Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

TriX is right. Everytime you convert energy from one form to another, you use additional energy so the net effect is less efficiency. Using natural gas to create electricity to power electric vehicles is not as efficient as powering the vehicle with natural gas itself. Each operation has it's own carbon footprint adding to the environmental concerns. Hydrogen is most easily obtained by electrolitically splitting it from water, e.g., 2 H20 + electricity = 2 H2 + O2. which would be less efficient than just using the electricity to power the vehicle directly. And some other form of power must be used to create the electricity which makes it even less efficient. Basically there are no free lunches but fusion power is close.

Our problem is that many of the choices made are the result of political decisions not scientific ones. Using corn to produce alcohol to add to gasoline to make gasahol is a terrible idea because of efficiency losses. It's also a terrible use of corn which is more valuable as food than food

pendennis

What have you been smoking! "Unfettered laissez faire" capitalism exists nowhere in this country! Not even in the early part of the Twentieth Century did we have that. We had the likes of the Shermans, LaFollettes, etc., who were hide bound on "taming the robber barons". There were Progressive Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who preferred government-run economies to that of true freedom and capitalism. Your words ring of social redistribution of income.

And this notion of capitalism being a "zero sum game" is absolute tripe. You've been reading too much Marx, Engels, Mao, and other morons who managed to fool uneducated minions of the fallacy of their "read" on economics.

Perhaps you should take a deep dive into what Adam Smith wrote, and not just his "...Wealth of Nations". He was a philosopher before he became an economist, so he understood people. Maybe you should read von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, among the economists; and maybe Burke, Moore, and others who well-understood man's longing for freedom and liberty.

Most people who take the dope you evidently are, have been confined to mental facilities. Hang in there. The guys in the white coats will be to visit you shortly.

mr spock Loc: Fairfield CT

Spot on Dave.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I'm totally believing what you and TriX are saying about hydrogen but it still doesn't answer my question: Why do we have hydrogen powered vehicles running around? I'm seriously curious.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Well, if this doesn't get my OP kicked to the attic, nothing will - LOL!

srt101fan

Why do you have to resort to such boorish behavior? Do you realize that it subverts any constructive input you might want to inject into a serious conversation?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

There are lots of ways to produce Hydrogen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production), but using electricity to electrolyze water to Oxygen and Hydrogen requires more energy than the hydrogen produces when burned, so if that’s the method, why not just use the electricity directly? More efficient and the distribution system already exists. Now other methods may be more economical. Any chemical engineers here with some input?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Guess you’ve forgotten this isn’t the attic (where you usually reside) and ad hominem attacks instead of respectful discourse are the norm. Now if you’d care to rephrase your argument in a respectful way without name calling, insults and unwarranted assumptions about my economic beliefs (and what I may or may not have read), I’ll be glad to detail exactly what I believe are the issues with our current path and provide you with some examples.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It can work if engineered right. Water pumped to a height during off-peak daylight hours using wind/solar, and during any hours using nuclear or geothermal, can generate power during peak demand, darkness, or still air.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

A few days ago I read that except for the two submarines that sank in deep water the navy cuts the reactors out of all decommissioned atomic powered ships, salvages, decontaminates and recycles many parts then puts the casings and lead shielding in special containers and has them stored at a facility were they are placed in a trench, which when full is buried and a new trench dug. The fuel is removed and reprocessed with waste sealed in containers and stored in designated sites.

Frank Basile Loc: Hudson Valley NY

I too am a fan of the increased use of solar panels, how about all municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, etc with flat roofs as well as the miles of wasted space covered by the medians on our major highways (I84,I90,I87) etc. I think there is not one solution but it is multi faceted until at least we perfect hydrogen power cell technology.

DHenard Loc: Northeast Tennessee

Thorium salt reactors would be a good source of power. They are safer than regular nuclear reactors since the reaction is in liquid salt and will solidify if you have a leak. The United States also has an abundance supply of Thorium compared to uranium. You also have much less nuclear waste tham a standard nuclear reactor. The technology has been around since the 50's but you can't use a Thorium reactor to produce material for nuclear weapons which was important back then. I believe China or India is revisiting Thorium reactors.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Even Niagara Falls had been known to stop.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Dams have a history of failing and killing people. Bad designs, bad locations, and bad construction lead to failure.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dam+failures

pendennis

Haven't forgotten anything. All I pointed out was that your argument about "unfettered laissez faire" capitalism was not only erroneous, but farcical on its face. I hadn't heard that argument since high school Econ, in the 60's.

And, if I decided to make an ad hominem attack, you and everyone else would know it.