












Comments     Threshold


RE: Problems
By Alexvrb on 9/25/2009 6:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
These problems you see with the latest automotive fuel cells (source please) don't seem like a bigger problem than having a fuel infrastructure in place. The vehicles themselves could very well be ready within 10 years of active development. I doubt they'll be perfect, but the same could be said of many things. Regardless, how can you expect these companies to put so much effort into completing the necessary technical feats to make a production-worthy vehicle, if you can't guarantee them an infrastructure? Who would buy one at a dealership when they discover that they have to buy their own fueling station and either have hydrogen delivered, or generate it on-site?

Now with all that said, I don't really care for hydrogen powered vehicles. I'd rather have an efficient gasoline engine, or a serial hybrid/E-REV. If we're working on technology to produce our own oil and/or direct gasoline/diesel substitutes (using bacteria or algae), I don't see the need to introduce another fuel. But I can still see their point. If the government expects them to deliver hydrogen vehicles, then the government should be prepared to pony up. I don't want this to happen, but our current crop of politicians wants to push hydrogen pretty hard - which is ironic considering how much money the corn/ethanol lobbyists have given them.

RE: Problems
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/25/2009 10:14:53 PM , Rating: 5
Hydrogen won't be cost effective until such time as we get off our collective asses and push nuclear power to the top of our energy production list.

RE: Problems
By Gzus666 on 9/25/2009 10:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
I personally would push fusion to the top of that list, wouldn't you? They have working plants, they just don't use them for anything productive yet. The concept has been more than proven, about time we use it as they blow nuclear power plants away.

RE: Problems
By Divide Overflow on 9/26/2009 12:58:05 AM , Rating: 3
Working fusion power plants? In what fantasy realm are you living? Yes, we have managed to sustain a fusion reaction but so far it's at a net energy loss. I don't see how they could be "used" for anything right now as they hardly "blow nuclear power plants away".

RE: Problems
By Samus on 9/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Problems
By randomly on 9/26/2009 6:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
With high temperature nuclear reactors you can use the sulfur-iodine cycle for production of hydrogen which is much more efficient than using electricity from geothermal for the job. Electrolysis is only about 50% efficient. Geothermal does not give you high enough temperatures to drive the chemical process.

Although they are hoping to break even with the ITER fusion tokamak, the problem is one of cost. Although confidence is high, many fusion researchers don't believe that the tokamak approach will ever be able to produce energy in a cost effective mannner. It's just too expensive and too complex to run for the energy output. If fusion is going to be an energy source for us it's probably going to depend on the success of the Polywell, Focus fusion, or the Field-reversed configuration.

RE: Problems
By borismkv on 9/26/2009 2:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Geothermal isn't feasible in all locations. Most places where geothermal *is* feasible, it's already being used. Nuclear works wherever you put it and is not utilized even remotely as well as it could be yet.

RE: Problems
By Samus on 9/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Problems
By gerf on 9/26/2009 7:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
The most efficient geothermal merely uses steam released from the ground directly. A lot of the early wells have gone dry of steam/water. Sometimes, water can be re-injected, but even then, the original output isn't as high. Providing that much water is a problem in the dry areas where it's an issue, raising costs.

Another problem for long-term geothermal is corrosion. Geothermal waters are full of all kinds of nasty minerals and salts that are quite destructive on equipment, increasing costs yet again.

But hell, even if it's not a hydrogen answer, it should be checked out as much as possible. I'd say wind and solar have more widespread promise, but that's just my guesstimate.

RE: Problems
By axeman1957 on 9/29/2009 10:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
California is not the west coast, Washington has some of the lowest energy prices in the US due to the excess they produce.

RE: Problems
By teldar on 9/27/2009 8:25:50 AM , Rating: 3
Do you have any reasons for CLEARLY superior geothermal power? I personally believe nuclear is CLEARLY superior to ALL other possible energy sources. In the long run it is cheaper and as green as everything else.
The failure of the new plants (gen 5):None
The radioactive waste generation of the new plants: Basically none
The power generation of the new plants: OMG

RE: Problems
By slunkius on 9/28/2009 8:47:12 AM , Rating: 1
where can i see this nuclear plant producing "basically none radioactive waste"?

RE: Problems

RE: Problems

Fusion doesn't blow nuclear away, it just blows.

RE: Problems
By teldar on 9/27/2009 8:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not familiar with these working fusion plants. Other than the SUN. And other STARS.

RE: Problems

RE: Problems
By segerstein on 9/27/2009 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Government Motors is going to be the greenest car company in the world. Instead of competing for the customers and profits they will be fulfilling government mandates.

CAFE should be scrapped, it's from an era when there were only a few major producers doing all types of vehicles. But it should be used in today's world of market segmentation and specialization.

Guess who's gonna pick up the tab?

RE: Problems
By segerstein on 9/28/2009 2:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
>Guess who's gonna pick up the tab?

Mr & Mrs U. S. Tax Payer

RE: Problems
By Autisticgramma on 10/2/2009 2:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
We pick up the tab regardless, just cause it says tax now removes the illusion of choice.

Some one will have to buy it, and its not free.

