reference seems to concludes almost exactly the opposite. Either it was vandalism or the editor was too biased. So I replaced the above POV, with a quote from the actual Conclusions of the reference rather than delete the reference, which is itself important. Come on guys, stick to the truth! JG17 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, there's plenty of support from page 63 and figure 5-13 of the reference:
Fuel cell vehicles that derive their hydrogen from natural gas, coal, or nuclear-based technologies would be more energy-efficient than hybrid electric vehicles would, but even these technologies would not substantially reduce energy use per mile driven. Only the system that uses 100 percent of its electricity from wind turbines and solar power would sharply reduce well-to-wheels energy use, in this case down to near zero.
It's a purely analytical point and is not controversial. Two other references that conclude the same thing are (1) M. Wang (2002). "Fuel Choices for Fuel Cell Vehicles: Well-to-Wheels Energy and Emissions Impact". Journal of Power Sources 112: 307–321. and (2) F. Kreith (2004). "Fallacies of a Hydrogen Economy: A Critical Analysis of Hydrogen Production and Utilization". Journal of Energy Resources Technology 126: 249–257.PotomacFever 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. We're talking thermal efficiency here then. I assumed well-to-wheel meant cost efficiency which is a rather more important metric. JG17 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The metrics are different but which is more important? Cost--economic cost--would not reflect the social welfare impact of one vehicle choice over the other since the externalities will differ between fuel cell versus ICE vehicles. The vehicle with lower energy use will not consume as much energy resources so it pollutes less, i.e., has lower environmental cost. PotomacFever 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


electric load balancing?

Might just be me, but I don't know what "load balancing" is. Would you mind adding a few words to the wikipedia page by that name? Thanks. Nice article. Archie Paulson 01:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on it... naming an issue like that helps me focus on cleaning it up.

notes:

  • pumped storage efficiency: total 70% [1] (and batteries: 72%) (and compressed air at the McIntosh Alabama plant of 74.7%)
  • pumped storage efficiency: 90% (motor/pump) + 90% (turbine/genset) + ?% friction = 75% round trip efficiency. [2]

I was a bit surprised at the low efficiency here. There is an interesting comparison to be made between the current, mature efficiencies of pumped storage and hydrogen electrolysis and fuel cell efficiencies.

This page also has a side note on how nearly-synchronous generators work: they excite their coils with low-frequency AC rather than DC. This detail probably goes on a generator page somewhere...

Other notes: Wynn-Burr energy bill in the U.S. contained $2.5 billion over 5 years for development of hydrogen vehicles. [3] Iain McClatchie 03:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the emphasis on load balancing as a rational for hydrogen is overdone. The article says that load balancing is already achieved by varying output. So hydrogen would be an optimization of storage, but is not needed. Yes, hydrogen storage has some nifty advantages, since as the article notes, storing electricity chemically (batteries) is not effective given the high power demands of the grid. Hydrogen could be produced at night, off-load, which could then be used in a fuel cell during periods of higher demand in the daytime. As the article further notes pumped hydro storage does this, too. (By the way, I don't follow why, when you're talking about the power grid, it matters whether pumped storage does not work for portable applications.) So hydrogen "arbitrage" so to speak would be an improvement, but it's nothing like the transformation of automotive propulsion that would be accomplished by the hydrogen vehicle.--PotomacFever 12:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I vote for removing the secondary rationale section all together. Using cars as some distributed storage network? I simply don't believe it. At a minimum it needs some referencing. This sounds like "original research" to me.
132.229.116.79 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Water Vapor as a greenhouse gas

After looking through this article, I've noticed that there's no mention of the fact that water is much better at trapping heat than CO2. Of course, this isn't that surprising since most of the discussion about turning to a hydrogen economy seems to be all about independance form oil and reduced CO2 emmisions. I've added a note on the greenhouse effects of water in the main article. BioTube 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the greenhouse activity of water vapor out completely. It's not relevant. Take a quick look at Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is about 0.04%, and over a century we've changed that a bit. Water vapor varies up to about 4%. We're not going to change that significantly with water-emmitting cars, even if you ignore all the control mechanisms built into the water cycle.

