Alternative energy bubble is next

[The Gardener]

And in addition to what Harie just said, the aspect that makes the green algae a more promising development is that it is easier to genetically manipulate. These algae don't create biomass, they literally are being genetically maniuplated to create hydrocarbons... no energy-intensive "biomass processing" (breaking down the leafy bits to distill out the sugars for alcohol) needed. These organisms, potentially, will literally turn themselves into the end product. Additionally, no crop in and of itself has anywhere near a high enough yield to replace crude oil. There just isn't enough farmland. So, an organism will need to be genetically manipulated so that its metabolism turns over more product given a certain "growing area" than any other naturally growing plant would be able to achieve. Given limited space and/or arable farmland, there is no time to wait for a plant to grow before harvesting it. We need an organism that processes the chemical reaction VERY QUICKLY.

All this is hypothetical, of course. We do have the algae, but it's still VERY problematic and there are some logistical nightmares (if not out and out impossibilities) that would need to be crossed before this even becomes remotely viable. BUT at least it is a technology that is renewable, and has some possible potential given the scale of our hydrocarbon demands.

 

[CCS]

I want to start my own alternative energy company soon. But if the government plays favorites and substidizes other companies and not mine, they can have very artificially lower prices that undercut me and keep me out of business. Take corn ethanol for example. It takes way more than a gallon of ethanol to make a gallon by this method. It should be infinitely expensive. But the government gives them enough tax dollars that they can sell the product at a beaurocratically pre-determined price. It messes up the environment.

Suppose I come out with a way to make cellulostic ethanol better. If the government officials are bought off by the corn industry, and don't give me similar percentage funding, my method won't be able to compete. So the liberal desire to speed up alternative methods actually hinders creativity. We are stuck behind the corn wagon, wasting money, until we get enough votes to change it to another outdated method.

 

[CCS]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/20 ... ants_x.htm

check that out. They can get CO2 out of the exhaust, and get oil out of the algea later. They should send the cellulose to the cellulosic--> ethanol digester too.

See, if Obama supports all the cutting edge stuff like this, I'm for him. If he sticks to corn, I'm against him. Everyone is talking about cellulosic ethanol though, so I'm sure they will use it. I'm starting to think Obama is the man. I just hopes he does not tax the top 5% too heavy or some capital might get destroyed.

 

[Hammy070]

The coal sands are an even more dramatic example of this. Now I will admit that there is "net" energy in the coal sands, and I hear the refrain that if oil reaches a certain price, it becomes profitable. The fallacy of this is that as oil reaches that higher price to make oil sands profitable, it also increases the costs of extraction, which makes the "profitability point" spiral a lot higher than the oft quoted $80/bbl after things sort out.

That reminds me of a discussion I was having with some other posters on a solar energy Web site and forum a few years ago. The accepted estimate on that site for the amount of time it takes for a solar panel to pay for itself was around 7-8 years, if I recall correctly (that's the amount of time it takes to pay for itself if it's plugged into your local electrical grid, reducing your electric bill).

But I was politically incorrect enough to point out to them that that was under IDEAL conditions, like with no hardware failures of that expensive equipment at all during that entire period of time. And in my opinion, it's asking a lot for hardware to function perfectly under adverse conditions for such a long time. Take the inverter, for example (the device that converts the DC from the solar cells into AC): a single failure of a high-power semiconductor device inside that unit could set you back to Square One, starting the 7-year process all over again! :shock:

But the main point I'm getting at here is this: one of the other posters responded to me by saying that as the price of commercial electricity inevitably continues to increase in the coming years, the "payback" time of those expensive solar panels will continue to become shorter and shorter, making it a better and better deal for people to buy them! My response to HIM, of course, was that as electrical rates go up, so will the cost of manufacturing solar panels; therefore, there's no particular reason to believe that the "payback" time will ever change from the current estimate of around 7-8 years. People don't always think these things through clearly.

