Connect with us

Dubya says "Hydrogen is the future."

Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by GeekBoy, Apr 23, 2006.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. GeekBoy

    GeekBoy Guest

    Instead of offering a tax break on fuel.
  2. steamer

    steamer Guest

    --Think about it: it's the single "alternative" fuel that's totally
    dependent on oil and dubya is an oil man.
  3. Why should he do that? He should crank _UP_ the taxes on fuels (on a
    gradual, linear basis with lots of fair warning) and use the funds
    thus generated to build the fuel economy of the future (whatever that

    I'd love to see a buck a gallon a year increase in gasoline taxes,
    then we'll see the end of the Suburban Assault Vehicle and the ready
    availabilty of 50MPG cars. Heck, if Europe can do it, maybe the US
    can too.

    Ah, but that would require some backbone from the politicians. Sigh.
  4. Mary Fisher

    Mary Fisher Guest

    It is doing.we have no choice.
    You have trains.
    The economy isn't the avreage driver.
    Oh come on! Even in Europe that doesn't work!

  5. Mary Fisher

    Mary Fisher Guest

    That might be why the same is true of Blair.

  6. JoeSP

    JoeSP Guest

    The world is now capable of consuming virtually all the petroleum it can
    produce. Do you know what that means? It means that prices will continue to
    rise until only a few can afford to buy it.

    Your recipe is to subsidize a lower price? How do you think that will help
    the supply situation?

    I agree with Bush that alternate energy sources will be needed, but I
    disagree that the hydrogen has all the answers. I think the eventual
    solution will come from a combination of alternate energy sources, such as
    wind, solar, water and probably nuclear. Some fuels such as hydrogen can be
    manufactured from energy sources, but cheap and massive sources of energy
    would be required. It is possible, but not without massive investment, and
    a very long payback period.

    Other fuels can take up the slack such as biofuels and coal oil, but they
    are really just new forms of petroleum that are more expensive to produce.
    Besides that, they still pollute where hydrogen does not.

    The big pie in the sky of course, would be a cheap, clean and unlimited
    source of energy, such as a fusion reactor, hot fusion if you will. The
    main problem is that it hasn't been made to work feasibly yet. There is a
    way to make it work, using Helium-3, but it doesn't naturally occur on
    earth. There's plenty of it on the moon, but getting it here is a very
    expensive proposition.

    I guess it's best to face the fact that the windfall of cheap energy is
    over. We raided nature's storehouse and got a free ride from exploiting the
    earth's supply of cheap fuel while it lasted. The days of blasting down the
    interstate, using 75,000 watts just to get to the next town.

  7. A recipe for disaster, in my view. It's already the case that political
    parties have to hugely oversimplify issues in order to attract voting
    numbers but nonetheless there are many situations governments have to
    deal with which don't feature in general political polls/elections.

    In other words, parties and their publicity machineries already dumb
    down important issues. To have every issue decided by endless referenda
    would result in absolute lowest common denominator decisions. It's
    acknowledged even now that the voter votes primarily according to
    his/her pocketbook, but they vote for a package which includes much they
    don't understand or care about. "His/her pocketbook" means narrow
    self-interest, and it's doubtful that the large mass of voters would
    ever vote *against* their own perceived interest.

    The reason Europe is failing to make any significant impact on
    environmental sustainability issues is that the politicians will not
    make unpopular decisions, and restraining one's appetite for consumption
    is not a widely popular idea. In Britain, at least, --in spite of brave
    promises to reduce carbon emissions-- car ownership and use has
    increased, air travel has increased, electricity use has increased, and
    so on. Politicians are incapable of saying No, when their livelihood,
    status, etc, depends on them saying Yes.

    brian mitchell
  8. Yet most of the PEOPLE live in metropolitan areas, not in the wide open
    spaces. Yes it is a big country but most travel is done within metropolitan
    areas or between nearby metropolitan areas where trains could be very

    You must be commuting on different roads than I am. I see about 30% to 40%
    of the commuting traffic in either SUV's or pickup trucks. Of those, at
    least 90% are carrying one person and no cargo.
  9. Per steamer:
    Does it grate on anybody besides me when media people and/or politicians refer
    to hydrogen as a "fuel" - as if there were hydrogen mines somewhere...?

    To me, hydrogen is a storage/transmission medium for energy that is gotten by
    some other means - whether from fossil fuel, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind
    power...or whatever.