132.229.116.79 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges

Once more we find statements like this rot:

Produced in this fashion, hydrogen will generate less CO2 than conventional internal combustion engines, if emissions throughout the entire fuel cycle are compared, and thus contributes less to global warming (Wang, 2002; Kreith, 2004)

Sitting around doing nothing produces less CO2 than conventional internal combustion engines. Unless, of cource, the ICEs aren't running. Logic, people! I assume that this statement is supposed to be about per unit distance travelled in a car, or some such. It needs fixing! Amount of CO2 per kilo of H2 can't be directly compared to amount of CO2 per km driven without a lot of other information. 132.229.116.79 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask for logic, it's material implication [4], something lacking in your counterexamples. As is stated in the now deleted references and in the Wikipedia article itself [5], the comparison is between quantities of gasoline and h2 having equal enthalpies (and I'm sure you know whether I'm talking about LHV or HHV)--a detail best left to a footnote. But if you must add it to this "rot" as you call it, understand that your comparison between "CO2 per kilo of H2" and "amount of CO2 per km driven" has no physical meaning, which I thought they knew at Univ of Leiden where your signature's IP is sourced. --PotomacFever 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean that "CO2 [emmitted] per kilo of H2 [produced]" and "amount of CO2 [emmitted] per km driven" have no physical meaning? They're what are being referred to in the sentence in question!
Material implication may well be the structure of the sentence, but that's not the logic that was being referred to. There's no material implication in comparing apples with oranges.
(And by the way, I can't quite see what demonstrating that you know how to do a reverse DNS lookup adds to the discussion.)
129.16.97.27 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Envisioned centralized hydrogen sources" sillyness

No-one is seriously considering replacing the electical distribution network with hydrogen distribution (except for some guys I know at a particular large British-Dutch petroleum company with too much time on their hands and a desire to justify their existence to their bosses... but I digress).

If you're primary source is producing electrical power, hydrogen makes no sense for anything but the most niche of niche stationary applications. For mobile applications and direct hydrogen production (not via an electrical stage) both centralised and distributed hydrogen production scenarios are being discussed by all and sundry. Both have advantacges and disadvantages and there is not yet a clear preference in policies.

Does anyone object to me nuking this section and replacing it with something more in tune with reality?

132.229.116.79 21:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to your citing the people who are trying to push hydrogen pipes in place of high tension wires (LOL), and pointing out the reasons why yet others think this is impractical. But you should give one argument first (as here given already) then the second one, after. Try to keep the whole controvery fairly neutral, though of course you can't be neutral within a section. But at the end, the reader should know that there are people out there who really think that H2 is going to replace the high tension interstate electric grid, and the local grid will be run off fuel cells in plug in hybrids, running in reverse half the time. IOW, in the era of half-million volt inter-state and even inter-country power transmission (going over the pole one day, I have no doubt, so that we can do a global 12 hr cycle), there are people seriously proposing plug-in hybrids to fix load-balancing. Sigh. We can only note it. SBHarris 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed expanded LEAD

This article once had a much larger LEAD section, and we're now down to only a couple of sentences, which isn't enough for a major article like this.

I've proposed a LEAD with three paragraphs. The first one says what the thing is, and notes that it gets confused with several other energy issues. A next paragraph says why the proponents are pushing it. The next says why the critics pan it. I've given them equal space. I think reading just this gives some kind of overview of the article. Anyway, it's better than the previous LEAD. Feel free to modify, but don't just delete. The LEAD section here NEEDS to be longer, even if you don't like MY version of it. SBHarris 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen Fuel

Guys, I'm guna make "hydrogen fuel" article because it's another alternative and one more thing, Sbharris wins prize for being biggest vandalizer in wikipedia (Comment added anonymously by user talk:68.75.29.43)

sbharris isn't the one being a vandal here. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, furrykef. I didn't think so either, but in these edit wars with the clueless, you tend to wonder about your own sanity without outside opinions. More are appreciated. And thanks for the unsolicited revert, also. SBHarris 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide some specific references, or I'm deleting load balancing.