We aren't talking about how small computers can get, or whether or not a telephone will become a working piece of technology. We are talking about how "possible" it is to break the physics of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Now, I don't think it is completely IMpossible, its just that the CURRENT list of "alternatives" aren't going to do the trick. I DO see some possibility coming from a solution in the realm of massive scale genetic engineering. If we can alter genetics, this does open the door to the potential of doing human-initiated "terraforming" of our planet. Perhaps we could genetically engineer some plant so that it breathes in the greenhouse gas emissions of our hydrocarbon usage, and creates a hydrocarbon sap that we can refine. Of course, we would also need to genetically alter these plants so that their metabolism is increased a thousandfold or so.

The quotes were highlighting not the specifics of a certain technology or science. They were highlighting what you later mentioned - "current list of alternatives" and that current situations are poor indicators of future reality.

Nobody could predict Nazis>Nuclear Science>WW2>Manhattan Project>Nuclear Power

What's especially relevant are disruptive technologies, unpredictable circumstances which propel certain ideas from obscurity to mainstream normality within a matter of years. For example oil production based on *THEN* methods of extraction, in the late 1800s, would have peaked and declined before most of us were born, and the peak oil pessimists of the day (yes peak oil was known long before M King Hubbard, who simply applied the concept ‘globally’) commonly noted for chronocentric thinking (which all of us do by the way at times in a variety of ways). “Oil will not last much beyond x date†x never going beyond mid-20th century. Technology extended peak, there were no deviations from the laws of thermodynamics, or any natural laws.

Geophysical analysis with supercomputers (disruptive technology) that can visualize the deep crevices of the Earth, mapping large swathes of land, both dry and later underwater, was completely unpredicted, it wasn’t even a fantasy in 1900. Geographers then would find praying to God for inspiration on where to find oil deposits more realistic than geophysical supercomputing. Somebody once said “a technology that is fully developed is indistinguishable from magicâ€, geographers in 1900 would be in awe at the current oil industry, a globally coordinated dance, pipelines spanning continents and nations behaving like arteries of a worldwide economic organism. The engineering marvel of oil rigs, like man-made cities of the ocean, for the sole purpose of oil production. These developments which are standard today were once, at best, a trip on some mushrooms.

The Savinars of today like the Savinars of the past were chronocentric. An over-reliance of strategic thinking impairs the ability to see beyond its’ inherent weakness. I’m a strategic analyst by title, and I know full well the limits of strategic thinking. It’s easy to note current trends, and extend it….as long as one wishes. You can extend it forever if you want, the trend rules are indefinite, but the objects of the trend are usually not. At current trends, the human population will be 36 billion by 2100, at current trends my diet and exercise regime will give me a weight of 22lb in October 2010. At current trends my salary will be about $3million a year by 2090.

What the energy crisis is dependent on is not so much the ‘source’, but refinements in processing. Even simple, basic changes over a small period can result in radical long term outcomes.

It's very odd that you would even mention "hydrogen" in this context, since there is no natural source of free hydrogen. In other words, you can't go drill a hole in the ground somewhere and expect hydrogen to come out. For that reason, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, although it may be a good way to store energy made somewhere else..

“We don’t even know where to find it properly, it’s not like we can just mine the oil out of a deposit (like coal) or chop it down (wood). And even if we do, it’s practically useless (refinement into clear gasoline was still in its’ infancyâ€

Bryan, that was 1850 thought you would have learned by now! Just kidding, but similar responses to a pre-fledgling oil industry not only happened, but was, and still is, expected. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely am not belittling those people or your own view, in fact, we need a healthy balance of opposing perspectives to fully maximise whatever results manifest from this worldwide discourse. Some people are good at highlighting reality by enlightening us of the limitations, whilst those not so good at that take note and avoid costly mistakes, and those who dislike problems when they’re told them, and inspires them to come up with a solution. No one person could possess all those qualities at their best, and everyone possesses a degree of each. It’s the creative process. If everyone thought like me, we’d be bankrupt because of interesting ideas having money spent on them only to find they don’t work, if everyone highlighted limitations we’d all get no where, in fact, the safe solutions they would recommend, were previously ‘crazy ideas’ by the other camp. Balance is key within the scientific community, a healthy spectrum of clever creativity?----?clever wisdom = productivity.