    In the narrowest technical/legalistic sense, it can be called a "fuel" because
    that's what's going "bang" when the engine turns over ... but I think that is
    misleading and obscures it's true role.
  10. Per Pete C.:
    I'd disagree. I think politicians serve at least two legitimate functions:
    1) To serve as conduits of power from non-voting entities - like big
    corporations. Probably the words "corruption", "kickbacks", and
    "payoffs" would be more widely used... but "campaign contributions"
    seem to be the accepted euphemism.

    Not a nice function, but one that will be fulfilled one way or another.

    2) To serve as a damper on the whims of the mob. Sometimes the passions of
    the electorate are quickly inflamed by some event (as in 911...) and there's
    a need for cooler heads to prevail in the short run.
  11. Per (PeteCresswell):
    After reading JoeSP's post, I think I see where my problem is: semantics.

    "Fuel" vs "Energy Source". Hydrogen is, indeed, a fuel - but not an energy

    But I think that lack of distinction is rather widespread..... and in a lot of
    contexts, I still think calling hydrogen a "fuel" smacks of considering it to be
    an energy source.
  12. Per (PeteCresswell):
    Make it 3:
  13. Nog

    Nog Guest

    Dubya knows you make hydrogen with oil and natural gas. But you release all
    the pollution and co2 while making hydrogen. The fact that only water comes
    out the tail pipe of the car is meaningless. The same pollution was made
    with the crude before it gets to your car.
  14. A mass voting system is an absolute democracy.An absolute democracy=mob
    rule.Which is why we DO NOT live in a democracy...we live in a
    Constitutional Republic.It would be cruel terrible world if we had true
  15. Learn a little about demographics and geography. Metropolitan areas,
    particularly the larger ones, stretch for more than 40 miles. You may live
    40 miles from the city, but you're still in the metro area.

    As oil becomes more scarce and more expensive, it will become increasinly
    impossible for most people to live that far out. By necessity, housing
    patterns will become more dense and mass transit will expand to serve those
    dense housing patterns. Work places will cluster by economic necessity
    because they will depend on people being able to get to work without a car.

    Lifestyles will change due to the new energy realities. You're absolutely
    right that mass transit cannot adequately serve a highly dispersed
    population, but that population will, by necessity, become less dispersed.
    In larger metro areas, you'll see expanded commuter trains with busses
    bringing people from surrounding communities to train stations.

    People live far from the transit or work node because they can...not because
    they have to. Once they can longer sustain themselves that way, that will
    change. In the process, many McMansions will collapse in value.
    See my comments above. The solution is not expanding mass transit to serve
    every person on their half acre lot. The solution is to change settlement
    patterns so that we can once again live and work in areas served by a better
    supported mass transit system.

    Part of the pattern will include, like in Europe, bus systems that are
    coordinated with train systems so that smaller communities and neighborhoods
    that aren't next to the rail stations are also served. Think of all the
    parking lot space at the train stations that will be saved!
    The cars on the highways where I live are primarily office commuters. If
    they need a large vehicle, it's only for their home and garden needs; not
    for working needs. We're actually thinking of purchasing a pickup truck
    with three other families so that there is that one cargo vehicle when
    needed for home needs. No need to commute in it, though.

    Congratulations for telecommuting...the ultimate energy saver. Even without
    the neighborhood pickup truck though, on the rare occasion that I have to
    move or transport something, I can rent a truck and spend much less than
    owning one and commuting in it.
  16. I agree...If you can't learn all you need to know from a 45 second
    commercial while you suck down another beer....most folks don't care enough
    to find out.
  17. I know. I drive a station wagon that holds 7 people because I
    occasionally _need_ to carry 7. Lots of the time it's just me. It
    only gets 20-22MPG, where the 'same' car in Germany with a diesel
    engine gets 42MPG. My problem is I can't _buy_ the diesel...
    Oh, right, so we can vote _ourselves_ the bread and circuses...
  18. Not so as you'd notice. Public transportation in the US is a joke,
    though it's kinda the chicken/egg thing. No-one uses it because it
    doesn't work very well, which means it's underfunded into a death
  19. Larry

    Larry Guest

    Can't do much worse than what we get now. Right now there is only the
    illusion of citizen participation. And most of the citizens are on to it.

    Realistically, we need the equivalent of an Apollo program to make
    affordable renewable energy a reality. That means a multi-corporate
    effort, a government effort, or a combination. Government needs to be
    involved to give it direction, if nothing else. We also need to rethink
    the deregulation that everyone got sold on by Reagan and company. And
    the oil companies don't get a vote.
  20. The Passat wagon only holds five, and is only available (in the US) in
    a gas engine that gets 23/31MPG. In England it get 36/58MPG, but
    again that's with a diesel.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day