Just what the title says!  ;-)

Using hydrogen storage in vehicles as a distributed load balancing network is simply illogical unless on-board hydrogen storage capacity is stupidly large. When everyone's trying desperately to come up with a system to cram enough hydrogen into a car to make it viable, talking about consumers allowing their hydrogen charge to vary at the whims of the grid is simply ridiculous.

Unless someone can provide some specific references to people seriously considering hydrogen vehicles as load balancing tools I'm going to delete it all. From the bottom of every edit page, I quote: "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."

(I will leave in the notion that distributed hydrogen can be used for load balancing, but that's got nothing to do with what the article currently says.)

129.16.97.227 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's gone.
129.16.97.227 06:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing hydrogen economy

I had a section in this article a year or so ago called "the existing hydrogen economy". It's gone. I think it was useful for a couple of reasons, but I'm loathe to do all the work to put it back in if a bunch of you are just doing to take it out.

Here's the deal:

  • A really large amount ($135 billion US per year in the US alone) of hydrogen is currently made from natural gas and used to make fertilizer and refine oil (about half to each).
  • If some other form of energy supply (wind, nuclear, coal, whatever) can be used to produce that hydrogen domestically, it would save a lot of money. If done without coal, it could reduce CO2 by an interesting amount.
  • Because refineries and ammonia production tend to be centralized, this benefit can be realized without storing or transporting hydrogen at all.
  • This benefit needs no change to car fleets or other diffuse infrastructure.

My sense is that replacing the exiting natural-gas-based hydrogen supply with something domestic is the real but unstated reason for the US government subsidy of nuclear HTE and coal->hydrogen projects. Both subsidies are large (many $100 million/year).

I think this direction of economic evolution matters, and should be in the hydrogen economy article. The existing production numbers are real. The cost of making that hydrogen is really ballooning, and the US government is funding real R&D to do something about it. This entire thrust is far more practical and near-term than most of the fuel-cell-car fantasies in this article.

But it's been deleted, for reasons I don't understand (and would like to hear). If you want it back you can dig it out of the history.

Iain McClatchie 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. There's no perspective possble on a future hydrogen economy, without at least a section on the present one. References in the old section included some which used the present economy to project a future one, so it's doubly useful. I've gone back and recovered it and added it. SBHarris 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gas prices, hydrogen cost... ???

Currently, in the section on HTE there's a statement:

At 2005 gas prices, hydrogen cost $2.70/kg.

Anyone have any idea what that's supposed to mean? Is it meant to be oil prices? (That's the only vaguely reasonable interpretation I can come up with, in the context.)

129.16.97.227 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

After Sbharris's edits, it seems the methane price is the current relevant cost. Assuming I'm right, I've made the change.
129.16.97.227 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Somebody doesn't understand handling of "POV"

Every article about proposed technology is based on proposals. They are all POV. This entire article is mostly POV. As are articles on cryonics and the section on manned missions in Exploration of Mars. None of which mean that they need to be removed from Wikipedia. When POV's differ on matters (which they almost always do-- was JFK assinated by a lone man or as part of a conspiracy?) that doesn't mean we need to remove all this material. WP:POV does not say that, and indeed explicitly says the opposite. Major POV's need to be summarized to maintain neutrality, NOT deleted (again see WP:POV). In the case of H2 economy there are major POVs regarding alternatives, but "batteries" are just one of them. The cost of battery replacement is significant, so it's not a slam-dunk alternative, yet one editor has removed all reference to everything else from the LEAD. Wrong. See methanol economy for an alternative with a Nobel prize winner behind it. Find me that for batteries. SBHarris 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

71.163.29.45

Hey. I see you first showed up on Wikipedia making somewhat disruptive and rude edits, as of June 11. Obviously you already knew how to edit and something of editorical policy as of day one, which suggests you're a sockpuppet or banned user or editor under some other name. If not, you should know that this is not the way new users behave. Be more polite until you learn the ropes better. See above SBHarris 21:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This is not an essay and a "Conclusion", which presents an unsourced and original synthesis of what has gone before, is out of place in an encyclopedia article. WP content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. There are those (eg, Amory Lovins) who see strengths and opportunities with H2, but this view is missing here. The "Conclusion" is very negative and only talks about challenges, problems, and difficulties.