In fact, going around randomly drilling for oil despite how useful it is, then pumping it out, then turning it into a usable form (gasoline), was thought by many as unrealistic absurd. Not that oil tycoons could see past their own time either they were just adventurous and most of them didn’t make a penny, they were entrepreneurial and were seeking quick start profits in a sector that hasn’t yet been monopolized. The technology that depends on oil developed its’ extent AFTER it became a major energy source, AFTER it was proven an oil dependent micro-economy was feasible. There was no universal concept of personal combustion-engine transport before an oil business proved workable in the long-term. You need to use your imagination and live as a ‘realist’ in 1850+, I would find it difficult to imagine how black sludge could possibly be anything more than a novel tool but I would also certainly be very interested in it’s pursuit and potential! So a fairly conservative person will almost certainly discard it as of much use to the wider economy, let alone imagine it as the basis of the future global economy, the creative or the entrepreneur have a trial and error way of experiencing things and depends on seeing failure not as failure, but as feedback.

Hydrogen in 2008 is probably the equivalent of steam in 1808. The arguments against it can sound rather similar. Those who imagined steam power revolutionizing transport, and those who imagine hydrogen revolutionizing our energy use, faced the same obstacle. That was converting initial energy into steam/hydrogen. The problem of steam on a large scale was solved not by discarding steam, or discarding engine pistons, they are not the issue as much as the process. Hydrogen has to pass a point where it can be produced on a large scale reliably. To me, it seems easier to do this than trying to implement a steam infrastructure. Coal > heat > steam, which has to be generated on demand and cannot be stored. Its’ application is not wide-ranging. Hydrogen capsules could be used for MP3 players, in Japan they’re releasing methane cartridges which are about the size of an AA battery. Any current portable electronics can be developed for cartridge power. Power lasts for around a month, instead of hours. I couldn’t imagine having portable steam power in my iPhone.

Anyway, that’s too long a post.

 

[The Gardener]

I'll pass on hydrogen, thanks.

I don't want to be driving around in LA traffic in a Hindenberg on wheels.

 

[Bryan]

Hydrogen in 2008 is probably the equivalent of steam in 1808. The arguments against it can sound rather similar. Those who imagined steam power revolutionizing transport, and those who imagine hydrogen revolutionizing our energy use, faced the same obstacle. That was converting initial energy into steam/hydrogen. The problem of steam on a large scale was solved not by discarding steam, or discarding engine pistons, they are not the issue as much as the process. Hydrogen has to pass a point where it can be produced on a large scale reliably.

Ya think so??

To me, it seems easier to do this than trying to implement a steam infrastructure. Coal > heat > steam, which has to be generated on demand and cannot be stored. Its’ application is not wide-ranging. Hydrogen capsules could be used for MP3 players, in Japan they’re releasing methane cartridges which are about the size of an AA battery. Any current portable electronics can be developed for cartridge power. Power lasts for around a month, instead of hours. I couldn’t imagine having portable steam power in my iPhone.

Let's not waste any more time discussing the various ins and outs of using hydrogen to power devices, be they trains, automobiles, iPods, or iPhones. Let's stick to discussing the possibility of finding and developing NEW ENERGY SOURCES on a large scale. Finding those is Goal #1.

Discussing the intracacies of how steam pushes against pistons which then turn crankshafts which then are connected to wheels which then move people around, or discussing the intracacies of how hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce an electrical current to run an iPod or charge batteries is WAAAAAY down the list of relevant concerns. Again, let's stick to discussing the possibility of new energy sources.

The bottom-line purpose of your post seems to be nothing more than to promote a Pollyanna attitude of optimism that mankind will surely find other sources of energy that will take over for our steadily declining oil supplies. I certainly hope and pray that you're right, but I think the oulook for that is bleak. Very very bleak.

