"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

When hydrogen is combusted, it's byproduct is water, not CO2.

The only reason why this fuel source is not aggressively pursued, is because it cannot be monopolized.

After WWII, Los Angeles' extensive streetcar and intercounty light rail system was bought out by Goodyear and an oil company consortium (Southern California was a major oil producer) and was replaced by busses.
The goal was to replace the efficient transportation system with one that guaranteed a steady profit margin.

Alternate power sources exist, but they cannot guarantee investors a large profit margin by way of a controlled source, so they are dismissed or vilified.

Right now, major investments are being made in "green technology", primarily battery powered vehicles. So in the event of the decline of fossil fuel monopolies, they will still have a controlling edge.

A simple, abundant source of fuel would topple that dynasty, so of course, hydrogen is evil, dangerous, expensive or (insert scary words here) to be used as an alternate power source.
 
GrauGeist said:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

When hydrogen is combusted, it's byproduct is water, not CO2.

The only reason why this fuel source is not aggressively pursued, is because it cannot be monopolized.
Click to expand...
The problem is how do you produce said hydrogen? Where does it come from?

Currently the options are;
1. Electrolysis from water, which uses an immense amount of energy
2. Get it from some fossil fuel - this is how almost all hydrogen is produced today
 
Long term, the most efficient way to produce hydrogen on a large scale would be nuclear powered electrolysis. I figure this will get going about the same time we start using significant amounts of nuclear power for desalinization plants. Using the heat from nuclear steam plants to distill pure H2O from seawater is just a step away from using nuclear steam powered generators to produce electricity for use in electrolysis based hydrogen production.

I do not know what would be involved in terms of the number of nuclear plants we would need to produce enough hydrogen to fill the needs of transportation and industry, but to build a new nuke plant is currently taking about 10 years assuming no significant problems.

Bulk hydrogen transport and storage are solvable problems, but it will require huge investments in new/affordable technologies and infrastructure. I do not think there is any method (currently known) to accomplish this without significantly greater costs than for LP or gasoline.
 
excellent idea - one question - if we will replace all non-green sources of energy with nuclear power, how demand for uranium will looks like? do we have enough to satisfy such demand for next 300 years? where used fuel will be stored?
i have 2 general comments in this matter -1) only viable source of energy will be thermonuclear power - i think we are still 30-50 years from the point it will be real alternative to wat we have right now
2) source of all our problems is not energy - it is overpopulation of planet
 
re demand for uranium currently and in the future

"Uranium Mining Overview - World Nuclear Association"

Page down to 'Uranium resources and supply'

"There is therefore no reason to anticipate any shortage of uranium that would prevent conventional nuclear power from playing an expanding role in providing the world's energy needs for decades or even centuries to come. This does not even take into account improvements in nuclear power technology which could effectively increase the available resource dramatically."
 
thanks - this is good response to my questions - this numbers suggesting that nuclear power is viable way for interim solution untill thermonuclear power plants will reach maturity - of course cost will be enormous...
 
Nuclear power in its current form is a dead end - too many problems with nuclear waste.
At the moment we must use wind an solar energy for electrolyse as the only real green solution.
 
One last derail, if possible. Back when I studied these things, as an amateur, the only nuclear "fission" power plant built, had been tried in the old USSR. What we have all over the world now is nuclear "fusion", a different animal. A fission plant could use the byproduct from the fusion plant and leave a non dangerous residue. The obvious danger of a fission plant is, rather than a meltdown, one gets a mushroom cloud
 
In regards to Solar and Wing, I see them both as augmenting versus being the primary at this point. My concern with going primarily solar is what happens when a large volcanic eruption occurs such as Yellow Stone and the sunlight is blocked our for a week or two. I tihnk in the end the lage contributors will be nuclear, hydro and thermo (where applicable).
 
Trying (again - folks, start a new thread on green energy if you want to discuss that topic) to get back on track....interesting analysis from the BBC. I hadn't realized there was a canal just east of Kherson that supplies Crimea with much of its fresh water supply. The focus of the Ukrainian offensive makes a lot more sense if the intent is to take over that water source.

Why does Kherson matter?
Leaving aside the debate over how successful the Ukrainian counter-offensive has been so far, it is clear Kherson has become a key tactical battleground in recent days and weeks.
But why are the Ukrainians fighting so hard to recapture the city against Russians battling to retain control?
One of most obvious explanations is its location in the south of Ukraine, on the Black Sea coast at the mouth of the Dnipro river.
Kherson is a major port city and is located only around 60 miles (about 100km) from Russian-occupied Crimea, offering access to shipping, naval and other vital sea routes.
Just to the east of the city is the origin of the North Crimea Canal, which provides a significant portion of the annexed peninsula's fresh water supplies.
The city effectively functions as a bridge between the Crimean peninsula, occupied by Russia since 2014, and the rest of Ukraine.
Moreover, Kherson remains the only major city the Russian military has captured and successfully held throughout the war so far.


Now...there may be blowback if Ukraine cuts off Crimea's water supply but it's not like the Russian's haven't done effectively the same thing in their massed, indiscriminate artillery strikes against multiple Ukrainian towns and cities.
 
This map (again, sourced from the BBC) shows areas of significant fighting in the past 24 hrs. I personally don't like the definitions in the key, notably the "Russian Advances" piece. They've been painting the same region as "advances" for weeks now and it strikes me that the those areas are more accurately described as "Contested Regions." It's not logical for both Russia and Ukraine to be advancing in the same area...unless they're walking past each other.

 
Compare and contrast Ukraine's leadership with "bravery" of the Russian-appointed lackeys in the captured regions:

In an interesting turn of events, the Russian-appointed deputy leader of occupied Kherson appears to have left the city and is working from nearly 500 miles away in Russia.

Hawk-eyed social media users noted video updates posted to Kirill Stremousov's Telegram account in recent days appeared to have been taken from the Marriott Hotel in Voronezh.



The BBC has not been able to verify why or when he left Kherson, but has been able to confirm his presence in the western Russian city.

The videos also clearly indicate they were filmed from the five-star hotel, given the height of the building it was shot from and the positions of several buildings in the background - including the impressive five-domed Annunciation Cathedral.

Voronezh is about 120 miles (200km) from the border with Ukraine and more than 460 miles from Kherson itself.

In his most recent update earlier today, Stremousov criticised Western and Ukrainian media coverage of the fighting around Kherson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
34
Views
957
ThomasP
T
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
831
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
490
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register