-- Johnfos 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough to add a bit to the conclusion on the other side. The LEAD has a paragraph on promise and one on critism (saying there's no promise for doing anything which other stuff doesn't do better) and so I have no problem if you'd like to add a paragraph recapping the promises in the conclusion. The criticisms are easy enough to back up by cite-- all those mentioned in the conclusion now are to be seen Romm's author interview available on the web (now cited), which follow more detailed analysis in his book _The Hype About Hydrogen_. So I've added that as a cite. There are a number of other studies saying the same thing by energy scholars, in the references, so it's not as though this POV is one that lacks good support. If there weren't a lot of problems to be overcome in getting to a hydrogen economy, it would be here already, would it not? I think the only POV which acknowledges the reality of the fact that we're nowhere near a hydrogen economy, while at the same time suggesting that it would be a solution to all kinds of problems, but *without* these fundamental economic difficulties in making the switch, would be some kind of complicated conspiracy theory. Which it's fine with me if you'd like to push, but you have to provide references for it, too. Sauce for the goose. Anyway, please add your paragraph on the promises of hydrogen, then remove the "bias" tag.SBHarris 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughtful response, but I'm just not sure that we should have a Conclusion at all. I know I've been tempted to write one at times for different articles, but really it is something for an essay, not an encyclopedia. So it is really the whole conclusion that needs to go, not just the POV tag. If there is referenced material in the conclusion which has not been mentioned in the body of the article, then it should be.

I agree that the lead reads quite well and is nicely balanced, which is partly what alerted me to the unblanced nature of the "Conclusion". I also appreciate that there are references available about the negative aspects of the topic and, as I say, these should be referenced. But reading some of Amory Lovins work at RMI and the recent article Hydrogen energy plant in Denmark makes me think that things are moving forward in some areas, beyond what is discussed in the article so far. And that needs to be discussed too.

I will try to collect my thoughts and maybe make some sort of more substantial contribution. But it is difficult: the article has four tags now which attest to its not being up to standard. Is there any chance that someone (who knows more about the topic than me) can add some inline citations etc? -- Johnfos 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my opinion, a "Conclusion" section has no place in Wikipedia articles. Such a section violates Wikipedia policy; see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. In an encyclopedia article, anything that you could put in a conclusion or summary can easily be put in the body of the article. The objective here is to present facts to allow readers to reach their own conclusions, not to reach a conclusion for them. =Axlq 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the problem is that we called it a "Conclusion". Many articles end with the same kind of summary of different POV's and title it "summary" or "continued debate". Otherwise, the article just sort of peters out, without, well, without a concluding summary of the various positions covered. I suppose my point is the word "conclusion" doesn't have to refer to a conclusion of facts. It can also be a concluding summary of debate positions, with references to future programs which are being watched to resolve the issues. But I'm fine if you want to leave it as it stands. SBHarris 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"Many articles end with some kind of summary"? I doubt you'll find any examples of good articles or featured articles exhibiting this. This is an encyclopedia. If a summary of POVs appears anywhere, it appears in the lead paragraph, not at the end; see Wikipedia:Guide to layout and in particular Wikipedia:Lead section. =Axlq 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether the summary is at the end or near the beginning really makes no diffference. Take a look at the "overview" section of the Encylopedia Britannica article on nanotechnology, for example: [6]. Count up the eggregiously POV statements, none of which are referenced. Nor is this a summary of POVs, really. So don't give me the "this is an encyclopedia" lecture. In point of fact, no encyclopedia on the face of this planet, other than this one, has attempted the NPOV crap which is Wikipedia's particular malady. SBHarris 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Primary purpose

The primary purpose of developing a hydrogen economy is not to replace dwindling oil, but to reduce CO2 emissions. Replacing dwindling oil is a secondary goal.(see [7]page 9) However, since a hydrogen economy is just a sham way to make people have to go to gas stations to fill up, the real purpose is neither dwindling oil nor reducing CO2, but to boost oil company profits. 199.125.109.42 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, read the article again, and try to find why people won't end up at the gas filling station.Mion 06:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What? Because they can make hydrogen at home? Why would anyone be foolish enough to take three and a half times as much electricity to make hydrogen when they can for a whole lot less money just charge a battery powered car? A car that not only goes three to four times as far per kWh, but also costs a whole lot less than a hydrogen car. With all those advantages for the electric car, you tell me why Shell and GM are pushing hydrogen. 199.125.109.102 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Shell and GM have no choice, if you can't beat them, join them. Mion 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No choice? Shell can sell it's oil as petrochemicals instead of criminally allowing it to be burned as a fuel. GM can bring back the EV1, probably the best car ever made. 199.125.109.37 04:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
These points are better discussed here and here, and dont forget to pop in that there is some new technology. Mion 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Compression Myth