 

[ali777]

When I was a little kid in the 80s my dad used to tell me that the world was too small and we didn't have enough resources, blah, blah... Fast forward 25 years, we are still talking about the same stuff...

Although, it would be silly to claim we have infinite resources, the resources will not be depleted as quick as some people claim. There is petrol everywhere in the world, but drilling it is too expensive. I believe in our children's lifetime there will be an alternative energy source and petrol will be used for select industries only.

We can barely think of significant differences in the internet between now and a year ago, and between any two years before that, but the 10 year difference is enormous, astounding almost.

I somehow happen to disagree with that statement. Technology doesn't move forward as fast as people think it does. The ingenuity of people find a new application for it, but the underlying principles are the same as day one. The only difference between 10 years ago and today is cheaper and faster electronic circuits. Shannon defined the basics of the communication principles in the 1950s, the Internet was conceived in the 1960s, the first transistor patent was filed in the 1920s, etc... There isn't really any ground breaking innovation in the IT field since the semiconductor based chips were produced.

I mean we are talking about extreme changes here, I just wanted to stress that IT is not new and it hasn't really changed much. We need to go back to the basics, and let the classical sciences like chemistry and physics thrive again and come up with alternative energy sources (IT can provide them with the calculation tools they need).

 

[Bryan]

Hydrogen has to pass a point where it can be produced on a large scale reliably.

I want to emphasize the point I made before by pointing out that the statement above is equivalent to saying: "Batteries have to pass a point where they can be produced on a large scale reliably."

See my point? Batteries are just a way to STORE energy, and so is hydrogen. You can't go "mining" for batteries to power the nation, and neither can you do that for hydrogen! Hydrogen has no function as a primary source of energy. Including hydrogen is any discusssion of potential future energy sources is irrelevant and highly misleading.

 

[Harie]

I'll pass on hydrogen, thanks.

I don't want to be driving around in LA traffic in a Hindenberg on wheels.

The main reason the Hindenberg went up in flames was because of the dark iron oxide and aluminum paint covering on the outside of the Hindenberg. Almost any gas burns, but not nearly as violently as the Hindenberg did. The dark iron oxide and aluminum paint were what made it burn for so long and so violently. Hydrogen, by it's self, will burn very, very quickly. They estimate that if it hadn't been for the paint, the Hydrogen in the Hindenberg would have burned up in 60 seconds.

Plus - all but 2 of the deaths were from people freaking out and jumping out of the baloon to their deaths. Only 2 of the 35 deaths were from burns...And even then, it's most likely from the iron/aluminum burning.

If you think about it - you drive around every day with gas in your fuel tank that can explode given the correct circumstances.

 

[Bryan]

The main reason the Hindenberg went up in flames was because of the dark iron oxide and aluminum paint covering on the outside of the Hindenberg.

How did that cause it to go up in flames? (BTW, I already know about the thermite reaction, and that's not what I'm asking about.)

Almost any gas burns, but not nearly as violently as the Hindenberg did. The dark iron oxide and aluminum paint were what made it burn for so long and so violently. Hydrogen, by it's self, will burn very, very quickly. They estimate that if it hadn't been for the paint, the Hydrogen in the Hindenberg would have burned up in 60 seconds.

How long DID it take to burn up?

 

[pacinom]

The bottom-line purpose of your post seems to be nothing more than to promote a Pollyanna attitude of optimism that mankind will surely find other sources of energy that will take over for our steadily declining oil supplies. I certainly hope and pray that you're right, but I think the oulook for that is bleak. Very very bleak.

[religion related content deleted by moderator]

 

[Harie]

The main reason the Hindenberg went up in flames was because of the dark iron oxide and aluminum paint covering on the outside of the Hindenberg.

How did that cause it to go up in flames? (BTW, I already know about the thermite reaction, and that's not what I'm asking about.)

