My president said: "Hydrogen is the wave of the future. We're too dependent on foreign sources of energy."

Can anybody explain where this magical hydrogen fuel comes from?

	28% (7)	Kittens
	24% (6)	Tax reductions
	12% (3)	The space merchants from Qintar IV
	28% (7)	Burning g*d d@mn fossil fuels
	8% (2)	Sloppy salami scraps

Don't be silly, you just pump it in from the sun.

In Response to unFalln (#27502):

Oh wait, I have a better idea, how about we burn the fossil fuels on mars?

MoonROX [cnn.com].

I can answer this question with a single word:

Nukyoolar

And now, for the longer explanation: It's pretty much widely accepted that in order to generate hydrogen fuel, you need a lot of electrical power. The theory is that Bush will use the "cleanness" of hydrogen fuel cells to push forward the creation of additional nuclear power plants throughout the country.

Of course, nuclear power plants, aside from the occasional meltdown and the radioactive fuel that stays deadly for the next million+ years, are much cleaner than coal or oil power plants.

It's part of the neoconservative bait-and-switch technique of government. Yay! Tax cuts! Oh no! Terror! Guess we have to increase military spending. Oh dear, what with the tax cuts and the military funding, we're running out of money. Guess all these social programs have to go.

In Response to Deathalicious (#27512):

I think you are forgetting about coal. Essentially, the idea is it is easier to regulate particualate and pollutant (NOstuff, Ozone) constituants at selected locations rather than at millions of poorly regulated locations (your tailpipe). Of course, if you relax some of those wacky liberal regulations (for instance, the wacky insistance that mercury is bad for people), give the reduction in regulations an environmental-sounding name, you are ready to step coal production back up.

No matter what, different means of transferring energy to cars doesn't make new energy. So, unless you are chasing renewable energy, hydrogen fuel is a pollution issue, not an energy issue. The best part is nobody is looking for this stuff to appear for decades, still nobody thinks about solar panels in Pheonix, and its business as usual for the all president's men.

In Response to deerboy (#27513):

The best part is nobody is looking for this stuff to appear for decades, still nobody thinks about solar panels in Pheonix, and its business as usual for the all president's men.

Never discount Scientific Progress [reuters.com]

BOINK!

In Response to zamphir (#27514):

Wow, BOINK indeed. That technology will be in stores by this Christmas. And I'm sure the technology will be integrated right away by consumers because things are sooo going to be allowed on planes . . .

Great article, too. Big CO2 reductions. Now, how exactly do you charge these things?

In Response to deerboy (#27515):

Now, how exactly do you charge these things?
Methanol.

But I'm sure it'll be a snap to convert them to use Ethanol.

Which you can get from maize.

Which needs C02 to grow. So you can put a coal burning plant right next to the fields, and get twice the energy with no extra emissions!

(these) things are sooo going to be allowed on planes . . .
Excuse me, stewardess... I think my iPod battery just caught on fire.

In Response to deerboy (#27515):

Now, how exactly do you charge these things?

If I recall my solid-state theory correctly, fuel cells don't have to run on pure hydrogen; it makes the "only waste product is water" claim true and doesn't gunk up your catalyst screens as much, but pretty much any "hydrogen dense" fluid will work.

At this time, the visionaries propose that we tap into natural gas as an interim solution (already have the distibution system) and phase in methane. We get the methane by buying up all the surplus crops that we pay farmers not to grow now (or require to be distilled into ethanol and included in gasoline, which screws up pollution controls, but that's another discussion), put 'em all in a big honkin' dome, and let 'em rot.

Gather the methane that comes off, compress, and distribute. Every once in a while, send in the low-paid migrant labor to muck out the fermentation floor, and sell the gooshy stuff to farmers as fertilizer for the next crop of biomass.

Makes the farm state senators happy, gives us all low-cost energy, produces negligible pollution, reduces acid rain, prevents all those adorable inner-city tykes from getting so much asthma, and dang it, makes you more attractive to the gender of your choice.

Or so the theory goes. Methane's pretty low on the "lots of hydrogen atoms" end of the hydrocarbon scale. Consult with your personal bullshit detector.

Here's the one I thought looked interesting [wired.com]

It's a few years old, I wonder if they've got something commercially viable yet.

In Response to zamphir (#27516):

Which needs C02 to grow. So you can put a coal burning plant right next to the fields, and get twice the energy with no extra emissions!

You sound so much smarter when you just try to be confusing.

In Response to Grimicus (#27518):

Sounds like solar power to me. But a smart way of going about it . . .

In Response to deerboy (#27520):

You sound
There you go again, listening to the voices in your head.