It simply is not true that after producing hydrogen by electrolysis that the hydrogen gas needs to be compressed using a separate energy source. There are multiple registered patents that demonstrate how the process of electrolysis itself creates a pressure gradient which may be utilized to compress the produced hydrogen to very high density. Thus requiring no additional energy to compress the gas to a readily usable state. Additionally, methods of producing hydrogen using electrolysis under pressure have an increased efficiency ratio.

This significantly alters the viability of the hydrogen economy. There are also more basic methods of achieving the same result than are shown in the listed patents, but many involve the pressure differential generated by electrolysis. It is also feasible to incorporate these systems into a distributed production economy, thus allowing individual businesses or residences to produce hydrogen at high pressure - thereby eliminating much of the necessity for additional transport. This is not theoretical nor a pipe dream, the technology for this method of production is already in existence and merely requires implementation. Please incorporate these facts into the page (I would do so myself but possess no expertise with wikipedia and do not want to ruin the page). Please also adjust the efficiency formulas to reflect these facts.

i.e. "System and method for generating high pressure hydrogen" u.s. patent number: 7048839. See also: "Solar electrolysis power source" - Application number: 10/721,928 Filing date: Nov 24, 2003.

Ambiguous81 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it requires extra energy to produce hydrogen under pressure! You can't get away from thermodynamics: ΔG = ΔH + P ΔV where P ΔV is the work done as a result of generating a volume of gas V at the pressure you're generating it at. The ΔG term directly affects your hydrolysis voltage. Look, if this wasn't true, you could use the expansion of hydrogen derived from high pressure electrolysis, to run a compressed gas car, and get free energy. SBHarris 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Geothermal Energy to power electrolysis

I would be curious to know why this would or wouldn't work. With only a high school education I believe my points can be either proven wrong or added to.

-Volcanic vents would produce a great supply of energy. I've read that Iceland, using geothermal power, has such an excess of energy that they can afford to use it to warm the roads in the winter. Geothermal energy could be used for both the heating of water into steam and the electrical supply to power electrolytic cells.

- These vents are commonly near oceans. This essentially free energy source could provide three major exports for minimal costs, (salt, and H gas and O gas, both very useful fuels)

