Re: Re: Typical politician

[Guest guest]

Ken,

That's amazing! You're the first Blue Stater I've ever heard say anything like that. Personally I would not mind seeing the West Coast and the Northeast go their own way. The Blue states can go on and retry the socialist route and the Red states can be capitalist. Given recent history, I think I know which side would last the longest.

[Guest guest]

There is a problem with solar panels though. They have to be made and that requires significant energy and resources in itself. They generally only produce about half of what they are rated for. The typical lifespan of of solar panel is about 15 years, and it loses efficiency over that time. Another often overlooked point about solar panels is that they get very hot. Therefore, any large panel farm would be subject to a cooresponding heat island effect which, if large enough would affect weather patterns much as large cities do. Lastly, they don't work at night.

Wind power is much the same. Most wind plants only produce about half their rating and they are unsightly. In addition, the big windmills are very effective at killing birds and other flying creatures. A test section of windmills was built in Tennessee but it killed so many bats and migrating birds that the full run was halted.

Their is a lot of hydrogen in the seas, but it is not easy to get to. True, we could generate the electricity to crack the hydrogen. However, the loss in energy potential is very high. It would be better to use that energy and have electric cars than spend it cracking hydrogen.

The most efficient use of hydrogen would be to develop nuclear fusion. Right now the technology is just shy of the break even point. Interestingly, the closer to break even fusion gets, the less funding it has recieved. Fusion would be much safer than the fission systems we use now and would produce virtually no nuclear waste. The only waste it would produce would be the solid liners inside the reactors. Being solid they could be stored somewhere like Yucca Mountain and the threat of groundwater contamination would be nonexistant. They also would be radioactive for a short time compared to today's wastes.

Until then, I still say the best bet would be to recycle garbage, farms wastes and sewage into oil. This would simply be a new version of the carbon cycle. Rather than taking carbon from underground and putting it in the air, we would cycle the carbon already above ground again and again. So, from engine to air to plants to waste to oil to engine and so on. This could be done right now and would have far less cost than going to hydrogen. Since the process uses the natural gas it produces, it is about 85% energy efficient and self-sustaining. That means no outside power would be needed for the process. Add in that existing infrastructure and engine technologies could continue to be used, it beats hydrogen hands down.