In Response to zamphir (#27523):

I'm more of a listening learner, so I have a set of puppets for the regular forum members. I then have the appropriate puppet read other people's comments to me their 'voice'.

Speaking of which, you really should work on that stutter.

In Response to deerboy (#27521):

So do you, being the expert, think that whole algae thing is viable, or at least a step in the right direction?

In Response to unFalln (#27526):

I think you replied to the wrong message.

In Response to deerboy (#27525):

So, it's like the Muppet Show, but with beer and profanity.

In Response to Robonun (#27533):

Wouldn't that be Avenue Q?

In Response to doriette (#27535):

More like Meet the Feebles [imdb.com].

Now I want to go look for a "Which Feeble are you" Internet Quiz.

In Response to gtyrrell (#27517):

But aren't we already wasting tons of methane from capped landfills already? I know most just vent the stuff into the air instead of using it as an energy source; unless things have changed in the past few years.

In Response to jettaboy20 (#27540):

Probably. But I'm not aware of any entrenched Senators from landfill-economy states (yes, yes, insert the New Jersey joke of your choice). Also, I'd wager a substantial sum of American cash money that if we're to get to the land of milk, honey & hydrogen, we'll need substantially more than what landfills produce.

We may have to put methane-collecting apparatuses on cows. In addition to potentially capturing squillions of cubic meters of methane, this scheme has the added benefit of hilarious mental images.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#27542):

Also, I'd wager a substantial sum of American cash money that if we're to get to the land of milk, honey & hydrogen, we'll need substantially more than what landfills produce.

I think you're right about that. The problem is that there are many, many sources of energy such as this that we're basically wasting because oil is a very convenient option at this point.

One example of this is in Australia, where they have converted many dairy farms to cool and heat themselves with the cow's milk. They have some fairly ingenious heat exchangers that take the heat from the milk (which cools it, and eliminates the need for refrigeration) and heats the buildings, provides hot water, and energy for other farm needs. It's actually so successful, that they actually have more thermal energy to spare than they can use; but they’re finding more and more ways to use it.

With all this abundant, cheap energy in this country, why would we even bother with this stuff? Especially when most people can’t see what’s going on in this world outside of their own cul-de-sac and manicured lawns (which is another huge environmental disaster; but we’ve still got wells with water, so don’t worry yet).

I was closely following alternative fuels for a while when I was working in the auto industry. I've lost a bit of touch with it since then (mostly just what concepts make it to the shows; as opposed to actually figuring out how this stuff works), but the only place that I could ever see this working is somewhere like iceland [pbs.org]. We just don’t have a renewable energy source that would make any of the ‘new fuel’ vehicles viable.

In actuality, a new LEV or ULEV vehicle is much better for the environment than an electric vehicle or hydrogen vehicle run from energy produced by polluting electric plants; which many in this country are. I honestly think the most viable answer to the problem is more efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and bio-diesel. We have these technologies now, and they work.

The problem is that the ‘fleet’ MPG (the average for a manufacturer) is now less than it was in the 70’s; and keeps dropping with all the SUVs and wasteful consumer habits. But everyone hears that oil is running out, so the solution can’t be using the existing technologies to reduce consumption by over 50%; we must find new fuels!

In Response to zamphir (#27516):

I wouldn't be 100% sure that it would be a snap to convert the methanol to ethanol. I mean, in the article they said that the way they were able to combine the fuel and oxygen was unusual, and it may be based on a fairly delicate chemical relationship. Who knows.

But assuming that ethanol is a good substitute, don't forget the energy costs associated with growing the corn. For a good while ethanol actually required more energy to be created than it generated. Apparently, according to a report funded by the Department of Agriculture [ethanol-gec.org], this is no longer the case. But while there is definitely the potential to elminate petroleum usage (much of the energy used for the creation of ethanol can be based on coal-fired plants), there is no guarantee that this will lead to less emissions or more energy conservation.

In Response to gtyrrell (#27542):

We may have to put methane-collecting apparatuses on cows. In addition to potentially capturing squillions of cubic meters of methane, this scheme has the added benefit of hilarious mental images.

"Unfortunately, we haven't yet figured out a way to put boxes on cows' assholes."
Ralph Nader

In Response to Deathalicious (#27557):

I wouldn't be 100% sure that it would be a snap to convert the methanol to ethanol

A) I wasn't talking about converting the methanol to ethanol - I was talking about converting the process to use ethanol instead of methanol

II) The emphasis on snap was for sarcasm.

Trois) Si nous pouvons mettre des ports de visionnement dans des stomaches de vache, le rassemblement de la flatulence devrait être facile