-With rising water levels globally it wouldn't hurt to bring them back down, even a very little bit. comment added by (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you take a look at Earth's energy budget and World energy resources and consumption pages. There you'll see that the total internal heat coming from the inside of Earth (geothermal) is about 23 TW, or 0.045 W/m2 on average, while the total energy consumption of the human race is about 15 TW and increasing. Moreover geothermal energy is in the form of heat, which is only about 30-40% recoverable with heat engines into useful work, such as electricity, giving about 7-9 TW at best, if you covered the whole surface of the planet and recovered every last bit of internal heat that's leaking out (the source of this heat is coming from radioactive decay of mostly the isotopes of potassium 40, and uranium 235, with minimal u238 and thorium.) So basically geothermal is off the list of solutions to the global energy crisis, except in a very few places such as Iceland, where the concentration of underground heat venting is very high. Moreover there will probably come a time(millions of years) where we have to inject heat underground, instead of removing it, just to keep the magma molten, or else we will lose the protective magnetic sphere that bounces off the electrically charged solar wind, and might end up like Mars, without much of an atmosphere, blown away by solar wind. So basically there isn't enough energy in geothermal, it won't solve the energy crisis, and if anything it's not a long term solution, sooner of later humanity will have to think about how to inject heat into the magma, and not remove heat from it. The solution for the long run is solar, (long run beinga few billion years while the Sun runs out of fuel, then by then there is plenty of stars in the universe to travel to), currently coming in at 174,000 TW compared to 23 TW geothermal, or 340 W/m2. Unfortunately the problem with solar is profitability, where, with current energy prices of 5 cents/kWh it can take 7 years to break even. At the solar energy page you can see that in the US the average that a silicon solar panel can produce is about 0.45-1.35 kWh/m2/day, or about 2-8 cents each day for each square meter. Solar panel costs are dropping, but you're still looking at say $200 per meter square, that you have to recover by making 5 cents of power a day, how many days does that take, and how many years is that? A typical solar installation that fully covers a house's energy needs, including batteries, controllers, etc. runs about $20,000, and won't repay itself for at least 7 years from utility bill savings. These profit numbers are miserable, but as the cost of energy rises, the whole picture changes. In Germany the government guarantees a 50 cent/kWh pay for anybody providing electricity to the grid from solar power or wind power. That's a big difference from 5 cents/kWh, the cost from burning cheap Kentucky coal in the US. Even so, with high energy prices solar still has a profitability problem, plus the batteries suck, they don't last, need to change them every few years. Wind has the same problem, the storage issue, batteries are not up to par. Hydrogen storage is almost out of the question, because hydrogen is so light. For short term energy problems, to keep the factories and the whole economy moving, nuclear power has the biggest potential, having no storage problem (the fuel itself is the storage, use it when you need it) being even cheaper than coal, has no greenhouse emissions, but it has big issues with nuclear waste, and some issues with proliferation/terrorists/people disagreeing with each other and wanting to bash each other's heads in, and issues with operating personnel being exposed to some nonlethal but measurable doses of radiation, which still causes mutations/genetic damage/cancer, similar to getting chest x-rays in hospitals, getting xrayed doesn't kill you, but the effect is there. That's why hospitals limit the total amount of xrays a person gets in a lifetime. So in my opinion, for the short term, next 50 years or so, nuclear energy will provide the backbone of the economy, until we can slowly and fully convert to solar, and figure out the energy storage issue. This will also mean more electric cars and trains. Even with nuclear the electric energy storage is still the main issue, because cars are not connected to the power grid, batteries suck, and you can't give people nuclear fuel to power their cars, even if there almost is technology that could miniaturize and make a nuclear powered car possible, but you can't trust people, you can't give them the fuel. So you have to take the fuel, and convert it into something relatively safe, such as gasoline, methanol (from fuel cells that fully recapture CO2, then we can use your hydrogen to convert the CO2 back), lithium, aluminum, or borohydrides for batteries/fuel cells. Chemical energy storage mediums can only blow up something like a federal building, and you need a whole truckload of it, but they can't wipe out a whole city, so they are relatively safe, you can give it into the hands of everyday people. Nuclear/solar/wind all have this same storage issue, finding a good chemical storage medium, and for the next 50 years we have to figure out which medium is safest and has the best energy density, and most user friendly, therefore profitable. Ultracompressed hydrogen in carbon-fiber cylinders might just be the answer though, especially that it also functions as compressed air storage does, giving very light and very uncomplicated engine designs, just like air powered tools/pumps compare to electric ones. We'll see. Sillybilly (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 : Thank you for responding without pointless insults.

Cars in the electric grid sounds incredible, and I am a pretty big fan of advancing the nuclear technology. I was a big fan of wind power for a long time but keeping an open mind to other ideas now with large debates about noise pollution and recently I heard they change wind patterns and mess up weather in some areas.

I've always expected if we were to use hydrogen as a fuel that it would be super compressed. I imagine that if this were the case you would exchange the tanks at fuel stations rather than refill.

The idea in using already existing vents to power these 'hydrogen farms' was not an idea to completely depend on forever. I agree that electric cars should be refilled with energy from anywhere on a grid, powered by maybe nuclear, and solar panels, once developed to a thinner/cheaper/efficient design, on private roof tops. But vehicles such as airplanes, 18-wheelers and large container ships seem to be much to much to be powered by electricity. This is where I believe hydrogen would come in handy. If used for specific sections of the transportation industry, would hydrogen farming be more useful? - KTRSaunders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.147.196 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Sillybilly (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)