Almost any gas burns, but not nearly as violently as the Hindenberg did. The dark iron oxide and aluminum paint were what made it burn for so long and so violently. Hydrogen, by it's self, will burn very, very quickly. They estimate that if it hadn't been for the paint, the Hydrogen in the Hindenberg would have burned up in 60 seconds.

How long DID it take to burn up?

The skin of the ship was ignited by electrical discharge from the clouds. They tested this on mythbusters and the combo of the dark iron oxide and reflective aluminum paint made the baloon burn violently even when there was no gas inside it at all. NASA estimates that the skin of the ship (because of the coating used on it) burned up within 16 seconds and the hydrogen finished burning within 37 seconds (because of the rapid acceleration of the flame front due to the skin of the ship). After the baloon burned up, the diesel fuel used to power the motors burned for a couple more hours.

When the airship went up in flames, it burned red. Hydrogen flames are a very light shade of blue and almost invisible. The aluminum paint flakes they used to coat the skin of the Hindenburg was later used in rocket fuel. Sounds pretty flamable to me.

Heck, hydrogen is less flamable than gasoline. Gasoline has a self-ignition temperature between 225 and 500 degrees (depends on the grade of the gasoline being used - higher octane = higher ignition temps). Hydrogen's self-ignition temp is 550 degrees.

 

[Hammy070]

I'll pass on hydrogen, thanks.

I don't want to be driving around in LA traffic in a Hindenberg on wheels.

Hydrogen would be unlimited in theory, and very clean. Worth pursuing in my opinion to it's full extent. Better to pursue Hydrogen, than nuclear or more hydrocarbons. No SINGLE technology should be pursued right now as no single technology is anywhere near proven to be sufficient globally.

 

[Hammy070]

Hydrogen in 2008 is probably the equivalent of steam in 1808. The arguments against it can sound rather similar. Those who imagined steam power revolutionizing transport, and those who imagine hydrogen revolutionizing our energy use, faced the same obstacle. That was converting initial energy into steam/hydrogen. The problem of steam on a large scale was solved not by discarding steam, or discarding engine pistons, they are not the issue as much as the process. Hydrogen has to pass a point where it can be produced on a large scale reliably.

Ya think so??

To me, it seems easier to do this than trying to implement a steam infrastructure. Coal > heat > steam, which has to be generated on demand and cannot be stored. Its’ application is not wide-ranging. Hydrogen capsules could be used for MP3 players, in Japan they’re releasing methane cartridges which are about the size of an AA battery. Any current portable electronics can be developed for cartridge power. Power lasts for around a month, instead of hours. I couldn’t imagine having portable steam power in my iPhone.

Let's not waste any more time discussing the various ins and outs of using hydrogen to power devices, be they trains, automobiles, iPods, or iPhones. Let's stick to discussing the possibility of finding and developing NEW ENERGY SOURCES on a large scale. Finding those is Goal #1.

Discussing the intracacies of how steam pushes against pistons which then turn crankshafts which then are connected to wheels which then move people around, or discussing the intracacies of how hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce an electrical current to run an iPod or charge batteries is WAAAAAY down the list of relevant concerns. Again, let's stick to discussing the possibility of new energy sources.

The bottom-line purpose of your post seems to be nothing more than to promote a Pollyanna attitude of optimism that mankind will surely find other sources of energy that will take over for our steadily declining oil supplies. I certainly hope and pray that you're right, but I think the oulook for that is bleak. Very very bleak.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. To abandon existing known technologies and search blind, hoping to find something, somewhere where we don't know, for something that we don't know exists, that not only is energy efficient but exists in vast quantities from an accesible location(s), seems rather unwise. There is more hope in the refinement of current existing possibilities. When I talk about hydrogen I'm talking about a form of fuel that can be created almost limitlessly. Obviously I KNOW that we need energy to get Hydrogen, but any form of energy SOURCE can create it, but not any form of energy can be used for anything. Hydrogen is ideal because of it's flexibility as an end product, not as a sourcable raw material.

For example, a cocktail of coal-synthetic oils-plant matter hydrocarbons-nuclear-LNG-wind-solar-hydro can TOGETHER generate hydrogen via electricity. That cocktail, with expected tweaks, could last centuries. In that time, is it really hard to imagine a solar technology that utilizes the full spectrum? Or friction-free windmills? Or genetically designed organisms that are efficient to the maximum in providing usable energy? If the technology is not against the laws of science, then it can be developed, period. We've done it so far, and will continue to do so. Infact, we sort of 'break' some laws, we SHOULDN'T be able to fly for any real length of time, but the sheer absurdity of power in an airplane, means we can forget for a while a fundamental law of the universe, and still remain alive.

Did you know crude oil was used for lighting (lamps) in the 10th century? ie. The discovery of oil as energy is ancient, technological processes made it what it is today. For 800 years it was virtually dormant. I doubt Bryan, were you around in the 1700s you would have saw it as anything but useless. I don't think a pessimist now could remotely be optimistic back then. Which means, you'd have been proven wrong then, and hopefully as you say, proven wrong now.

One thing is for certain, nobody can be fully certain about anything, except this sentence!

 

[Hammy070]

When I was a little kid in the 80s my dad used to tell me that the world was too small and we didn't have enough resources, blah, blah... Fast forward 25 years, we are still talking about the same stuff...

Although, it would be silly to claim we have infinite resources, the resources will not be depleted as quick as some people claim. There is petrol everywhere in the world, but drilling it is too expensive. I believe in our children's lifetime there will be an alternative energy source and petrol will be used for select industries only.

We can barely think of significant differences in the internet between now and a year ago, and between any two years before that, but the 10 year difference is enormous, astounding almost.

I somehow happen to disagree with that statement. Technology doesn't move forward as fast as people think it does. The ingenuity of people find a new application for it, but the underlying principles are the same as day one. The only difference between 10 years ago and today is cheaper and faster electronic circuits. Shannon defined the basics of the communication principles in the 1950s, the Internet was conceived in the 1960s, the first transistor patent was filed in the 1920s, etc... There isn't really any ground breaking innovation in the IT field since the semiconductor based chips were produced.

I mean we are talking about extreme changes here, I just wanted to stress that IT is not new and it hasn't really changed much. We need to go back to the basics, and let the classical sciences like chemistry and physics thrive again and come up with alternative energy sources (IT can provide them with the calculation tools they need).

Cheaper and faster are two powerful compounding properties of any technology that depends on speed. I never said anything about revolutions in science theory occuring every ten years. I said the small refinements consistently applied make an enormous difference to HOW WE LIVE. And that is what technology is all about. It doesn't matter how profound a theoretical discovery is, if it doesn't affect our lives, it's pointless. Things are possible now, that weren't 10 years ago, therefore, the rapid progress is definitly real, as proof of progress, is actual altering of lives.

Again, we ARE pursuing classical science with the use of computers. What do you think CERN is? The largest physics experiment in history. I wouldn't want to be the one accusing them of not applying classical physics. :crazy:

You do realise that the more profound discoveries we make, the less there are left to make? We know pretty much the basic of the function of matter and the forces acting on it. That's all that matters (pun intended) it's how we're able to release a shitload of energy from nuclear power.

I had an idea once, as I was looking up at the stars, imagine we could 'create' an actual sun. I was also quite tired, so.....yeah.

Look at space, tiny tiny billion dots, each one, has enough energy to solve our problems on average for a few billion years. That scale is the future. And I would not be surprised if our future unrecognizable species will cutely go awww at this forum thread in their museums and it's primitive species actually crying over whether they'll produce the teeny amounts of energy they so badly want for just another 40-50 years.

Interesting, but then, we could also be wiped out by 2100. Could could could, bets thing to do is try your best at everything. Then no one can be blamed.

 

[Hammy070]

Hydrogen has to pass a point where it can be produced on a large scale reliably.

I want to emphasize the point I made before by pointing out that the statement above is equivalent to saying: "Batteries have to pass a point where they can be produced on a large scale reliably."

See my point? Batteries are just a way to STORE energy, and so is hydrogen. You can't go "mining" for batteries to power the nation, and neither can you do that for hydrogen! Hydrogen has no function as a primary source of energy. Including hydrogen is any discusssion of potential future energy sources is irrelevant and highly misleading.

Hence, why I said "produced on a large scale reliably". I'm highlighting hydrogen's function, flexibility, and abundance. To depend on hydrogen, means we can use any form of energy to make it. If we depend on oil, we cant turn any form of energy into oil. Hydrogen being an energy dense liquid has the best of oil, but not the worst, and is created, not simply sucked out from wherever it is, and of course, very clean. The challenge is to develop a multiple-energy source system, that doesn't have a single overlydominant source produce it all.

I think it would be far cheaper to make hydrogen wherever needed, than to drill holes, build rigs, geoanalyze, build silly pipelines that cause wars etc. We make it, however much we want, wherever we want, and it doesn't ever travel far. Persian gulf becomes free of all American bases! Middle east problems gone. etc etc etc, it's all so wonderful.

Trouble is, corporations will find it difficult to control if hydrogen supplies are determined by desire, from the individual, to the town, city, region or nation. If supply is that customized, then so is demand, then so is price. Not much money in something that doesn't require a multimillion pound investment just to see if the stuff is there or not.

Do you see? :shock:

 

[Hammy070]

If you think about it - you drive around every day with gas in your fuel tank that can explode given the correct circumstances.

Yes but what would you rather be inside, a petrol bomb or a hydrogen bomb? Just kidding, that buzzword hydrogen and the incident of Hindenburg, seems to be enough to scare people, but the millions of cars that have exploded into flames are perfectly safe.

Not referring to Gardener, who was likely mocking the conventional crowd scare of a "hydrogen bomb in your boot".

 

[Bryan]

When the airship went up in flames, it burned red. Hydrogen flames are a very light shade of blue and almost invisible. The aluminum paint flakes they used to coat the skin of the Hindenburg was later used in rocket fuel. Sounds pretty flamable to me.

I can see you've never built bombs with aluminum dust! I did that all the time as a kid!

Mmmm.....aluminum dust, potassium chlorate, and a little sulfur....now THAT combo will go BANG! when you seal it in a tight container, stick a fuse in it, and light it. Very very dangerous, but a lot of fun.

 

[Bryan]

Hydrogen would be unlimited in theory, and very clean. Worth pursuing in my opinion to it's full extent. Better to pursue Hydrogen, than nuclear or more hydrocarbons. No SINGLE technology should be pursued right now as no single technology is anywhere near proven to be sufficient globally.

???

What do you MEAN, "pursue hydrogen"?? For the umpteenth time, THERE IS NO FREE HYDROGEN available as a source of energy!! It's just a way to STORE energy that you get from other sources!

 

[Bryan]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. To abandon existing known technologies and search blind, hoping to find something, somewhere where we don't know, for something that we don't know exists, that not only is energy efficient but exists in vast quantities from an accesible location(s), seems rather unwise.

How did you get the impression that I want to "abandon existing known technologies"?

When I talk about hydrogen I'm talking about a form of fuel that can be created almost limitlessly. Obviously I KNOW that we need energy to get Hydrogen...

Then why did you make this very odd statment: "Better to pursue Hydrogen, than nuclear or more hydrocarbons"?? That clearly sounds to me like you think hydrogen is just lying around out there, waiting to be sucked out of the ground and used to power our cars, trucks, and factories!

...but any form of energy SOURCE can create it, but not any form of energy can be used for anything. Hydrogen is ideal because of it's flexibility as an end product, not as a sourcable raw material.

Well, now you're making more sense. But as long as you understand that hydrogen is just a means to STORE energy, there's really no point in talking about it constantly in the context of developing non-petroleum based sources of energy. It just confuses other people when you do that.